Chennai Court April 1922 Judgments
In Re: Velliah Kone
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-1922
Reported in: (1922)43MLJ222
Ayling, J.1. Accused in this case has been convicted of the murder of an old woman named Pichi and sentenced to death.2. The prosecution case is as follows; Deceased was a relation of accused and on her husband's death came to live in his house, bringing with her a sum of Rs. 200, which she lent him to pay off a mortgage. Subsequently disputes arose, and she wanted her money back, and moved into a small hut close to accused which she hired by herself. So far there is no dispute.3. According to the defence accused managed to pay off the debt to deceased by selling his wife's jewels, According to the prosecution, he did not and the wrangling continued culminating in a serious quarrel on the night of December 29th, Even after bed time deceased continued to abuse accused from her hut, and at last the man infuriated beyond endurance, went out and throttled her. He then tied her body in a sack with some heavy stones, and at about day break carried it to a well about 150 yards away and threw ...
Tag this Judgment!Kannayalal Bhoya Vs. Balaram Paramasukdoss
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-1922
Reported in: (1922)43MLJ480
Walter Salis Schwabe, K.C., C.J.1. In this case the matter comes before us on appeal from an order of Phillips, J. It arose in this way. An issue or issues were framed and he directed that a particular issue should be tried before the trial of the rest of the suit. He tried that issue and he gave a decision upon the hearing of that trial, and he gave it in what is called a judgment. Speaking for myself, I do not see how it could be called anything else. There was an issue directly to be tried; we have got the decision of a Judge upon matters in issue in the action between the parties; and I have tried to find some other mode of expressing what he did and I could find none - he gave his judgment. The English cases are quite clear as far as the distinction between 'judgment' and 'order' is concerned and the guiding principle is that a decision is a judgment which is given in an action - see Exparte Chinery (1884) 12 Q.B.D. 342 and Onslow v. Commissioner of Inland Revenue (1890) 25 Q.B.D....
Tag this Judgment!T.M. Sundara Aiyar and anr. Vs. T.M. Ananthapadbhanaba Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-1922
Reported in: (1922)43MLJ271
Odgers, J.1. I have had the advantage of reading the Judgment about to be delivered by my learned brother which sets out the facts, The matter arises under Section 70 of the Indian Contract Act. The respondent in this case does not dispute that he has had the benefit of the 1st plaintiff's action but he says all the expenses would have been incurred even if 1st defendant had not joined as plaintiff. It is true that the District Munsif found generally that some of the items incurred would have had to be paid whether or not 1st defendant was a plaintiff in the suit but the appeal to the lower appellate Court was dismissed on two points of law (1) that the party sought to be made liable must not only have benefited but must have had the opportunity of accepting or rejecting the benefit; and that in this case there is no proof of such option. This is laid down in Raja of Pittapuram v. Secretary of State (1914) 16 M.L.T. 375. The second point of law is that when a person paying is himself i...
Tag this Judgment!Alagappa Chetty Vs. Nachiappan Alias Kirukan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad125; (1922)43MLJ728
Oldfield, J.1. These 25 petitions are for orders under Section 110 and Order 45, Rules 3 and 8 to enable the petitioners to appeal to His Majesty in Council against the 25 decrees passed by this Court in second appeals. The suits were instituted in the court of the District Munsif, who dismissed them. First appeals were allowed by the District Judge; and in the cases before us, this Court allowed the second appeals setting aside the District Judge's decrees.2. The circumstances are that the plaintiff sued for possession of certain plots of land under a title to a larger extent, in which they were alleged to be included in the village of Sekkalakottai. Some of the defendants in each suit were impleaded as trespassers in actual occupation. 6th to 9th defendants, who were subsequently impleaded set up that the plots were part of their inam village of Kalanivasal and that the other defendants just referred to were holding under them. The dispute was therefore whether the suit plots were in...
Tag this Judgment!A.T. Sankaralinga Mudaliar Vs. Narayana Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1922
Reported in: AIR1922Mad502; (1922)43MLJ369
ORDERWalter Salis Schwabe Kt., K.C., C.J.1. This is a criminal revision petition against the acquittal of the accused on a charge of murder, in a case tried by the, Sessions Judge of Tinnevelly. The ground and the only ground on which we are asked to order a retrial is that the learned Judge did not deliver in Court his full reasons for acquitting the accused. At the end of a three weeks' trial he left certain specific questions to the assessors. The assessors agreed that the accused were not guilty and, in answer to a specific question, they agreed that certain witnesses for the prosecution, who were the principal witnesses, were not worthy of belief. The acting Sessions judge then wrote a document headed 'Judgment' setting forth the findings of the assessors and adding his own finding agreeing with the assessors that the accused were not guilty and they were acquitted. At a later date he wrote and prefixed to that judgment a full reasoned judgment dealing with the various points rais...
Tag this Judgment!Pudiava Nadar Vs. Pavanasa Nadar and 8 ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1922
Reported in: (1922)ILR65Mad949
Walter Salis Schwabe, Kt., K.C. C.J.1. The question referred to the Full Bench is:Is a Hindu who is congenitally blind thereby excluded from the inheritance, or has the rule become obsolete?2. In Surayya v. Subbamma I.L.R. (1920) Mad. 4 Sadasiva Ayyar and Napier, JJ., answered this question by saying that the rule had become obsolete. This case having been tried before that decision was known, the point was not taken at the trial or on first appeal; but the appellant was allowed to raise the point by the Referring Bench. This Court was told in the course of the arguments that it is alleged that the man in question is not, in fact, congenitally blind and it will be for the Referring Bench to consider hereafter whether that matter is one which is now proper to be enquired into. For the purpose of this reference we must assume that he was congenitally blind and treat this case as, in effect, an appeal from Surayya v. Subbamma I.L.R. (1920) Mad. 4.3. It is argued that under the Hindu Law, ...
Tag this Judgment!Singaravelu Mudaliar Vs. Chokka Mudaliar (Alias) Chokkalinga Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad88(1); (1922)43MLJ737
Spencer, J.1. I agree with the judgment which my learned brother is about to deliver. The question whether possession in any particular case is adverse is a question of fact. A judgment in a prior suit may operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit between the same parties or their representatives in interest if it decides what was the character of the possession of any person who was a party to that suit, e.g., whether it was then adverse or permissive possession or whether it was separate or joint possession. But I am, with due respect, quite unable to understand how the judgment of a court declaring that one of the parties has no legal title to the properties in suit, can have the effect of causing his possession to cease to be adverse to the opposite party from the moment of its pronouncement, so long as possession remains undisturbed. Such a judgment would rather appear to emphasise the adverseness of the possession of the trespasser as against the true owner. It cannot benefit ...
Tag this Judgment!V. Ranganatha Rao Vs. Rama Pandithar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad108; (1923)44MLJ87
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by a reversioner to recover possession of the properties alienated by the, widows of the last male owner. The second of the widows died in 1897 when the cause of action for the present suit accrued (vide article 141 of the Limitation Act). The present suit was filed on 31-3-1919. The court below held that the suit was barred by limitation. It appears that one Narayana Rao whose heir the present plaintiff is and who was the reversioner on the date of the death of the widow had during the lifetime of the widow filed a suit for setting aside the alienations and in that suit it was held that the suit was not maintainable because it appeared that he was not the nearest heir but another namely one Balusami Pandithar. In 1909 Baluswami Pandithar filed a suit O.S. No. 3 of 1909 for recovering possession of the properties, but it was found that he was not a reversioner at all as his title rested on an alleged adoption which was found not to be true in...
Tag this Judgment!Nadukandeelakath Pakuran Vs. Kuvattil Kandan Kutty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad23; 70Ind.Cas.45
1. The only question that has been argued is the question of limitation, the contention being that plaintiffs' cause of action arose on the ,date of the appellate decree declaring that defendants in that suit had no saleable interest in the land, i.e., 20th February 1911. Whether, therefore. Article 97 or Article 120 applies to the suit filed on 18th October 1917, it is out of time, if the starting point is 20th February 1911. The Subordinate Judge has taken the date of the High Court decree affirming, the Sub-Court decree as the date of the cause of action, but we think, he is wrong by reason of the principle laid down by the Privy Council in Hukum Chand Boid (Juscurn Boid) v. Pirthichand Lal Chowdhury 50 Ind. Cas. 444 : 21 Bom. L.R. 632 where it was held that, the starting point for limitation is the date of the first Court's decree and not the date of the appellate decree confirming the same. That principle has been applied by their lordships to a case under Article 97, but the j pr...
Tag this Judgment!Singaravelu Mudaliar Vs. Chokka Mudaliar Alias Chokkalinga Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1922
Reported in: 70Ind.Cas.994
Spencer, J.1. I agree with the judgment which my learned brother is about to deliver. The question whether possession in any particular case is adverse is a question of fact. A judgment in a prior suit may operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit between the same parties or their representatives in interest if it decides what was the character of the possession, of any person who was a party to that suit, e.g. whether it was adverse or, permissive possession or whether it was then separate or joint possession. But I am with due respect, quite unable to understand how the judge at of a Court declaring that one the parties has no legal title to the properties in suit can have the effect of causing his possession to cease to the adverse to the opposite party from the moment of its pronouncement so long as possession remains undisturbed. Such a judgment would rather appear to emphasis the adverseness of the possession of the trespasser as against the true owner. It cannot benefit the t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »