Chennai Court January 1925 Judgments
Sinnanna Goundan Vs. Veerappa Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1925
Reported in: 90Ind.Cas.900
Phillips, J.1. This appeal relates to a question of easement. The plaintiff's father and the first defendant effected a partition about 25 years ago and now the plaintiff claims to have a right to drain off the water from his house and site through a hole in the wall, marked A, R, W on the plan and across the defendant's yard to the street in the north.2. It is contended that this is not an easement of necessity but the learned Advocate-General contends that it is an easement within the meaning of Section 13(f) of the Easements Act, namely, that it is an apparent and continuous easement and that it was enjoyed before the partition. It is however, admitted that since the partition took place this wall A, R, W has been built by the parties jointly. It is further clear that prior to the partition, there was no particular easement right to take water through that one point R. It is possible and indeed probable from the lie of the land that the water from the plaintiff's site did drain off ...
Tag this Judgment!Govindaswami Pillai Vs. Govinda Padayachi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Mad880; 89Ind.Cas.894
Madhavan Nair, J.1. Defendant is the appellant. The question in this case, is, whether the batta application dated 18th September 1918 is a step-in-aid of execution. The application is termed 'process application' and it is to be seen from it that the batta is paid 'to attach the properties in the house of the defendants' and 'it is requested that Re. I may be received for the purpose.' In the left hand margin of the application I find the words,' order for attachment of moveables under Order XXI, Rule 43.2. In these respects the application in this case is quite different from the one in Arunachalam Chettiar v. Latchmanan Chettiar 82 Ind. Cas. 497 : 47 M.L.J. 537 which appears on examination to have been a simple 'batta memo' and nothing more. The decision in that case that such a memo does not amount to a step-in-aid of execution cannot apply to this case. In my view there are sufficient indications in the process application to show that the applicant in effect asked for attachment....
Tag this Judgment!Natarajan and ors. Vs. P.M.A. Muthiah Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-16-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad261
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. This is a suit by the minor plaintiffs suing by their mother and next friend for maintenance. The case for the plaintiffs is that their mother Chinnammal was, shortly after she attained puberty, kept by the 1st defendant who is a Nattukkottai Chetty continuously and exclusively as his concubine, that the 1st and 2nd plaintiffs are his illegitimate sons and the third plaintiff his illegitimate daughter. Maintenance is claimed at Rs. 500 a month for all the three plaintiffs. The suit was originally filed against the 1st defendant only, but he died pending suit and Defendants 2 to 5, his undivided uncles and uncles sons, have been brought on the record. The 1st defendant filed a written statement denying that the plaintiffs' mother Chinnammal was continuously kept by him as concubine from 1901 to 1919. He states that Chinnammal was a dancing-girl who did not abandon her usual mode of life which was that of prostitution and that he used to visit her occasionally. H...
Tag this Judgment!Shanmugha Mudali Vs. Kumaraswami Mudali
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-16-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Mad870
Ramesam, J.1. The facts of the case have been stated by my learned brother whose judgment I had the advantage of perusing and they need not be repeated. I will only observe that the suit is not between the subscribers inter se, or by a subscriber against the stake-holder. The suit chit-fund is a partnership consisting of the plaintiff and defendant, and the object of the suit is to recover the monies due to the plaintiff on the closing of the partnership. Unless the object of the main transaction is to commit an offence, made punishable by the Indian Penal Code, there can be no objection to enforcing the terms of a contract of this kind, which is collateral to another transaction, even when the main transaction itself is merely void (as where it amounts to a wager) and cannot be enforced : See Shibo Mal v. Lachman Das (1901) 23 All. 165, Bhola Nath v. Mul Chand (1903) 25 All. 639, Chekka Venkatasawmi v. Gaijla Naghabhushanam (1904) 14 M.L.J. 236, which are cases of principal and agent....
Tag this Judgment!Shanmuga Mudali Vs. Kumaraswami Mudali
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-16-1925
Reported in: (1925)ILR38Mad661
Ramesam, J.1. The facts of the case have been stated by my learned brother, whose judgment I had the advantage of perusing and need not be repeated. I will only observe that the suit is not between the subscribers inter se or by a subscriber against the stake-holder. The stake-holder of the suit chit fund is a partnership consisting of the plaintiff and defendant and the object of the suit is to recover the moneys due to the plaintiff on the closing of the partnership. Unless the object of the main transaction is to commit an offence made punishable by the Indian Penal Code there can be no objection to enforcing the terms of a contract of this kind which is collateral to another transaction even when the main transaction itself is merely void (as where it amounts to a wager) and cannot be enforced; See Shibho Mal v. Lachman Das (1901) I.L.R., 23 All., Bhola Nath v. Mul Chand I.L.R., (1903) All, 639, Chekka Venkataswamy v. Gajjila Nagabhushanam (1904) 14 M.L.J., 326 which are cases of p...
Tag this Judgment!Shanmuga Mudaliar Vs. Kumaraswami Mudali
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-16-1925
Reported in: 90Ind.Cas.420
Ramesam, J.1. The facts of the case have been stated by my learned brother whose judgment I had the advantage of perusing and they need not be repeated. I will only observe that the suit is not between the subscribers inter se or by a subscriber against the stake-holder. The stake-holder of the suit chit-fund is a partnership consisting of the plaintiff and the defendant and the object of the suit is to recover the monies due to the plaintiff on the closing of the partnership. Unless the object of the main transaction is to commit an offence made punishable by the Indian Penal Code, there can be no objection to enforcing the terms of a contract of that kind which is collateral to another transaction even when the main transaction itself is merely void (as where it amounts to a wager) and cannot be enforced: see Shibho Mal v. Lachman Das, 23 A. 165 : A.W.N. (1901) 33, Bhola Nath v. Mul Chand 25 A. 639 : A.W.N. (1903) 161, Chekka Venkataswamy v. Gajjila Nagabhushanam 14 M.L.J. 326 which ...
Tag this Judgment!Natarajan and ors. Vs. P. M. A. Muthiah Chetty (Deceased) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-16-1925
Reported in: 95Ind.Cas.972
1. This is a suit by the minor plaintiffs suing by their mother and next friend for maintenance. The case for the plaintiffs is that their mother Chinnammal was shortly after she attained puberty, kept by the first defendant who is a Nattukkottai Chetty continuously and exclusively as his concubine, that plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 are his illegitimate sons and the third plaintiff his illegitimate daughter. Maintenance is claimed at Rs. 500 a mouth for all the three plaintiffs. The suit was originally filed against the first defendant only, but he died pending suit and 2 to 5 defendants, his undivided uncles and uncles' sons, have been brought on the record. The first' defendant filed a written statement denying that the plaintiff's mother Chinnammal was continuously kept by him as concubine from 1904 to 1919. He states that Chinnammal was a dancing girl who did not abandon her usual mode of life which was that of prostitution and that he used to visit her occasionally. He denies that the ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Mania Manicka Padayachi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-15-1925
Reported in: (1925)49MLJ155
ORDERSrinivasa Aiyangar, J.1. I am asked in this Criminal Revision Case to revise the order of the District Magistrate of Trichinopoly by which under the provisions, as I take it, of Section 437 of the Criminal Procedure Code (and not Section 436 as it appears in the papers) he directed, setting aside the order of discharge passed by the First Class Magistrate of Udayarpalayam, that all the accused in the case be committed for trial to the Sessions Court of Trichinopoly.2. The order of the 1st Class Magistrate of Udayarpalayam was passed as the result of the enquiry into the case which was triable by a Court of Session and under the provisions of Section 209, Clause 1 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The learned District Magistrate has in his order set out as follows : ' I direct that under Section 436, Criminal Procedure Code, that the accused be committed for trial for the offences for which they have been charged. Warrants will issue for the arrest of the accused and their production...
Tag this Judgment!Chinna Vavanan Alias Kanakathu Meera Levai Rowther, by the Official Re ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-15-1925
Reported in: (1925)49MLJ452
Dlevadoss J.1. The appellant was the 1st defendant in O.S. No. 1412 of 1917. The suit was by a mortgagee against the mortgagor (1st defendant) and the purchaser was impleaded as 2nd defendant as he had a mortgage subsequent to that of the plaintiff. The appellant was ex parte in the District Munsif's Court. A decree was; passed in favour of the plaintiff and the hypotheca was sold arid was purchased by the 2nd defendant. The ex parte decree was reversed on appeal and the 1st defendant applied to have the sale set aside. The 1st defendant having been adjudicated an insolvent, the Official Receiver continued the proceedings before the District Munsif. The District Munsif held that the 2nd defendant was not a decree-holder and therefore the sale was not liable to be set aside. On appeal by the Official Receiver the Subordinate Judge held that the order of the District Munsif was right and dismissed the appeal. The Official Receiver has preferred this appeal. 2. The contention of the appel...
Tag this Judgment!Manikka Padayachi and ors. Vs. King Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-15-1925
Reported in: (1925)ILR38Mad874
Srinivasa Ayyangar, J.1. I am asked in this Criminal Revision Case to revise the order of the District Magistrate of Trichinopoly by which under the provisions, as I take it, of Section 437 of the Criminal Procedure Code (and not 436 as it appears in the papers) he directed, setting aside the order of discharge passed by the First-class Magistrate of Udaiyarpalaiyam, that all the accused in the case be committed for trial to the Sessions Court of Trichinopoly.2. The order of the First-class Magistrate of Udaiyarpalaiyam was passed as the result; of the inquiry into the case which was triable by a Court of Session and under the provisions of Section 209, Clause 1 of the Criminal Procedure Code, The learned District Magistrate has in his order set out as follows:I direct that under Section 136, Criminal Procedure Code, the accused be committed for trial for the offences, for which they have been charged. Warrants will issue for the arrest of the accused and their production before the Co...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »