Chennai Court April 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.
Vaithinatha Pillai Vs. Kuppa thevar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1919
Reported in: (1919)37MLJ125
Wallis, C.J.1. The attention of the learned Judges who made the reference does not appear to have been called to the long catena of decisions in Calcutta and to the decisions to the same effect in Allahabad. Shortly after the coming into force of the Code of 1859 it was decided by Sir Barnes Peacock and Jackson, J.--Beckwith v. Kishto Jeebun Buckshee I.L.R. (1914) Cal. 675 that no special or second appeal lay from a refusal by the lower appellate court to admit fresh evidence under Section 355 of that Code which re-appears as Order XLI Rule 27 of the present Code. The decisions in Mohesh Ghunder Sheet v. Shoshee Mookhee Debia (1866) 6 W.R. 196 Golam Mukdoom v. Mussamut Hafee Zoonissa and Ors. (1867) 7 W.R. 489 Kulpo Singh v. Thakoor Singh and Anr. (1871) 15 W.R. 129 and In the goods of Prem Chand Moonshee : Upendra Mohan Ghose v. Gopal Chandra Ghose I.L.R. (1894) Cal. 484 are to the same effect, as are the decisions of the Allahabad Court in Ram Piari v. Kallu I.L.R. (1900) All. 121 an...
A. Rama Rao Vs. Martha Sequeira and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1919
Reported in: (1919)37MLJ224
1. The 1st defendant and the plaintiff are neighbours. The former owns a large piece of land on which he has built cottages which he has let out for rent. For the convenience of the tenants he had put up a latrine in a particular place. This was objected to by the Municipal Council who directed the demolition of it 'and the construction of a proper and substantial one for the use of his tenants in the garden in an unobjectionable place about 25 yards to the west of the latrine complained of.' (Vide Exhibit II). The 1st defendant began to put up the latrine close to the house of the plaintiff. The site was approved of by the Municipal Chairman. The plaintiff complained against it and appealed to the Collector. The Collector passed orders stating that the site for the latrine was chosen by the Municipal Chairman after consulting both the parties and it could not be changed. This suit was brought for a mandatory injunction to remove the latrine as it is a nuisance to the plaintiff. In bot...
Policherla Veeraraghava Reddi Vs. Cherla Subba Reddi (Died) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1919
Reported in: (1919)37MLJ449
Oldfield, J.1. The material facts, as they came before this Court at the hearing and as we accept them, are, that plaintiff sued 1st defendant and others on a mortgage and, having failed in the Court of first instance, appealed in 1910. Pending disposal of the appeal, two mortgages on the property in suit were given by 1st defendant to 4th respondent, the present appellant in June and November 1914. Meanwhile negotiations for a compromise had gone on between 1st defendant and plaintiff; but it is sufficient without reference to the exact stage they had reached, when the mortgages were given, to say that they resulted in a compromise on 22nd December 1914, which was reported to the Court on 16th September 1915, and which awarded to plaintiff as against 1st defendant the full relief asked for. 4th respondent had however in consequence of his acquisition of an interest in the suit properties been made a party to the appeal on 11th February 1915. The question we have to decide is whether h...
Subba Reddi Vs. Veeraraghava Reddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1919
Reported in: (1920)ILR43Mad37
Seshagiri Ayyar, J.1. The material facts, as they came before this Court at the hearing and as we accept them, are that plaintiff sued first defendant and others on a mortgage, and having failed in the Court of first instance appealed in 1910. Pending disposal of the appeal, two mortgages on the property in suit were given by first defendant to fourth respondent, the present appellant in June and November 1914. Meanwhile, negotiations for a compromise had gone on between first defendant and plaintiff; but it is sufficient, without reference to the exact stage they had reached when the mortgages were given, to say that they resulted in a compromise on 22nd December 1914, which was reported to the Court on 16th September 1915, and which awarded to plaintiff as against first defendant the full relief asked for, Fourth respondent had, however, in consequence of his acquisition of an interest in the suit properties, been made a party to the appeal on 11th February 1915. The question we have...
Kuttipurath Kunhunni Panikkar Vs. Raman Alias Thamarapalli Thirumump
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1919
Reported in: 52Ind.Cas.675
1. The question in this case is whether the Oorakam, a Devaswom, is entitled to redeem the property in suit. Prior to 1864 there was a simple Kanom by the then Ooralan in favour of the predecessor-in-title of the defendants. That document has been lost and, therefore, its terms can only be gathered from Exhibit 1. We are clear from the recital in it that the first transaction was a simple Kanom. Then in 1864, Exhibit I was executed by the then Ooralan. The question as to whether it confers a permanent and irredeemable right or whether it is an ordinary Kanom is one of some difficulty. The Munsif held it was a permanent tenure. The Appellate Court has differed from him. In our opinion the Munsif was right.2. In the operative portion, the language employed is: 'You and your Anandravans may, as hitherto, hold the aforesaid properties for ever and ever.' As was pointed out in Neelakandhan v. Ananthakrishna Ayyar 30 M.p 61 : 16 M.L.J. 462 : 1 M.L.T. 426, these words would ordinarily import ...
K. Sathi and ors. Vs. Ramandi Pandaram
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1919
Reported in: (1919)37MLJ93
Wallis, C.J.1. British Courts in India appear from the outset to have considered the right of the father or other persons entitled to the custody of a minor to be a civil right and enforceable as such by suit in a Civil Court. That this was a well-known kind of suit appears from the Guardians and Wards Act IX of 1.861, which recited that it was expedient to amend the law for hearing suits relative to the custody and guardianship of minors, and provided that applications might be made by petition to the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in the District by which such application if preferred in the form of a regular suit would be cognizable.2. It was first held in Calcutta that the right of Civil Suit was taken away by this Act, Mussamat Harasundari Baistabi v. Mussamat Jayadurga Baista Bi (1870) 4 Ben. L.E A 36 No reasons were given for the decision and the case was not followed in Brohmomoyee v. Kashi Chundersen I.L.R. (1881) C. 266. In Krishna v. Reade I.L.R. (1886) M. 31...
Sundaram Pillai Vs. Ramasamia Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1919
Reported in: 52Ind.Cas.821; (1919)37MLJ209
Phillips, J.1. The sole question for determination in this appeal is whether plaintiff or 3rd defendant is the heir to the property of one Gomati Ammal, a maiden. Plaintiff is the father's brother's son of Gomati's father, whereas 3rd defendant is the sister of Gomati's father. In Kamala Bai v. Bhagiratli Bai 16 Ind. Cas. 939 : (1912) M.W.N. 1166 : 12 M.L.T. 499 it was held that when a maiden's mother and father are dead her heirs are her father's Sapindas, and this case followed Janglubai v. Jetha Appaji, Tukaram v. Narayan Ramchandra 14 Ind. Cas 438 : 14 Bom.L.R. 89 and Dwarha Nath Ray v. Sarat Chandra Singh Bay 11 Ind. Cas. 872 : 39 C.P 319 : 15 C.W.N. 1. In Mitakshara, Chapter II, Section 11, PI. 20, there is a text of Baudha-yana which says: 'The wealth of a deceased damsel let the uterine brethren themselves take. On failure of them it shall belong to the mother, or, if she be dead, to the father,' but the Mitakshara is silent as to the succession in default of mother or father. ...
Sri Rajah Vyricherla Veerabhadraraju Bahadur Garu (Dead) and ors. and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1919
Reported in: 57Ind.Cas.689
1. The suit in which this appeal has arisen relates to the Chemndu Estate, a small partible Zamindari in the District of Vizagapatam.2. The 1st plaintiff is the purchaser at Court auction held in execution of a money-decree obtained by one Jogayya against the 1st defendant, 5th defendant add one Sarika Appandhora on the 14th of August 1896, He claims by virtue of this purchase to be entitled to the equity of redemption of the Zamindari and also to the right to certain moneys payable out of the Zamindari. The 2nd plaintiff Jagannatha Rao, who is the father of the 1st plaintiff, has been added as he is alleged to be beneficially interested in the purchase. The first defendant who died pending the suit and is represented by his widows (defendants Nos. 7 and 8) and sons (defendants Nos. 9 and 10), succeeded to the Zamindari of Chemudu on the death of his adoptive father Chandraraju on the 21st of January 1888. The 2nd defendant, who died pending this appeal and who is now represented by th...
In Re: Ganapathy Chetty and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1919
Reported in: 51Ind.Cas.468; (1919)37MLJ60
ORDERSadasiva Aiyar, J.1. This is an application praying to quash the order of commitment passed by the Chief Presidency Magistrate in Calendar Case No. 4556 of 1919. The commitment was made to the High Court Sessions. The application is made under Sections 215 and 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code and Section 107 of the Government of India Act. The offences with which the petitioners are charged relate to acts of kidnapping and theft committed in Madras and the offence of murder committed on the Avadi-Poonamalle Road within the jurisdiction of the Sessions Court of Chingleput. They all formed parts of the same transaction.2. So far as the objection based on the alleged want of jurisdiction of the Chief Presidency Magistrate over the offences which took place on the Avadi-Poonamallee Road are concerned, that defect, assuming it to exist, is clearly cured by Section 531 Criminal Procedure Code.3. Then there is the more serious question, that is, the commitment having been made to this ...
In Re: P. Varadarajulu Nayudu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-14-1919
Reported in: (1919)37MLJ81
C.J.1. In this case the accused appeals from a conviction under Section 124-A of the Indian Penal Code, and Mr. K. Srinivasa Aiyangar, who appears for him has raised the contention that the conviction is bad for want of legal proof of the sanction required by Section 196 of the Criminal Procedure Code in the case of prosecutions under this section.2. The telegram which contains the sanction on which reliance is placed was filed with the complaint, and the defence, having obtained a copy, took several objections to it, which were overruled by the trial magistrate on the 26th September 1918. On the same day the trial began, and the public prosecutor of Madura went into the box as the first prosecution witness, and deposed to receiving a letter marked Ex. A-1 from the District Magistrate, Madura, enclosing a telegram marked Ex A. The defence objected that the telegram was not proved and it was marked Ex. A for purpose of identification. In October, while the trial was going on, the defenc...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »