Chennai Court September 1919 Judgments
P. Murugappa Mudaliar (Dead) and ors. Vs. Minor Munusami Mudali and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-1919
Reported in: (1920)38MLJ131
1. The suit was brought on a promissory note executed by a deceased agent of 1st defendant to the 3rd defendant. The latter endorsed it to the plaintiff. The 2nd defendant executed an agreement Ex. B at the time of the endorsement of the note undertaking to be liable for the amount of the note. The suit was against all the three defendants on the note. In the course of the suit plaintiff withdrew his claim against 1st defendant. Thereupon a decree was passed against the other two defendants. This appeal is against that decree.2. Mr. Krishnaswamy Ayyangar in his learned argument contended before us that as the principal debtor, the 1st defendant has been exonerated, the other two defendants are also discharged from liability, and that there should be no decree against them. He relied upon the language of Section 134 of the Indian Contract Act. We may say at once that we do not agree with the Lower Appellate Court that Sections 134 and 139 of the Indian Contract Act do not apply to negot...
Tag this Judgment!K.T. Venkatapathi Nayani Varu Vs. Gaddam Chowdenna (Deceased) and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-1919
Reported in: 54Ind.Cas.749
1. A preliminary objection is taken that no second appeal lias. The decree of the lower Appellate Court has dismissed the plaintiff's suit for rent under Section 77 of the Estates Land Acts (Madras act I of 1908), though it did so solely on the ground that the Revenue Court had no jurisdiction to decide the validity of the resumption relied on by the plaintiff for his claim, which was denied by the defendant, and no finding was arrived at on the merits of the claim. This is not a case falling under Chapter XLIII of the old Code of Civil Procedure (Act XIV of 1882) or the corresponding Order XLIII of the new Code (Act V of 1908), the applicability of which to suits in the Revenue Courts is excluded by Section 192 of the Estates Land Act.2. The decision in Venkata Bamayya Appa Row v. Veeraswamigadu 45 Ind. Cas. 471 : 23 M.L.T. 251 : 7 L.W. 508 : (1918) M.W.N. 327 on the question of the maintainability of the second appeal, therefore, does not apply. It is, however, suggested that the dec...
Tag this Judgment!P. Murugappa Mudaliar (Dead) and ors. Vs. Munuswami Mudali, Minor, by ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-1919
Reported in: 54Ind.Cas.758
1. The suit was brought on a promissory note executed by a deceased agent of 1st defendant to the 3rd defendant. The latter endorsed it to the plaintiffs. The 2nd defendant executed an agreement, Exhibit B, at the time of the endorsement of the note undertaking to be liable for the amount of the note. The suit was against all the three defendants on the note. In the course of the suit plaintiff withdrew his claim against 1st defendant. Thereupon a decree was passed against the other two defendants. This appeal is against that decree.2. Mr. Krishnaswami Iyengar, in his learned argument, contended before us that as the principal debtor, the 1st defendant, has been exonerated, the other two defendants are also discharged from the liability and that there should be no decree against them. He relied upon the language of Section 134 of the Indian Contract Act. We may say at once that we do not agree with the lower Appellate Court that Sections 134 and 139 of the Indian Contract Act do not ap...
Tag this Judgment!Srinivasa Thathacharlu Vs. Noolamma and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-29-1919
Reported in: 55Ind.Cas.436
1. The 2nd defendant is the grandmother of the 1st defendant and during the minority of the latter she sold certain property to the plaintiff in the year 1901. The plaintiff got possession and while in possession was ousted by a person who claimed a superior title and who obtained a decree in respect of the properly. Thereupon this suit was brought on the indemnity clause in the sale-deed. The suit was both against the minor, who has since attained majority, and the grandmother. They are defendants Nos. 1 and 2 respectively.2. Mr. Sitarama Row conceded that, as regards the 1st defendant, he could not sustain his claim. The indemnity clause cannot bind the 1st defendant. That was decided by the Privy Council in Indur Chunder Singh v. Radhakishore Ghose 19 C.P 507 : 19 I.A. 90 : 6 Sar. P.C.J. 185 and consequently the claim, so far as the 1st defendant is concerned, must be dismissed. The second appeal, to that extent, is dismissed with costs.3. The case against the 2nd defendant is diffe...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: P. Kandaswami Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-26-1919
Reported in: (1920)38MLJ80
ORDERSeshagiri Aiyar, J.1. The facts of the case are these. The accused was asked by the Health Officer of the City of Madras to remove his son to the Isolation Hospital at Krishnampet as the child was then suffering from Small-pox, The child was being treated by Dr. V. Rama Kamath, a certified Medical Practitioner, This gentleman advised the accused to remove the patient to an isolated house which was done. Thereupon this prosecution was launched under Section 269 of the I.P.C. The Magistrate was apparently of opinion that as the Health Officer was the sole Judge of the justness of the order to remove the infected child to a hospital, he had no option but to convict the accused of the offence. There is an affidavit that the Magistrate did not permit evidence being given as to the precautions taken by the accused to avoid infection, The question for consideration is whether this conviction is right. Under Section 366 of the Madras Municipality Act (III of 1904) under which the order fo...
Tag this Judgment!Tangutur Narasimham Vs. Singaraju Ramiah and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-26-1919
Reported in: (1920)38MLJ126
1. Plaintiff sues to declare that he is the properly appointed Karnam of Vinjamur under the Madras Proprietary Estates Village Service Act, Act II of 1894, and that the appointment of the 1st defendant to that office is ultra vires and invalid.2. This is a case to which Section 15 of Act II of 1894 applies. Plaintiff was appointed by the Deputy Collector of Atmakur acting under Clause (3) of that Section. Unless that appointment can be held to be a valid one, plaintiff's suit must fail, and, it will be unnecessary to consider whether the order of the District Collector setting aside that appointment and appointing the 1st defendant instead which was confirmed by the Revenue Board, was ultra vires or not. The burden is on the plaintiff to establish the validity of his appointment in this case.3. The Deputy Collector could act and make his own nomination under Clause (3) only if the proprietor failed to submit his nomination to his office within a period of six weeks from the creation of...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Jaimullabdin
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-26-1919
Reported in: (1920)43MLJ489
ORDERSeshagiri Aiyar, J.1. The conviction must be quashed. The Sessions Judge begins his judgment by saying 'There is no time limit, however, applicable to the presumption, in Section 114(a) of the Indian Evidence Act (I of 1872,' The section is clear upon the point. It says that 'the Court may presume that a man who is in possession of stolen goods ' soon after the theft is either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for his possession.' Certainly 13 months after the theft is not ' soon after.' Moreover the evidence of P.W. No. 7 shows that he lost the articles some 2 or three years before. Even granting that the evidence of P.W. No. 1 is to be accepted in its entirety that the articles now found out belonged to him, as pointed out in Ina Sheikh v. Queen Empress I.L.R. (1885) Cal. 160 this is not a case in which the accused should be called upon to explain his possession. Miller, J., in The District Magistrate of Bellary v. Obbava (1912)...
Tag this Judgment!P. Kandaswamy Mudaliar Vs. King-emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-26-1919
Reported in: (1920)ILR43Mad344
ORDER1. The facts of the case are these. The accused was asked by the Health Officer of the City of Madras to remove his son to the Isolation Hospital at Krishnampet, as the child was then suffering from small-pox. The child was being treated by Dr. V. Rama Kamath, a certified medical practitioner. This gentleman advised the accused to remove the patient to an isolated house, which was done. Thereupon this prosecution was launched under Section 269 of the Indian Penal Code. The Magistrate was apparently of opinion that as the Health Officer was the sole judge of the justness of the order to remove the infected child to a hospital, he had no option but to convict the accused of the offence. There is an affidavit that the Magistrate did not permit evidence being given as to the precautions taken by the accused to avoid infection. The question for consideration is whether this conviction is right.2. Under Section 366 of the Madras City Municipal Act (Act III of 1904), under which the orde...
Tag this Judgment!Tanguthur Narasimham Vs. Singaraju Ramiah and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-26-1919
Reported in: 54Ind.Cas.728
1. Plaintiff sues to declare that he is the properly appointed Karnam of Vinjamin under the Madras Proprietary Estates Village Service Act, act II of 1894, and that the appointment of the 1st defendant to that office is ultra vires and invalid.2. This is a case to which Section 15 of act II of 1894 applies. Plaintiff was appointed by the Deputy Collector of Atmakur acting under Clause (3) of that section. Unless that appointment can be held to be a valid one, plaintiff's suit must fail, and it will be unnecessary to consider whether the order of the District Collector setting aside that appointment and appointing the 1st defendant instead, which was confirmed by the Revenue Board, was ultra vires or not. The burden is on the plaintiff to establish the validity of his appointment in this case.3. The Deputy Collector could act and make his own nomination under Clause (3) only if the proprietor failed to submit his nomination to the office within a period of six weeks from the creation of...
Tag this Judgment!Subramania Aiyar and ors. Vs. Pujari Lakshmana Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-25-1919
Reported in: 54Ind.Cas.177
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The material facts are set out in the judgment of my learned brothers. I agree entirely with their conclusions Some of the observations in the judgment of Seshagiri Aiyar, J., such as 'in the north, we find innumerable instances where endowments are made in the name of a reputed saint who worships the idol.' 'The personal sanctity of the founder seems to have had more influence in the north than in the south.' 'Most of the temples in the south do not owe their existence to Aryan influence but were built and endowed by the non Aryans, while the endowments in the north are mostly by Aryans', are observations based upon my learned brother's knowledge of and personal research into subjects to the study of which I have not been able to bestow as much time and industry as he. So far as I have been able to study some of the subjects referred to, my provisional conclusion is that Brabmana Hindus are not so pre dominantly Aryans in blood and non Brahmana Hindus are not so p...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »