Chennai Court August 1925 Judgments
Palaniappa Chettiar Vs. B. Raja Rajeswara Sethupathi Alias Muthuramali ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1925
Reported in: (1926)50MLJ34
Victor, C.J.1. This is a point of some little interest. A man called Subramanya Chetti started a suit lor damages for malicious prosecution and in his plaint he claimed a sum of money by way of general damages and he aslo claimed special damage under two heads. The first was vakil's fees and the second was travelling and other incidental expenses for securing the attendance of witnesses for the purpose of defending the prosecution which was launched against him. We will take it that that prosecution failed, and, had this unfortunate man lived, he would have got substantial damages against the defendant which would have included the special damage alleged to have been incurred by him. As a matter of fact he died while the suit was pending and when the suit actually came on for trial before the learned Subordinate Judge it was proposed to continue the action with his executor or legal representative substituted as the plaintiff. The learned Judge held that that could not be done and we a...
Tag this Judgment!Rajagopala Pandarathar and Two ors. Vs. Tirupathia Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad421; 95Ind.Cas.12; (1926)50MLJ161
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The question argued in this case is one of jurisdiction, and it has been argued ably by Mr. Varadachariar for the appellants and the Advocate-General for the respondents.2. The suit is upon a mortgage and the final decree was passed by the Sub-Court of Tanjore on 23rd March, 1917. The execution application with which we are concerned was filed in that Court on 2nd August, 1922. On 1st April, 1923, the taluk where the property is situate was by a Government notification transferred as and from 1st July, 1923, from the local limits of the Sub-Court of Tanjore to the jurisdiction of the District Court of West Tanjore. Notwithstanding this notification, the Sub-Court proceeded with the hearing of the execution application. On 6th July, 1923, objections were taken to the sale proclamation but no objection on the ground of want of jurisdiction was raised. On 14th July, 1923, the Sub-Court made an order in regard to the objections raised. The decree-holder by this time ...
Tag this Judgment!The Secretary of State for India in Council Represented by the Collect ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad706; (1926)50MLJ699
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The suit which has led to this appeal relates to a village known as Ravicherla. It was granted to the ancestors of the plaintiffs by a sannad issued by the Government dated the 2nd May, 1843. The grant contains two restrictive clauses one relating to the right of succession which provides that Ravicherla shall be held in perpetuity by the grantees and only such of their heirs could take as the Government might recognise for this purpose from time to time. The second clause, the one with which we are concerned in this appeal, imposes a restriction on the right of alienation, no transfer of the village being valid unless the previous consent of the Government has been obtained authorising such transfer.2. The plaintiffs agreed to sell the property and the proposed vendee having regard to the second provision referred to above desired them to obtain the consent of the Government to the sale. The plaintiffs accordingly requested the Government to give consent but the...
Tag this Judgment!Subbiah Goundan Vs. Sonnimalai Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1925
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.400
Phillips, J.1. In this case the plaintiff obtained a decree declaring that he and the 9th defendant were each entitled to a moiety of the plaint B and E schedule properties. In this petition we are only concerned with the B schedule properties. It would appear that after that decree was passed, the plaintiff and the 9th defendant were put in possession of the B schedule properties, for a statement of the Vakil for defendants was put into Court stating 'that the plaintiff and the 9th defendant are in possession of the properties mentioned in the B schedule for the last two years, the defendants Nos. 5 and 12 have no objection to their continuing in possession and that the defendants have no objection to their taking possession through Court.' On that memo the plaintiff and the 9th defendant put in a memo, on the 19th September 1922 asking that the properties should be delivered by Court, but they asked that such of the survey numbers in the B schedule as belonged to their share exclusiv...
Tag this Judgment!Palaniappa Chettair Vs. B. Rajarajeswara Sethupathi Pathi Alias Muthur ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad243; 92Ind.Cas.366
1. This is a point of some little interest. A man called Subramanya Chetti started a suit for damages for malicious prosecution and in his plaint, he claimed a sum of money by way of general damages and he also claimed special damages under two heads The first was Vakil's fees and the second was travelling and other incidental expenses for securing the attendances of witnesses for the purpose of defending the prosecution which was launched against him. We will take it that that prosecution failed and had this unfortunate man lived, he would have got substantial damages against the defendant which would have included the special damages alleged to have been incurred by him. As a matter of fact, he died while the suit was pending, and when the suit actually came on for trial before the learned Subordinate Judge, it was proposed to continue, the action with his executor or legal representative substituted as the plaintiff. The learned Judge held that that could not be done and we agree wi...
Tag this Judgment!Koyyalamudi Subbanna and anr. Vs. Koduri Subbarayudu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad390; 92Ind.Cas.805; (1926)50MLJ125
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. These three appeals have been filed against the judgment of Krishnan, J. Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 are the executants of the promissory notes in question. In some notes they described themselves as the guardians of the first defendant, in others as executors under his father's Will. The first defendant was and continues to be a minor. The second and third defendants are respectively the maternal uncle and the brother-in-law of the first defendant. The plaintiffs in these suits asked for a decree against the first defendant to the extent of the assets of his father's estate and against defendants Nos. 2 and 3 personally. It is not necessary to say what the decision of the Trial Court was but the Subordinate Judge dismissed the suits against defendants Nos. 2 and 3 and passed decrees against the first defendant to the extent of the assets of his father. The plaintiffs preferred second Appeals to the High Court and Krishnan, J., in all the three suits passed decrees a...
Tag this Judgment!Sree Rajah Vasireddi Sree Chendra Mouleswara Prasada Bahadur Manni Sul ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1925
Reported in: (1926)50MLJ97
Phillips, J.1. The plaintiff (appellant) leased 15 acres 65 cents of dry land to the predecessor of defendants 1 to 4 in 1907 for a period of 30 years. Defendants 1 to 4 have now sold 14 acres of land to defendants,5 to 10, and the 5th defendant has begun the erection of a building on 100 sq yds., has planted about 25 or 30 trees and fenced in one acre of this land and sunk a well. The plaintiff accordingly brings this suit under Section 151 of the Estates Land Act for the eject-ment of defendants 1 to 4. The sale deed of the 14 acres is not filed, but the 8th defendant, who is the only defendant examined in the suit, admits that the 14 acres were purchased for about Rs. 1,800 and that the land has been purchased for building purposes, cattle-sheds and storage of hay. Although, therefore, the 5th defendant alone has begun building on the land, it is clear that defendants 5 to 10 have all purchased the land for building purposes and defendants 1 to 4 have executed-the sale deed for that...
Tag this Judgment!Rameswaram Devasthanam Vs. Secretary of State and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1925
Reported in: AIR1927Mad1167
Ramesam, J.1. I have had the opportunity of reading my learned brother's judgment with which I substantially agree. I will only supplement it by some additional remarks of my own.2. The suit was brought by the plaintiff challenging the order of Mr. Lionel Davidson, dated 21st April 1910 Ex. D. There is no doubt that the plaintiff's village Sethukuvoithan is a riparian village as it abuts the Thambaraparni river. This was not denied before us and is conceded by the Dist. Judge. Vide para. 2 of his judgment. The plaintiff's allegation was that he originally enjoyed his riparian rights by drawing off water through a sluice at the spot A. The Dist. Judge discusses the existence of sluice A at p. 6 of his judgment. At p. 7 he refers it as the plaintiff's alleged channel from A, and in the middle of p. 6 he states:The next question for consideration is whether the plaintiff has made out his claim to have filled his own tank Sethukuvoithan tank from the river through the sluice A.3. It is not...
Tag this Judgment!(Kommineni) Appalaswamy and anr. Vs. Kommineni Simhadri Appadu and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad384
Coutts-Trotter, C.J.1. This is a hopeless appeal and I do not desire to waste my words on it except on one matter. The onus was rightly found by the learned Subordinate Judge to be on the defendants; accordingly they opened the proceedings and called evidence first. The defendants adopted the objectionable practice of calling the 1st plaintiff as their witness, objectionable for this reason, that they were obviously bound to follow it up, and it appears clearly from the judgment that they did follow it up, by asking the Judge to disbelieve and set aside all the evidence given by the 1st plaintiff. This practice has frequently been unfavourably commented upon by this Court and indeed also by the Privy Council. There is no objection whatever to an advocate seeking to prove his cast out of the mouth of the opposite party; but if he puts the opposite party into the box be takes the risk of making statements made by that witness part of his own evidence. It is possible that in a proper case...
Tag this Judgment!Dewasikhamani Asari Vs. the Crown
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad727
ORDERJackson, J.1. Appeal against the judgment and sentence of the Sessions Judge of West Tanjore in Crl. A. No. 6 of 1924.2. The appellant was convicted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Pattukottai, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for nine months under Section 409, Indian Penal Code. The learned Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction and reduced the sentence to the amount of imprisonment already undergone. 3. The appellant was an Amin of the Sub-Court at Kumbakonam and, admittedly, on the 27th February 1923, he collected a sum of Rs. 190-4-0 in Papanasam. He did not pay this amount into Court until the 2nd of July 1923, and the lower Courts have found that he was guilty of criminal misappropriation. There is no evidence of what exactly he did with the money; but if an Amin collects a large sum of money and does not pay it into Court until five months have elapsed, it is a fair presumption that he has misappropriated the amount, unless he can explain his action. The ca...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »