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.
Seeni Nadan Alias Virakumaru Nadan Vs. Muthusami Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-1919
Reported in: (1919)37MLJ284
Wallis, C.J.1. The terms of the reference have, if I may say so, been very properly framed with reference to the terms of Article 182, Clause 5 of the Limitation Act (4 is a misprint) which makes the date of applying in accordance with law to the proper court for execution or to take some step-in-aid of execution of the decree a fresh starting point for the purposes of the Article which deals generally with applications for the execution of decrees. The question really is, whether a litigant who has been authorised to bring his suit in a particular court and has obtained a decree in such court in his favour, which he is strictly bound to execute within the time limited in Article 182, is not entitled to apply as of course to that court as the proper Court for the purpose of saving limitation under the Article, or whether, when he decides to apply for execution possibly at the last moment, he is bound to stop and enquire whether the limits of the territorial jurisdiction of the court wh...
Periya Goundan Vs. Kuppa Goundan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-1919
Reported in: (1919)37MLJ234
1. Appellant sued respondent for damages for malicious prosecution. He got a decree for Rs. 100 in the Munsif's Court. The District Judge set it aside on the ground that the respondent could not be said to have prosecuted appellant, because he only made a report to the village Munsif as a result of which the police after investigation launched and conducted a prosecution for theft against appellant and his father. The authority relied on is the ruling of this Court in Narasinga Rao v. Muthaya Pillai I.L.R. (1902) Mad. 3622. Any person desirous of setting the Criminal Law in motion against another in respect of an act amounting to a cognizable offence can do so in three ways:1. He can present a complaint to a Magistrate having Jurisdiction, who will thereupon take action under Chapter XVII of the Criminal Procedure Code.2. He may give an information to an officer in charge of a Police Station, who will take action under Chapter XIV of the Criminal Procedure Code.3. He may (in the cases ...
Eda Ponnayya and anr. Vs. Jangala Kama Kotayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-1919
Reported in: (1919)37MLJ399
Oldfield, J. 1. We take the facts in this case to be that the father of the present appellants was appointed their guardian ad litem, although he had never appeared and consented to his appointment, and that the suit was afterwards decreed against them ex parte. The lower Court has refused to set aside that decree on the ground that the procedure provided by Order 9 Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code cannot be applied to it.2. The appointment of the guardian was certainly bad in the circumstances; and the minors must therefore be taken to have been unrepresented. The question is then whether Order 9 Rule 13 is applicable. We have been referred to two decisions of this Court and certain decisions of the Allahabad High Court to show that it is. The Allahabad decisions however, of which the latest is Bhagwan Dayal v. Puram Sukh Das I.L.R. (1916) All 8. were given without reference to the principle, which in my opinion governs the case and the judgment of the Judicial Committee, to which ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›