Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-25-1916
Reported in : 34Ind.Cas.557; (1916)30MLJ423
Napier, J.1. This an appeal from an appellate decree of the District Court of Tinnevelly dismissing a suit brought by five Roman Catholic Vellalas as representatives of the Pillais and Mudalis of Vaddakankulam against the Roman Catholic Bishop of Trichinopoly, the Parish Priest of Vaddankankulam and certain Shanan Roman Catholics the last being sued as representatives of the Nadars, asking for certain reliefs in connection with the Holy Family Church situate in the above village. The reliefs may be grouped as follows:1. A mandatory injunction to re-erect walls between what are called the two Churches in the above Church, the cause of action being the obstructing of the plaintiffs' right, the obtaining an order under Section 144 of Code of Criminal Procedure, and the demolition of the walls, all in November 1910.2. A declaration that the ownership of the alleged Southern Church is vested only in the so-called high caste Christians of the plaintiffs' vagaira.3. A declaration of the right...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-28-1916
Reported in : 33Ind.Cas.508; (1916)30MLJ369
Oldfield, J.1. The Lower Appellate Court rejected plaintiffs contention based directly on his position as surety. It has, however, been relied on here, and therefore 1 deal with it before taking up the argument baaed on the negotiable character of Ex. A, on which the Lower Appellate Court decided in his favour.2. The Lower Appellate Court has adopted its findings of fact on this part of the case from the judgment of the Court of First Instance unreservedly. They are that plaintiff bound himself to pay part of his relative's debt to Yegappa Chetty, that in order to do so he sent the suit hundi, Ex. A, for delivery to Yegappa by plaintiff, and that the latter created defendant's original liability by delivering it and, the distinctive feature in the case, made himself surety for its discharge by endorsing that fact cm it. This entails not only that defendant did not know of plaintiff's entering and did not ask him to enter into this contract of guarantee, but also that, if the considerat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Feb-18-1916
Reported in : 33Ind.Cas.696
Coutts Trotter, J.1. The facts out of which these appeals arise are as follows: In 1887 Nanu Pattar obtained a money-decree in the Subordinate Judge's Court of Tellicherry against Thekkedath Nair and his tarwad. Nanu Pattar died and his elder son Ananthanarayana Iyer executed the decree by bringing to sale some of the properties belonging to Thekkedath Nair's tarwad, and at the sale Ananthanarayana Iyer himself bought these properties. Shortly afterwards, Thekkedath Nair presented a petition to have the sale set aside, alleging various irregularities leading up to it. In the result a compromise was effected, the petition was withdrawn and the sale of most of the lands was confirmed on terms which the parties reduced to writing in a registered karar, dated the 4th July 1901. By that document, while the sale to Ananthanarayana Iyer was confirmed, it was agreed that within ten years Thekkedath Nair, on payment of the price of the lands or of any part of them, should be entitled to have th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Feb-25-1916
Reported in : 34Ind.Cas.372; (1916)30MLJ486
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The appellant was the plaintiff in Original Suit No. 178 of 1911 on the file of the District Munsif's Court of Dindigal. The only defendant in the suit died in March 1912. On the 15th April 1912, the plaintiff applied to bring in the defendant's son Perumal Chetty on the record as the defendant's legal representative. He failed to mention the Order and rule of the Civil Procedure Code, under which the application was filed. On the 23rd April 1912 the Court returned the application to him for amendment giving him three days' time to take it back, amend and re-present it. The District Court transferred the suit about the end of April 1912 to the District Munsif's Court of Melur for disposal. The records were sent away from the District Munsif's Court of Dindigal accordingly to the District Munsif's Court of Melur but retaining the above application (which was not taken back by the plaintiff for amendment and re-presented). The other records were sent away from the Di...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Apr-28-1916
Reported in : 35Ind.Cas.497; (1916)31MLJ178
John Wills, C.J.1. The accused in these cases has been convicted by the Chief Presidency Magistrate on two charges of contravening the Royal Proclamation of the 9bh September 1914 against trading with the enemy by obtaining and attempting to obtain at Madras goods from an enemy and from an enemy country, offences punishable under Section 3 of the Commercial Intercourse with Enemies Ordinance VI of 1914 as continued and amended by Acts I and XIV of 1915. He has been discharged by the Presidency Magistrate on a complaint of further contravening the said Ordinance by conspiring at Madras with one other to obtain goods from a firm in Germany. The accused has appealed against the convictions and the Grown Prosecutor has filed a revision petition against the order of discharge. Though the illegality of trading with the enemy was established in the eighteenth century by the decisions of the Prize Court administering the Law of Nations which are collected by Sir William Scott (afterwards Lord ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Nov-24-1916
Reported in : (1917)33MLJ277
Wallis, C.J.1. Appeal No. 380 of 1914 is an appeal from the judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Tinnevelly in Original Suit No. 30 of 1911 a suit brought by Eamasami Pandia Thalavar claiming to be the nearest reversioner of the last Zamindar of Uttumalai to declare that certain alienations made by the Court of Wards during their management of the estate on behalf of the widow of the late Zamindar, Eanee Meenakshi Sundara Nachiar, now an incapacitated proprietor under Madras Act I of 1902, are not binding on the estate. Under that Act, as amended, suits by and against a ward are to be in the name of the ward but the conduct of the suit is with the manager appointed by the Court of Wards acting as guardian ad litem. Defendants Nos. 2 to 22 are alienees and persons claiming under them. Defendant No. 23 denies the plaintiff's pedigree and claims to be the next reversioner, and has brought a similar suit (Original Suit No. 26 of 1912) to declare the alienations of the properties mentioned ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Dec-16-1916
Reported in : (1917)32MLJ213
Wallis, C.J.1. We think that Sadasook (Gambir Chund v. Kannayya I.L.R. (1895) M. 96, and Srinivasa Charlu v. Balaji Rau I.L.R. (1896) M. 232, were rightly decided, and should in any case be allowed as they are decisions on a point of practice which have now stood for many years, and their reversal must seriously affect the settled practice of the court. In Calcutta, Sale, J. was clearly of the same opinion in Sasoon v. Hurrey Das Bhukut I.L.R. (1896) C. 455, and it has since been treated as settled law. Johan Smidt v. Ram Prasad I.L.R. (1911) C. 425. Dealing with the question in the reference, we think that in the cases to which we have been referred in Bombay and in this Court Behram v. Ardeshir I.L.R. (1903) B. 563, Bapuji v. Dastur : (1906)8BOMLR678 and V. Ramasamy Aiyar v. The Madras Times Limited (1915) 30 M.L.J. 207 attention was not sufficiently called to the corresponding changes in the County Courts Act from the first of which the provision as to new trials were taken. As is w...
Tag this Judgment!