Chennai Court October 1919 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.
thevar Alias Cheruni Moothan Vs. Ammunni and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1919
Reported in: 55Ind.Cas.541
Odgers, J.1. In this petition it is argued that the suit was not triable by a Court of Small Causes on the ground that the subject-matter falls within the mischief of Schedule II, Articles 11, and 15 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act.2. The plaint alleges that the plaintiffs agreed to assign certain nilam items to the 1st defendant for Rs. 400. This was partly to be discharged by cash payment and partly by 1st defendant discharging an encumbrance on the property. The plaint further alleges that the assignment deed was registered on 9th June 1918 and that the defendants were put into possession of the property. The prayer is for a decree that defendants should pay the cash amount due. The written statement of 1st defendant merely traverses the plaint and says that the allegations are false. The 2nd defendant does not join in this petition.3. The findings of the learned Subordinate Judge are to the effect that the sale-deed has been duly executed and registered by plaintiffs and t...
Swaminatha Aiyar and Vs. Rukmani Ammall
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1919
Reported in: 55Ind.Cas.766
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The District Judge's view of the law and of the nature of the defence raised by the creditor (defendant) in his written statement is, in my opinion, right. The Fall Bench judgments in Subramania Ayyar v. Muthia Cheltiar 43 Ind. Cas. 651 : 41 M.P 612 : 33 M.L.J. 705 : 6 L.W. 750 the judgment in Palaniandi Chetti v. Appavu Chettiar 34 Ind. Cas. 778 : 30 M.L.J. 565 : 19 M.L.T. 390 and the judgment of Seshagiri Aiyar, J., in Cheruthazhath Abdulla Haji v. Cheriyandi Ibrayan Kutti 50 Ind. Cas. 959 clearly make a distinction between a real transfer intended to defeat creditors and a sham transfer so intended. No doubt, the judgment of Abdur Rahim, J., in Cheruthazhath Abdulla Haji v. Cheriyandi Ibrayan Kutti 50 Ind. Cas. 959 is inclined to hold that, if there was an intention to defeat creditors, the transfer deed cannot be called a sham transaction, though no title was intended to pass from the nominal transferor to the nominal transferee. With the greatest respect I dis...
M. Venkatagiri Aiyar Vs. N.M. Firm
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-23-1919
Reported in: 54Ind.Cas.172; (1919)37MLJ652
1. Mr. Justice Courts Trotter sitting on the original side of this Court in the course of the trial of a civil case proceeded under Section 478, Criminal Procedure Code, and committed a certain witness who gave evidence in that case to the High Court Sessions for trial on charges of perjury. This appeal is filed on the civil side of this Court, against the order of commitment as made by Mr. Justice Coutts Trotter.2. A preliminary objection is raised that no appeal lies in such a matter except under the provisions of Section 215, Criminal Procedure Code. Mr. Govindaraghava Aiyar, who appears for the appellant, admitted before us that he could not impeach the order on the grounds mentioned in Section 215. But he says that apart from the provisions of that section an appeal lies on general grounds to this Court under the provisions of Section 15 of the Letters Patent. We have no hesitation in holding that Section 215 applies to this case end an appeal is precluded by the express and dear ...
G. Koorathalwar Chetiy Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-23-1919
Reported in: 55Ind.Cas.469
1. The learned Crown Prosecutor has placed the case for the prosecution with great frankness and clearness before us. As he said, if a prosecution in a matter which is ex facie a civil dispute is unable to prove clearly and beyond doubt that the accused has acted dishonestly and with a view to enrich himself clandestinely at the expense of those with whom he was working and with whom he was bound by a fiduciary relationship, the case should not be entertained by a Criminal Court. This case is an illustration in point.2. There were two partners, the complainant and the 1st accused. They both advanced each a capital of Rs. 2,500. Beyond the usual arrangement to share the profits and bonus half and half no definite terms were settled. This is admitted by the complainant. The charge against the accused is that he drew two sums of money, Rs. 2,000 and Rs. 1,000 respectively, on two different occasions without the consent of the complainant and against the understanding between the parties. ...
Kondreddi Bulliraju Alias Achayamma Vs. Sattanarayanamurthi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-23-1919
Reported in: 124Ind.Cas.7
ORDERAnanthakrishna Aiyar, J.1. Under Section 15 of the amended Letters Patent, an appeal would lie from the decision of a single Jud9 of the High Court passed in a second appeal, where the Judge who passed the judgment declares that the case is a fit one for appeal. In Ramanayya v. Kotayya 121 Ind. Cas. 621 : 31 L.W. 386 : 57 M.L.J. 398 : A.I.R. 1920 Mad. 75 : 52 M.P 952 : Ind. Rul. (1930) Mad. 205 a bench of this Court held that no appeal lay from the refusal of such leave by the Judge.2. The question has been raised before me as to the grounds on which leave to appeal should be granted or refused in such cases. The section only enacts, that the Judge concerned should 'declare' that the case is a fit one for appeal. The principle's that should guide him in dealing with such applications are not specified in the section.3. It was argued that if there was any question of law, leave must be granted. It was further argued, that if a second appeal was allowed, and the decision of the lowe...
Surinarayana Iyer Vs. T. Soundararaja Iyengar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-1919
Reported in: 55Ind.Cas.618
Krishnan, J.1. Though I was inclined to doubt the correctness of the ruling in Ramasami v. Kurisu 13 M.P 178 I think it must now be taken as settled by the decision of Seshagiri Aiyar and Moore, JJ, in Akuli Achiah v. Challapalli Lakshinarasimham 53 Ind. Cas. 926 : (1919) M.W.N. 687 : 37 M.L.J. 433 : O.L.W. 474 that the provision in Section 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act requiring the deposit of the decree amount or the giving of security for it at the time of the prosecution of the application to set aside the ex parte decree is not mandatory but only directory.2. The deposit must, in other words, be made or securityfurnished as and when the Court directs. The Court has, therefore, the power to let the deposit to be made as it thinks fit and to give time for it, provided of course that the deposit is made before the hearing of the petition.3. One sentence in the judgment of my learned brothers, where they say we express no opinion whether this deposit after the time allow...
Singaraju Venkatasubbaramaniam and ors. and Alladi Sreeramulu and anr. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-1919
Reported in: 56Ind.Cas.552
Spencer, J.1. The question for our decision in these appeals is whether the lower Courts were right in holding that the defendants who appeal are jointly and severally liable for the Jodi on their Agraharam or whether they are only liable for the payment of shares of the total amount of Jodi proportionate to the extent of the holding of each defendant. I agree with my learned brother, whose judgment I have had the advantage of reading, that the answer depends mainly on an issue of fact as to the terms prevailing between the Zemindar and the Agraharamdars, but there are besides certain judicial decisions in which it has been recognised that Agraharams are ordinarily tenure held on a single and indivisible tenure.2. In Elliaya v. Late Collector of Salem 3 M.H.C.R. 59 it was found that joint liability for Teervai was a well understood condition attached to the holdings of Agraharam tenants; and in this matter the High Court treated the decision of the lower Courts as final. In Zamindar of...
In Re: Nadamuni Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-1919
Reported in: (1920)38MLJ84
ORDER1. The question in this case is whether a person who has obtained a license for storing timber is not bound to take the permission of the Municipality for putting up a shed over it.2. There was a license given for selling or storing timber to the petitioner. Apparently in the year 1908, he applied to Mr. Lloyd, the then President of the Municipality, for a license to erect a shed in the timber yard. Mr. Lloyd said in Ex. I 'the undersigned will not insist on the pandal license fees being paid on the sheds used in their depots, as the license granted under Section 325 Act III of 1904 for using a place for the storage of timber covers in the opinion of the undersigned sheds necessary for the protection of timber so stored. '' Apparently Mr. Lloyd was under the impression that if there was a license for the storage of timber, that would cover the shed erected over it.3. It was contended by the learned Vakil for the petitioner in this Court that the putting up of the shed is only nece...
Rangai Goundan Alias Venkattai Goundan and anr. Vs. Venkatammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-1919
Reported in: 55Ind.Cas.30
1. It is contended before us that the previous mortgage decree, though it became final against the plaintiffs when their application to set aside the ex parte decree was dismissed, is not binding on any personal rights of the plaintiffs in the property as it is urged that they were made parties to the previous litigation only as representatives of their deceased brother Venkata Goundan and not in their personal capacity. It is further argued that they were not bound to put forward their individual right to the property in that suit and that the decree in it cannot he held to be res judicata against them in this case where they claim in their own personal right. Reliance is placed for this argument on the casein Girja Kanta Chackrabutty v. Mohim Chandra Acharjya 35 Ind. Cas. 294 : 20 C.W.N. 675 : 23 C.L.J. 5872. But, on turning to the plaint and the, decree of the previous suit, we find these plaintiffs were made parties not only as representing their brother Yenkata Goundan but also in...
Syed Mahomed SirajuddIn Sahib ThorIn Tharak KadIn and ors. Vs. Syed Sh ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-1919
Reported in: 59Ind.Cas.233
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. These three appeals are by different sets of defendants against the judgment of a learned Judge of this Court, passed in Civil Revision Petition No. 717 of 1916, that petition having been filed under Section 115 and 151 of Act V of 1908 and Section 15 of the Charter Act. The suit itself out of which these proceedings have arisen was filed in May 1908 when the former Civil Procedure Code was in force. The learned Judge from whose decision these appeals have been filed interfered under Section 115 and set aside the order of the Subordinate Judge of Mayavaram. One of the contentions in these appeals is that the Subordinate Judge neither acted without jurisdiction nor acted illegally or with material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction and that, therefore, the learned Judge ought not to have interfered with his order. While I do not say that this might not be a sufficient ground for allowing these appeals, I think that, having regard to the fact that this suit...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »