Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1915)ILR38Mad178
Charles Arnold White, C.J.1. The contract; we have to consider no doubt differs in some respects from the ordinary vendor and purchaser contract which was before the Courts in most of the cases which were discussed in the course of the argument in this appeal. The consideration for the contract in question was a sum of Rs. 41,000, of which Rs. 4,000 is stated to have been received by the vendor on the date of the agreement, Rs. 20,000 was to remain on mortgage, and the balance was to be paid on a specified date. If the purchaser failed to carry out the contract, he was to forfeit the Rs. 4,000 advance. If the vendor failed to carry out the contract he was to refund the advance and pay Rs. 4,000. There was a further provision that the vendor should execute the sale-deed before the agreed date either in favour of the purchaser or in favour of the purchaser's nominees. In pursuance of this, the vendor, before the agreed date, sold some of the lands to a nominee of the purchaser.2. I do no...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1914Bom211(2); (1913)15BOMLR593; 20Ind.Cas.492
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. The first question that arises is whether the Court has jurisdiction to entertain this suit which is for restitution of conjugal rights.2. The petitioner is an English woman professing the Christian religion.3. The respondent is a Parsi whose parents reside in Bombay.4. The parties were married in London on the 4th of August 1911.5. On the nth of October in that year they started for India and arrived in Bombay about the end of that month.6. On the 3rd of February 1912, they left Bombay again for London travelling via Marseilles. They arrived at Victoria Station in London, on the 19th of February 1912, where the respondent left the petitioner. He has since refused to live with her though offering her a certain maintenance. It is alleged on affidavit that subsequent to February 1911 he has obtained employment as a commercial traveller on 200 per annum in England.7. On the 8th of March 1912, the petitioner announced her intention of going to India to bring her ca...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 20Ind.Cas.689; (1913)25MLJ205
Sundara Aiyar, J. 1. This is a suit by a landholder in the Zemindary of Sivaganga against a ryot for rent for fasli years 1315,1316 and 1317. The principal contention raised by the defendant so far as they relate to this second appeal are:(1) that the suit is not maintainable as pattas had not been tendered by the land-holder prior to the institution of the suit;(2) that rent for Angami cowle land was payable only at Rs. 6 a Kurukkam and not at Rs. 16 a Kurukkam the rate claimed by the plaintiff;(3) that the defendant was not bound to pay more than Rs. 1-14-0 for all the trees in his holding and;(4) that plaintiff was not entitled to recover the cess known as Chittu Nottam.2. Both the Lower Courts held that, according to the Estates Land Act I of 1908, which was in force at the time of the institution of the suit, tender of patta was not essential to entitle the land-lord to maintain a suit for rent. This question has been already decided by this Court in several cases. See Sri Baja Sa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1914)ILR37Mad483
Sankaran Nair, J.1. The first defendant is the daughter, and defendants Now. 2 and 3 are the sons, of one deceased Venkataratnam, who insured his life for Rs. 2,000 which the Insurance Office agreed to pay to his wife and children. The plaintiff got a decree against Venkataratnam and he claims the insurance money towards the decree, including the Rs. 400 that fell to the first defendant.2. The first question for decision is whether the money insured is protected by the Married Women's Property Act (III of 1874) or whether it is a part of the estate of the deceased. The Judge, following the decision in Oriental Government Security Life Assurance, Ltd., v. Vanteddu Ammiraju I.L.R. (1912) Mad. 162 as he was bound to do, held that the Act did not apply. This is an appeal from that decision.3. It is argued before us that that judgment ought not to be followed, and that the Act is applicable to cases like the one before us. Section 6 of Act III of 1874 runs thus:A policy of insurance effecte...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 24Ind.Cas.507; (1913)25MLJ264
Arnold White, C.J.1. The first question for consideration in this appeal is whether Wallis J.'s finding on the question of estoppel is right.2. The circumstances in which the question has arisen are these:--On the 12th December 1904 there was an agreement (Exhibit B) between the plaintiff and the defendants under which the plaintiff leased to the defendants his interest in a certain business for an amount which had been fixed by the arbitrators. On the same date, for the consideration specified in, Exhibit B the defendants executed in the plaintiff's favor a promissory note for Rs. 30,000 payable by monthly instalments up to April 1906.3. In August 1906 the plaintiff instituted a suit against the defendants in which he asked that the release (Exhibit B) should be set aside on the ground that it had been obtained by fraud. He declined to accept instalments under the pronote after April 1906. Fourteen instalments have not been paid. The plaintiff's suit was dismissed. On appeal the appel...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1914)ILR41Cal173
Jenkins, C.J.1. On the 12th of May 1913 Mr. Lionel Hewitt Colson, Special Superintendent, Intelligence Branch, Criminal Investigation Department, Indian Police Service, filed a petition of complaint in the Court of the Additional Magistrate at Barisal, alleging that one Girindra Mohan Das and 43 others had been guilty of offences under Section 121A of the Indian Penal Code. The Magistrate, Mr. Nelson, examined the complainant on oath, recorded his deposition, and directed certain warrants to issue.2. On the 19th, 20th, 21st, 22nd, 24th, 26th and 30th days of May, articles, it is said, containing comments on the criminal proceeding initiated by this complaint, described as the Barisal Conspiracy Case, were published in a newspaper called the Amrita Bazar Patrika.3. The Government of Bengal, having been advised that the publication of these articles, and each of them, and in particular the leading article of the 22nd May, 1913, constituted serious contempt of Court, the Advocate-General,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1913)25MLJ594
1. This case comes before us, under Section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act for confirmation of a decree for a dissolution of marriage made by a District Judge.2. The petitioner alleged in his petition to the District Judge that the respondent had been living in adultery in his (the petitioner's) house and that she admitted that she was living the life of a prostitute. He also alleged that he did not know any of the persons with whom adultery had been committed and asked to be excused from making the alleged adulterors, co-respondents.3. In the course of the proceedings the learned judge on his own initiative made an order making one Alexander a co-respondent In view of the terms of the petition, and in the absence of any application by the petitioner we do not think the learned judge was called on to do this. In our opinion he was certainly in error in not directing the amendment of the petition so that the allegations against the co-respondent might be stated therein. As the petition st...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1914Mad174; (1915)ILR38Mad997
Ayling, J.1. The suits out of which these Second Appeals arise are all of a similar character. They are brought by various proprietors of land under the Godavari anicut system for a declaration of their right to irrigate their lands with anicut water free of water rate, for an injunction restraining Government from levying water rate under Act VII of 1865, and, except in Second Appeal No. 1774 of 1911, for a refund of the amounts collected.2. The substantial question involved in each is the extent to which Government is bound to allow the irrigation free of water rate. It is not denied that the water used is Government water; the only question is whether Government is bound by an 'engagement' within the meaning of Section 1 of Act VII of 1865 to allow the irrigation free of charge,3. Some of the suits deal with mokhasa villages, others with minor inams, and such may conveniently be treated separately.4. Second Appeals Nos. 1398 to 1401 and 1770 and 1774 of 1911 all arise out of suits r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1913)25MLJ661
Arnold White, C.J.1. I have already dealt with the question whether the learned Judge had jurisdiction to grant the relief which he has given in this suit. The question remains whether his judgment should be upheld. The more important dates are as follow:The defendant is the President of the Theosophical Society and the plaintiff has been a member of the Society since 1882. About the end of 1908 the plaintiff was appointed Assistant Corresponding Secretary of the Esoteric Section of the Society and he and his family took up their residence at the headquarters of the Society, Adyar, in a house which he occupied rent free. In September 1909 he removed his two minor cons, Krishnamoorti and Nityananda from school, and they received gratuitous instruction at Adyar from one Mr. C.W. Leadbeater and others. The boys were then aged about 14 and 11. The defendant first became acquainted with them in December 1909. On the 6th March 1910, the plaintiff signed a letter (Ex. A.) by which he constitu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1914)16BOMLR95
Shaw, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment and order of date the 25th May 1909, which was pronounced by the High Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal, and which affirmed a judgment and order of date the 23rd September 1908, and the 2nd of March 1909, of the District Judge of Gaya.2. The present proceedings were instituted on the 16th of July 1908 by an application which was made by the Collector to the District Court under Section 19H, Clause 4, of Act XI of 1899. Before reading that section it may be stated that the general nature of the application was to declare that no inventory of the estate of the deceased as required by law had been filed, and that the appellant was not willing to amend the valuation of the estate to the satisfaction of the Collector.3. In the defence lodged to those proceedings, this declinature and inability were reaffirmed by the appellant, and accordingly the proceedings have taken their course.4. The section of the Act of 1899 to which particular...
Tag this Judgment!