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.
Dundigalla Kesavalu and ors. Vs. Kalavaguntla Rajaram and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-1919
Reported in: 55Ind.Cas.533; (1920)38MLJ29
1. The question of limitation raised in this suit is one of first impression. The suit is for specific performance. The 1st defendant was the person who agreed to sell the plaint house to the plaintiff. This was on 17th February 1907. The 7th defendant bought the property in execution of a money decree against the owner of the property on 17th April 1913. It has been found that he had knowledge of the agreement in favour of the plaintiff. The suit was instituted on 26th November 1913, and that, as found by the Subordinate Judge was within three years of the date of refusal on the part of the 1st defendant to perform the contract. The 7th defendant was not originally made a party to the suit, but was added on the 22nd December 1914, which would be more than three years from the date of refusal to perform the contract on the part of the 1st defendant. The question is whether the suit ought to be dismissed against the 7th defendant as being barred.2. Article 113 which is the only article ...
Veyindramuthu Pillai Vs. Maya Nadan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-1919
Reported in: (1920)38MLJ32
Abdur Rahim, C.J.1. This is a reference to the Full Bench made in certain appeals against orders which arose under the circumstances mentioned in the order of reference. Briefly speaking, the claims of the decree-holder-purchaser of the disputed property in execution of a money decree and of his vendee having been disallowed as against the purchasers under a mortgage decree, one of them being the decree-holder himself with respect to a part of the property, the purchaser of the other part being a stranger, the question arose whether the order of the lower Court comes within the purview of Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure and is therefore appealable. The suit on the mortgage was instituted after the attachment in execution of the money decree and the sale under the money decree which was subject to the mortgage was made between the dates of the preliminary mortgage decree and the final decree. I shall proceed on the basis assumed in the order of reference that the question that...
Abdul Razak Vs. J.H. Brown and Co. and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-1919
Reported in: 57Ind.Cas.485
Burn, J.1. The suit is for specific performance of a contract to convey certain lands in Mettupalyam to the plaintiff. The Courts below have held that the plaintiff is not entitled to obtain specific performance. I think the law has been correctly applied to the facts of the case and that the decision is right. The agreement was entered into on 7th February 1914 and the end of April wag mentioned as the time by which the whole of the purchase money should be paid. The subsequent correspondence shows that the plaintiff was unable to procure the money. Extensions of time were granted at his request. In August 1916 he was informed that unless he completed the purchase by the end of that month, the property would be disposed of to others. Applications for farther time were made accompanied by various excuses for inability to produce the purchase money. The vendor's patience was at last exhausted and on 14th December 1916 a peremptory notice was sent to the plaintiff requiring him to comple...
K.V. Subrahmania Aiyar Vs. the District Magistrate of Salem
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-1919
Reported in: (1920)38MLJ230
ORDERAbdur Rahim, C.J.1. Mr. K.V. Subrahmania Aiyar, a First Grade Pleader practising in the Salem District has been called upon by the District Magistrate of Salem to show cause why he should not be proceeded against under Section 14 of the Legal Practitioners Act with reference to certain statements which occurred in an article contributed by the pleader to the newspaper 'New India' on the 15th August 1919. The gist of the article is to show that the present administration of criminal justice by the Subordinate Magistracy in the Salem District was not satisfactory. The general complaint was that the present District Magistrate had issued a number of circulars to the Subordinate Magistrates with reference to the granting of adjournments, which fettered the discretion of the Subordinate Magistrates in dealing with the cases before them properly. The statements subject matter of the charge are: (a) 'The magistrates were allowed great latitude to exercise their discretion and judgment un...
Ramasami Boyan Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-1919
Reported in: 54Ind.Cas.479
1. We are unable to uphold the conviction in this case. The murder is said to have been committed on the 3rd February 1919. The learned Sessions Judge, who has written a very clear judgment, relies mainly on four circumstances as incriminating the 1st accused. He first of all refers to the fact that certain ear-rings were recovered in consequence of the information given by the 1st accused. In order to bring that information within Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, the information must have had the direct effect of leading to the recovery of the jewels. As was pointed oat in Queen Empress v. Commer Sahib 12 M.P 153 : 2 Weir 738 if the information is only introductory to further investigation, it will not be evidence under Section 27. Assuming that the prosecution evidence is accepted in its entirety, what happened is that the 1st accused, on being questioned, informed the Police Officer that the earrings were in the possession of the 2nd accused. Thereupon the 2nd accused was ques...
Chundan Veetil Pazhaya Ottayil Abarthoraman Kutti (Dead) and ors. Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-1919
Reported in: 55Ind.Cas.658
1. The facts are not in dispute. Plaintiff's mortgage, Exhibit A, is dated 18th May 1911. The 3rd defendant's mortgage, to which priority has been given by the Subordinate Judge, was in the year 1907. Plaintiff paid off an earlier mortgage, Exhibit G of 1908. Exhibit G refers to three earlier mortgages, Exhibits C, D and E, as having been discharged by the money received under Exhibit G. There is no dispute that these three mortgages were earlier in date than the 3rd defendant's mortgage. The question under these circumstances is whether the plaintiff is entitled to stand in the shoes of the mortgagees under Exhibits G, C, D and E or is he to be postponed to the 3rd defendant's mortgage. The lower Appellate Court held that, as the plaintiff did not directly pay off Exhibit G, but as the money was paid by the mortgagor to the mortgagee under Exhibit G, there was no question of subrogation. He is clearly wrong in this view. It is not the hand that pays the money that has to be taken into...
Arunachala Chettiar and ors. Vs. Municipal Council of Mayavaram
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-09-1919
Reported in: (1920)38MLJ222
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. In S.A. Nos. 1859 to 1875 of 1918. The plaintiffs are the appellants in these 17 second appeals, the common defendant being the Municipal Council of Mayavaram. The plaintiffs are the owners of the shops alongside the Thirumanjana street which is vested in the Mayavaram Muncipality. There are drains on both sides of the street, into which the rain water falling on the street flows and hence the drains are attached to the street in a real sense. Assuming that the sites of the drains belong to the owners of the shops, the question is whether these drains vest in the Municipality under Section 24 of the District Municipalities Act. It is unnecessary for the purpose of these cases to consider whether, if a drain is wholly unconnected with the street such as being carried on a low sidewall above the level of the street (though the wall is just alongside the roadway) and being used by the owner of the wall for carrying off water along his own wall sites, such a drain also...
Arunachella Chettiar and ors. Vs. the Municipal Council of Mayavaram
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-09-1919
Reported in: 55Ind.Cas.493
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.S.A. Nos. 1859 to 1875 OF 1918.1. The plantiffs are the appellants in these 17 second appeals, the common defendant being the Municipal Council of Mayavaram, The plaintiffs are the owners of the shops alongside the Tirumanjana Street, which is vested in the Mayavaram Municipality. There are drains on both sides of the street into which the rain water falling on the street flows and hence the drains are attached to the street in a real sense. Assuming that the sites of the drains belong to the owners of the shops, the question is whether these drains vest in the Municipality under Section 24 of the District Municipalities Act. It is unnecessary for the purpose of these cases to consider whether, if a drain is wholly unconnected with the street, such as being carried on a low side wall above the level of the street (though the wall is just alongside the roadway) and being used by the owner of the wall for carrying off water along his own wall sites, such a drain also wi...
In Re: Chitrala Bheemanna and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-1919
Reported in: (1919)37MLJ656
ORDER1. The three accused (Petitioners in revision) were convicted by the Giddalur Sub-Magistrate, the first two, of the offences under Section 121 and the third of the offence under Section 120(b) of the Indian Railways Act (IX of 1890).2. The petition is not pressed as regards the third accused except in the matter of sentence (a fine of Rs. 25 has been imposed on each of the accused) but we do not think that the sentence is so excessive, having regard to the facts found by the First Magistrate and by the Appellate Magistrate to call for interference in revision in the case of any of the accused on that sole ground.3. As regards the 1st and 2nd accused, the facts found are (a) on 21-11-18, the Station Master of Giddalur (P.W. 1) deputed the signaller, (P.W. 2) to collect tickets and excess fare (where such has to be collected) from the passengers alighting from the 45 Up train arriving at Giddalur in the evening; (b) The first accused alighted with a rice bag and P.W. 2 demanded paym...
The Firm of A.M. Mylappa Chettiar by Partners of the Firm of That Name ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-1919
Reported in: (1919)37MLJ712
1. The questions argued before us have practically no Indian authority behind them. Even the English authorities are not quite consistent with each other as we shall presently show. Before dealing with the points of law the facts should be briefly stated. The suit was by the consignee of timber in Negapatam against the consignor residing in Mandalay. The plaint in paragraph 9 says:-'As the price of goods contracted for were rising and ruled very high at the end of 1913 and also during 1914 defendant had wantonly withheld supplying the balance.' The cause of action is said to have arisen on the date of the breach of contract, on the 1st of January 1914. It might therefore be taken that the suit in terms is one for non-delivery of goods agreed to be supplied. The contract was a c.i.f. contract. The first negotiation began with a letter from the Agent of the Bank of Madras in Negapatam to the plaintiff in which the Agent says that the defendant has asked him the names of reliable firms in...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »