Chennai Court September 1918 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
In Re: Mogal Beg and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-1918
Reported in: (1918)35MLJ665
ORDER1. It is argued for accused that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain an application for revision in the case of an acquittal. It is however clear from the language of Section 39 read with Section 430 of the Criminal Procedure Code that this Court has jurisdiction to interfere even in such cases It has, however, been consistently laid down by this Court that it will not interfere with cases of acquittal when Government has not appealed except in extreme cases. This has been held both when a private party has moved the court and also when a District Magistrate has done so, but the present reference is made by a Sessions Judge who has not the same facilities as a District Magistrate for moving Government to file an appeal. Although the rule of non-interference might be somewhat relaxed in cases referred by a Sessions Judge, yet we think it would be wrong to interfere even in such references unless we are convinced that serious injustice has been caused by error of law.2. In t...
P. Bhashyakarlu Naidu Vs. Nungambakkam Andalammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-1918
Reported in: (1919)36MLJ89
John Wallis, C.J. 1. This is an application to revise a decision of the Full Bench of the Court of Small Causes, Madras, which came before me yesterday and was referred to a Bench. It raises the question whether the plaint discloses a suit for specific performance of a contract to sell land. If it does, then admittedly the Court of Small Causes had no jurisdiction. Ordinarily of course, a suit will not lie for specific performance of a contract to pay money. But the case of the vendor, as pointed out in Fry's Specific Performance, page 33, is an exception to that rule, and the Court will grant the vendor specific performance of his contract against the purchaser; and the form of the decree in such a case will be found in Morgan v. Briscoe (1886) 31 Ch. D. 216 and is set out in Seton's Judgments and Orders, Volume III pages 2174 and 2175. The form is that the plaintiff is to be at liberty to prepare and execute a conveyance to the defendant as an escrow to be delivered to the defendant ...
Vadamali Thiruvanatha Sevuga Pandia thevar Avergal Vs. Sankaramoorthi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-1918
Reported in: (1919)36MLJ109
1. The defendant Zemindar is the appellant. Plaintiff who is a ryot in the Zemindari sued under Section 55 of the Madras Estates Land Act for a decree directing the defendant to tender him a proper patta. He put in a patta which did not contain any provision for cesses that had been usually levied and objection was taken by the Zemindar to the form of the patta which he wanted to get. The Zemindar put in the patta Exhibit I which was granted to the plaintiff's predecessor-in-title which contained the following cesses which were described as pothu selavu or common expenses which were to go to the Zemindar (1) Ayyanar, (2), Kulavettu, (3) Kattalavuvasi, (4) Kanganam, (5) Melvaram Kottai Urai, (6) Swathantram, (7) Kudivaram Koltai Urai. It provided for two items to go to the tenant as common expenses and stipulated that after deducting the above items of common expenses one half of the paddy was to be taken by the landlord and the other half by the tenant. Out of the kudivaram thus taken ...
The Secretary of State for India Represented by the Collector of Cudda ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-1918
Reported in: 50Ind.Cas.593; (1919)36MLJ180
Krishnan, J.1. This appeal arises from an application made by the present appellant to the District Judge under Section 5 of the Provincial Insolvency Act to have the 1st respondent adjudged an insolvent on the ground that he committed an act of insolvency by executing and giving to the 2nd respondent a deed of sale of some of his properties within 3 months previously, with the intent of defeating the appellant's debt. In this petition that deed was stated to be a ' nominal ' deed. The 1st respondent admitted that as he was greatly indebted, and feared that his creditors might take away all his properties he executed the sale-deed in question nominally and for no consideration out of confidence in the 2nd respondent who was a close relation of his. The 2nd respondent who had been made a party to the proceedings pleaded on the other hand that the sale was a valid one made bona fide and for proper consideration.2. The learned District Judge dismissed the appellant's petition without taki...
In Re: Hajee Mohamed Habibulla Badsha Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1918
Reported in: (1919)36MLJ60
Coutts Trotter, J.1. This is an application for sanctioning the prosecution of two persons for offences under Sections 193 and 465 of the Indian Penal Code. Agreeing, as I do, with the views expressed by Napier, J. in Krishnamma v. Chitturi Chinna Perraju (1914) 17 M.L.T. 15 and disagreeing with those of Seshagiri Aiyar, J. in Palaniappa Chettiar v. Ramaswami Chettiar (1916) 32 M.L.J. 54 : 20 M.L.T. 567 which observations, in my opinion, are dicta which were quite unnecessary to the case decided by the Bench on that occasion, I feel myself in very great difficulty as to what I should do in this case. I am satisfied that the true interest of the accused requires that the Judge who gives sanction should abstain from giving anything like an analysis of the materials submitted to him for the purpose, or expressing any opinion as to the probability or otherwise of a conviction. I think that all that a Judge in giving sanction is called upon to do is to feel that the matter is one which, on ...
Krishnaswami Iyer Vs. Seethalakshmi Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1918
Reported in: 46Ind.Cas.268
Sadasava Aiyar, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal is against the order of Ayling, J., dismissing Civil Revision Petition No. 877 of 1916 filed by the next reversioner (or one of the next set of reversioners) who was entitled to continue a suit (Original Suit No. 27 of 1914, Temporary Sub-Court, Tanjore) brought by a person who was then the nearest reversioner for setting aside certain alienations effected by the 1st defendant (a Hindu widow). The original plaintiff died in April 1914 and on the 17th July 1914 (before the six months expired) the Subordinate Judge, without hearing the petitioner-appellant or any other among the surviving body of reversioners, passed an order declaring that the suit had abated. The petitioner was no doubt present in Court, intending at first to present an application when the order was passed but he thought it was useless to make such an application. The Sub-ordinate Judge did not treat him as a person who was entitled to be heard on the question whether th...
Maddukuri Ankamma Vs. Muvvala Subbayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1918
Reported in: (1919)37MLJ611
1. This appeal relates solely to the question of the correct valuation of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction. The general principle is laid down by the Privy Council in Phul Kumari v. Ghasham Misra I.L.R. (1907) Cal. 202 and is to the effect that the value of the action is its value to the plaintiff. If this principle be applied to the present case, the Subordinate Judge's order is clearly wrong, The validity and subsistence of plaintiff's mortgage are not disputed by the mortgagors (defendants 2 to 7) and what is in dispute is whether this mortgage right should be affected by the attachment in execution of 1st defendant's decree vide the prayer in the plaint.2. This is the view taken by the Full Bench in Krishnaswami Naidu v. Somasundaram Chettiar I.L.R. (1906) Mad 335 and with due respect to the learned Judges, who in their Judgment in Narayana Singh v. Aiyaswami Reddi I.L.R. (1915) Mad. 602 suggested some doubt on the point, we can see nothing in the Judgment of the Privy Coun...
Arunachala Chettiar Vs. Muthu Alias Salakshi Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-1918
Reported in: (1918)35MLJ666
1. Appellant's first contention is that plaintiff: being only the assignee of the person to whom succession certificate had been granted is not entitled to a decree without obtalning a succession certificate in his own name. This contention is supported by the ruling in Allah Dad Khan v. Sant Ram I.L.R. (1912) A. 74 but that decision has been doubted in Rang Lal v. Annu Lal I.L.R. (1913) A. 21 and has been dissented from by both the Judges in Raman Lalji v. Hari Das (1916) 14 A.L.J. 677 One of the main grounds for the decision in Allah Dad Khan v. Sant Ram I.L.R. (1912) A. 74 is that Section 16 of the Succession Certificate Act affords protection only when payment is made to the certificate-holder, and not to his assignee., We respectfully regret that we are unable to accept this argument, for payment to the assignee is as valid as payment to the assignor in the absence of any restriction imposed by law. Further Section 4(1) of the Act only requires the production of a certificate and ...
Sri Sri Sri Jagannadha Gajapati Anaga Bhima Delo Kesari Maharajulungar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-1918
Reported in: 49Ind.Cas.929
John Wallis, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a decree of the District Judge of Ganjam dismissing the suit brought by the plaintiff to recover the Zamindari of Chinnakimidi as the adopted son of the deceased Zamindar, Beojo Kishore, who died in 1905, leaving a widow but no issue, and was succeeded by the senior collateral, one Boishnava. Boishnava having died a few days after his succession, the estate descended to his son Purushotham and passed on his death in October 1915 without issue to his younger brother Kunja Behari, the present defendant, who was in possession and enjoyment when Brojo Kishore's widow on the 5th November 1915, purporting to act under an authority given by her husband, adopted the plaintiff, for whom it is now claimed that this adoption divested the estate which had till then been vested in the defendant. Brojo Kishore was himself an adopted son, and his adoption was the subject of a suit which came before the Privy Council in Sri Virada Pratapa Raghunada Deo v. Sri...
Kadir Mohideen Saheb and ors. Vs. Syyed Abbubukarr Saheb
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-1918
Reported in: 50Ind.Cas.518; (1919)36MLJ122
1. A preliminary objection is taken that this appeal has been filed out of time. It was originally filed on the 30th July 1917 with a certified copy of the decree. The decree was passed on the 31st March 1917, and therefore filing on the 30th July was considerably more than 90 days after the decree. The time occupied in obtaining the certified copy is only 7 days and assuming that this presentation on the 30th July was a valid presentation, the appeal is clearly time barred. If this presentation is not valid we have to consider whether the presentation on the 9th August with the printed copies was in time. The Application for printed copies was made on the 11th April and printing charges were called for on the 28th April. The court closed for the annual vacation on the 29th. On the 5th May the copy application was dismissed for default of payment of printing charges and on the re-opening day, 2nd July, a fresh application for copies was put in and they were supplied on the 6th August. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »