Chennai Court September 1921 Judgments
Malaya Goundan and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-1921
Reported in: 66Ind.Cas.326
1. The seven accused have been sentenced to death for the murder of one Venkatasami Naicken of Nagarakalandai. The only evidence to connect them with the crime is the statement of prosecution witness No. 2, who says ho accompanied the decayed to Malayandipaliem on the day of his death. The evidence of prosecution witness No. 3, who says be also went with the deceased, is useless for the purpose of connecting these accused with the crime, since he stated at the trial that he ran away as soon as he saw five or six persons at the madam without, recognizing any of them. The joint statement (Exhibit E) that this witness and prosecution witness No. 2 signed before the manager cannot be used as substantive evidence of this witness against the accused as it was not a statement recorded on oath in the presence of the accused by a Magistrate empowered to take down evidence, See Emperor v. Cherath Choyi Kutli 2 Weir 820. The only use of such a statement would be to corroborate or contradicts stat...
Tag this Judgment!Obilisetti Venkata Kristnaiah Vs. Atyam Subbiah and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Mad304; (1921)41MLJ554
Oldfield, J.1. I agree. with the judgment to be delivered by my learned brother and have nothing to add.Ramesam, J.2. The plaintiff sues as the assignee of one, Nunna Venkataratnam. His case is that the defendant's family had, during the life-time of their father Jagannadham, two Khatas with the said Venkataratnam (1) in which Venkataratnam acted as a commission agent for the family and (2) the suit transaction in which Venkataratnam and the defendant's family were partners in paddy trade. In Venkataratnam's accounts, the first khata stood in the name of their father and manager and the second, in the natriev of the 2nd defendant. The 1st defendant contested the suit on the ground that the 2nd khata did not relate 'to a family transaction ; but the Subordinate Judge decreed in Plaintiff's favour. The 1st defendant appeals.3. The only point argued for the appellant is that the 1st defendant cannot be made liable in this suit, as there was no privity of contract between him and Venkatara...
Tag this Judgment!A. Mahadeva Aiyar Vs. the South Indian Railway Company Limited, Throug ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-1921
Reported in: (1922)42MLJ202
1. This is a Civil Revision Petition under Section 25 of Act IX of 1887 in which we are asked to revise the order of the Subordinate Judge of Cochin dismissing S. C. No. 1 of 1919 on his file. The whole case has been referred, first by a single Judge to a Divisional Bench, and then by that Bench to a Full Bench.2. The suit was one for damages against the South Indian Railway Company for short delivery of goods and it was dismissed for failure to notify plaintiff's claim within 6 months as required by Section 77 of the Railways Act read with Section 140. The former section says: 'A person shall not be entitled to a refund of an over-charge in respect of animals or goods carried by railway or to compensation for the loss, destruction or deterioration of animals or goods delivered to be so carried, unless his claim to the refund or compensation has been preferred in writing by him or on his behalf to the Railway Administration within 6 months from the date of the delivery of the animals o...
Tag this Judgment!A.T.K.P.L.M. Muthiah Chetti Vs. Palaniappa Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-01-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Mad447; (1921)41MLJ594
Oldfield, J.1. On the merits the question in this appeal is whether Ex. E, an hypothecation bond in favour of plaintiff appellant by the widows of two partners, Muthu and Raman Chetty, as guardians of 1st to 4th defendants, their minor sons, is without consideration and merely colourable or was executed in the words of Section 53 Transfer of Property Act with intent to defeat or delay creditors.2. The undisputed circumstances are that Ex. E hypothecates for its full value all the immoveable property of 1st to 4th defendants; that plaintiff is the brother of one executant the widow of Muthiah Chetty; and that of the four other creditors of the firm, whose debts plaintiff was to pay as part of the consideration, one is a dayadi of plaintiff and a cousin of the widow of Raman Chetty and another is plaintiff's partner and nephew. Plaintiff had been an agent of the firm and knew that it had been declining in prosperity since the death of Raman. Chetty in 1909. Ex. E moreover was executed ju...
Tag this Judgment!T.V. Chakrapani Aiyangar Vs. the Government of India Represented by th ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-01-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Mad125; (1922)42MLJ191
William Ayling, Officiating C.J.1. The Officiating Chief Justice: The facts of this case have been very clearly set out in the order of the Lower Appellate Court and need not be re-capitulated. The Subordinate Judge has allowed Government a first charge under Order 33, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the sum of Rs. 88-15-0 to which the plaintiff was entitled under the decree in O.S. No. 89 of 1917.2. But under the same decree plaintiff was liable to pay defendants Rs. 191-0-0 for the latter's costs, and as a matter of fact, before Government applied for execution first defendant had taken out execution for the balance in his favour after giving plaintiff credit for the sum of Rs. 88-15-0. Under Order 21, Rule 19, Code of Civil Procedure, plaintiff was indeed precluded from taking out execution for the amount decreed in his favour.3. In these circumstances I do not think plaintiff can be held to have 'succeeded ' in the suit so as to attach the provisions of Order 33, Rule 10....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›