Court : Chennai
Reported in : 56Ind.Cas.498; (1920)39MLJ65
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. This is a reference by the Assistant Sessions Judge of Tinnevelly, the Jury having returned a verdict of 'not guilty ' against the accused by a majority. The charge was that at about 10 p. m. the accused committed theft of two cloths from the yard in the dwelling house of P. W, No. 1. No doubt the time is not vary accurately spoken to by the witnesses, but there can be no question that it was after sunset and between (about) 8 and (about) 10 p. m. The accused examined no witnesses and beyond wild insinuations nude by him in cross examination, there is nothing to show that any of the prosecution witnesses was actuated by feelings of enmity towards the accused in giving evidence against the accused. As soon as the theft was discovered, the accused was pursued and he was caught red-handed with the stolen cloths in his possession. On the whole, I think that the Jury's verdict is perverse. 2. One matter relating to the procedure of the Assistant Sessions Judge has to be...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1920)39MLJ233
John Wallis, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant from the judgment of Kumaraswami Sastri, J, in a suit brought by a landlord against a tenant for damages for the destruction of the demised house by fire. The learned Judge has found that the fire was occasioned by the negligence of the defendant. The destruction of a building owing to the negligence of the tenant is treated in English Law as permissive waste for which a tenant for life or for a term is liable and a tenant at will not liable while the case of a tenant from year to year is doubtful. These distinctions are not recognized by the Transfer of Property Act. Section 108(m) requires the tenant to restore the property in as good a condition as it was when he was put into possession, subject only to the changes caused by reasonable wear and tear or irresistible force and to allow the lessor and his agents at all reasonable times to enter upon and inspect the condition thereof and give or leave notice of any defect in such co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1920)39MLJ319
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The facts have been set out in the judgment just now delivered by my learned brother and I need not repeat them.2. The questions argued were (1) whether the powers given by Sections 16 and 144 of the Local Boards Act (Madras Act V of 1884) to the Governor-in-Council to frame forms and to prescribe rules and conditions as regards appointment by election and as regards the system of representation and of election include or imply the power to make rules for the conduct of inquiries into the objections made to the validity of elections and to the creation of special tribunals to make such inquiries so as to exclude the jurisdiction of the ordinary Civil Courts and to make the opinion of the special tribunals final as to the validity of elections ; (2) assuming that the Governor-in-Council has such powers, do the rules as framed on the 6th June, 1917 (See Ex. III) exclude the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts to entertain objection to the validity of the election even w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1920)39MLJ345
John Wallis, C.J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Coutts Trotter dismissing an application of the Official Assignee to expunge the proof of one Sambanda Mudaliar as a secured creditor on a mortgage alleged to have been executed in June, 1916.2. This case has brought to the notice of the Court not for the first time the existence in this city of dangerous gangs who take advantage of the fact that the Indian Majority Act enables young men to dispose of their property before they have sufficient sense to manage it and get them to execute conveyances for little or no consideration and thus strip them of their possessions. I am not unaware of the considerations which actuated the legislature in fixing the age of 18 as the age of majority but I hope that this matter may receive reconsideration in the near future with the object of stopping scandals such as have come to light in this Court in this case and in other recent cases.3. In this case the insolvent wh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 58Ind.Cas.124
1. The second. defendant is the appellant before ns. the suit was brought with the Advocate-General's sanction under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code for the framing of a scheme for the conduct of certain charities, for the appointment of a new trustee or new trustees (the office of trustee have become vacant according to the allegations in the plaint) and for other appropriate reliefs.2. A preliminary objection was taken for the respondents that no appeal lay; because to determination of any question between the parties has been arrived at by the lower, Court, and their learned Vakil relied upon the decision in Aiyappa Mudaliar v. Gopalaswami Mudaliar 16 Ind. Cas. 45 . But in that ease no decree was at all drawn up embodying any determination of the Court, whereas in the present case a formal decree has been drawn up determining that there is a vacancy in the office of trustee and that the plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration that the trusteeship is not vested in the second ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 58Ind.Cas.827
ORDERWilliam Ayling, J.1. This is a case under the Workman's Breach of Contrast Act (XIII of 1859). Petitioner contracted With the respondent a beedi maker on 6th November 1918 to work for him for 10 months and received an advance of Rs. 10-8-0 which was to be recovered by monthly stoppages of one rupee from his pay. Petitioner ceased to work in April 1919. Respondent on 3rd October 1919 (more than 10 months after the contract) complained to the Magistrate, who, on 2nd December 1919, directed petitioner to resume work from next day and work out the balance of Rs. 5-8-0.2. Petitioner's Vakil argued that the order is illegal inasmuch as the work ordered to be performed is not according to the terms of the contrast which provided only for work within a period of 10 months from its date. If the matter were 'res Integra' I should be disincludad to interfere with the order, but I find no lass than four decisions of this Court which lend support to the petitioner's case and nothing on the oth...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 59Ind.Cas.245
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The facts have been set out in the judgment just now delivered by my learned brother and I need not repeat them.2. The questions argued were, (1) Whether the powers given by Sections 16 and 144 of the Local Boards Act (Madras Act V of 1884) to the Governor-in-Council to frame forms and to prescribe rules and conditions, as regards the system of representation and of election, include or Imply the power to make rules for the conduct of inquiries into the objections made to the validity of elections and to the creation of special tribunals to make such inquiries so as to exclude the jurisdiction of the ordinary Civil Courts and to make the opinion of the special tribunals final, as to the validity of elections; (2) assuming that the Governor-in-Council has such powers, do the rules as framed on the 6th June 1917 (Set Exhibit III) exclude the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts to entertain objections to the validity of the election even when those objections are based o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 59Ind.Cas.585
1. The general rule of Hindu Law is against the validity of the adoption in this case Minakshi v. Ramanada Ind. Dec. 35, but this rule may be varied by custom, and such a custom has been held to obtain in the southern districts of the Madras Presidency Vayidinada v. Appu 6 M. 44 (F.B.); Appayya Bhattar v. Vengu Bhattar 15M.L.J. 211. The lower Appellate Court has not found upon the evidence whether such a custom exists in the caste, of plaintiff and defendant or in South Kanara, which does not form part of the southern districts. The appellant is responsible for all the costs of this litigation, and we direct him to pay all costs incurred up to this day before the 15th September 1919. Upon payment of the costs before that day, we direct the District Judge to record a finding upon the following issue:2. Is the adoption in this case valid according to the customs observed by the parties?3. No additional evidence will be taken. In default of payment the appeal will stand dismissed with cos...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 60Ind.Cas.650
William Ayling, J.1. First respondent in this case was appointed Karnam of the grouped village of Vallur in the Venkatagiri Zemindari by the Sub-Divisional Officer under Section 15(3) of Act II of 1894. He sued for a declaration that he was the legally appointed Karnam and for an injunction restraining first defendant (the proprietor of the estate) and second defendant (the person appointed as Karnam by the first defendant) from interfering with his tenure of office. The District Munsif decreed the suit as prayed for. The Subordinate Judge set aside the injunction but confirmed the declaration.2. In second appeal Mr. Krishnasawmy Aiyar has argued, (1) that plaintiff not being in possession of the office his suit is not maintainable under Section 42, Specific Relief Act; (2) that the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts is barred by Section 21 of Madras Act III of 1895.3. The first objeotion may be summarily disposed of. The Subordinate Judge finds that at the date of suit plaintiff was in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 60Ind.Cas.209; (1920)39MLJ427
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. Defendants 1, 3 and 5 are the appellants before us. The case was argued only on behalf of the 1st appellant (1st defendant). On the date of suit she was a married womarr whose husband was alive. The house in dispute belonged to her brother whose son is the minor 1st plaintiff. The house was inherited by the 1st plaintiff's father from the father of himself and of 1st defendant. Practically the only question in this case is that raised by the 7th issue namely ' whether under the customary law obtaining among the parties, 1st defendant has a right to be in joint possession of the house and moveables, i.e., jointly with her brother's minor son, the first plaintiff.2. I think it must be taken as settled law that a person who admittedly belongs to the Hindu community and is domiciled in Southern, India is ordinarily governed by the Hindu Law of the shastras as expounded by the Southern commentators. Of course where there are very wide and well known exceptions as in the...
Tag this Judgment!