Chennai Court September 1904 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Ramanuja Aiyangar, Minor by His Guardian and Adoptive Mother Seshammal ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1904
Reported in: (1905)15MLJ249
1. In this case a promissory note was executed by the defendant to one Seshammal in September 1897.2. On the 6th August 3903, the present suit was brought by the plaintiff a minor and the adopted son of Seshammal by his next friend Seshammal (his adoptive mother) for the amount of it.3. The Munsif held that as the note was obtained for the minor and with his money the suit was not barred and the minor might sue and gave a decree for the plaintiff.4. On a revision petition to this Court the decree was set aside as the minor was not the holder or payee of the promissory note and he could not be put forward as such to save the bar of limitation which had already run against the payee. This is an appeal from that decision.5. In an unreported case in this Court C.R.P. 578 of 1895 7 L.J.R. 64 it was held that the payee of a note being only a benamidar cannot sue in his own name.6. In February 1897 it was held (Gurumurthi v. Sivayya I.L.R. 21 Mad. 391 that an infant could sue by a next friend...
M. Subraya Chetty Vs. A.S. Rajammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1904
Reported in: (1904)14MLJ482
1. In this case the 1st defendant who is the administratrix of her husband's estate gave the bond required by Section 78 of the Probate and Administration Act and the plaintiff became one of her sureties. The plaintiff brought a suit in which he alleged that the 1st defendant was wasting and mismanaging the estate and he asked that he might be discharged from his recognizances as a surety as regards future transactions on the part of the first defendant or alternatively that the first defendant might be directed to discharge certain specified claims against the estate and complete the administration. The learned Judge dismissed the suit and the plaintiff appeals.2. As regards the plaintiff's first claim for relief that he may be discharged from future liability under his surety bond, we think the learned Judge was right in refusing to make the order asked for. In Williams on Executors, 1893, Vol. I, p. 462, it is laid down that the Court will not discharge the original sureties to an a...
N. Krishnaswami Iyengar Vs. Sivaswami Udayar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-1904
Reported in: (1905)15MLJ449
1. The Advocate-General has argued at length the question of the irregularities referred to by the District Judge as having taken place in the holding of the election. He has also laid great stress upon the members having cancelled the election instead of proceeding to declare the result of: it Having regard to the conclusion we have arrived at with reference to the conduct of the appellant in connection with the election, we do not think it necessary to discuss the matter of the irregularities or to give a decision as to the procedure adopted by the members of the Committee, though, as at present advised, we ought to say they acted altogether beyond the scope of their powers and contrary to their duty in resolving to cancel the election.2. We think that the appellant is not entitled to the declaration sought for by him inasmuch as upon the evidence we hold that he was disqualified to be elected as a member of the Committee with reference to Rule 19 of the rules framed by Government un...
Periya Aiya Alias Muthu Vijaya Raghunatha Pattathu Murugappa Vachamaya ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-1904
Reported in: (1905)15MLJ24
1. The decree of the Sub-Judge cannot be supported. He finds that the agreement relied on by the plaintiff does not bind defendants Nos. 1 to 3 and dismisses the suit as against them.2. Assuming that the defendants Nos. 1 to 3 were not bound by the agreement, the Sub-Judge instead of dismissing the suit should have determined the amount of poruppu and road-cess payable by them The fact that they are liable for some amount for poruppu and road-cess is not denied by them, but only that they are not bound by the agreement.3. All the parties liable to contribute were proper parties to the suit. There was no misjoinder. Therefore the suit should not have been dismissed. We must set aside the decree of the Sub-Judge and remand the appeal for disposal according to law. Costs will abide and follow the event. Fresh evidence may be taken....
Minakshisundaram Pillai Vs. Chockalinga Royer, Minor Through His Mothe ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-1904
Reported in: (1905)15MLJ10
1. We think the decree of the District Judge is right.2. The right to collect the melvaram of certain land was granted as service Inam to the father of the 1st defendant, who mortgaged it to the plaintiff and died. The 1st defendant succeeded him as the Temple servant. The present suit is to recover the mortgage debt by sale of the mortgaged property.3. The question is whether after the death of the mortgagor, whose right to the property ceased with the termination of his service, the mortgaged property can be sold as heritable property because his such has succeeded to duties and emoluments of the office. We think that the remedy against the property mortgaged ceased with the termination of the mortgagor's right to the emoluments and cannot be enforced against the property in the hands of his successor even theugh that successor is his son and inherits the office as such. See Lotlikar v. Wagle I.L.R. 6 B. 596. 4. We, therefore, dismiss the second appeal with costs (two sets-one set fo...
Ammayi Ammal Vs. Rathna Pathan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-1904
Reported in: (1904)14MLJ467
1. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that inasmuch as the prior mortgagee was not a party to the appeal in the lower appellate Court, the appeal should have been dismissed. The contention of the first respondent is that the prior mortgagee was not a necessary party under Section 85 of the Transfer of Property Act, inasmuch as the property mortgaged to the puisne mortgagee was only the equity of redemption, that the word ' property' in Section 85 should be read as 'interest' and therefore the prior mortgagee was not a person interested in the property comprised in the mortgage.2. We are clear, that in this case the actual property was the subject-matter of the mortgage and not merely the equity of redemption and are of opinion that the prior mortgagee was a necessary party to the appeal.3. We, therefore, set aside the decree of the lower appellate Court and direct that the prior mortgagee be trade a party to the appeal and that the appeal be retaken on the file of the lower app...
The Karur Municipal Council Vs. K. Srinivasa Aiyangar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-1904
Reported in: (1904)14MLJ466
1. Upon the findings it seems clear that the plaintiff's suit should have been dismissed. It is found by the District Munsif and also by the District Judge who adopts his findings in effect that the immediate cause of injury to the plaintiff's walls was not the flowing of water into the drain, but the stagnation of the water and sewage let into it by the plaintiff and the conse-quent corrosion and pressure on the walls of the plaintiff's house. The District Judge also says that ' there would have been no stagnation of water had plaintiff, more especially some of his neigh-bours, not let their domestic refuse water into the drain.2. It is, therefore, clearly, found that the plaintiff's damage was contributed to by the plaintiff's own acts and was not caused solely by any acts or omissions on the part of the defendants.3. We, therefore, set aside the decrees of the Courts below and dismiss the plaintiff's suit with costs throughout....
Jagannatha Pandiajiar Vs. T.S. Muthia Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-1904
Reported in: (1904)14MLJ477
1. The plaintiff as the Manager of a Kattalai or service foundation connected with Nelliappa Swami temple in the town of Tinnevelly, sues the committee of a college there for a declaration that the kattalai is entitled to payment of annual rent at Rs. 8-14-0 in respect of 88 cents of land which is in the possession of the committee and on a portion of which they have erected buildings appertaining to the college, as well as for the recovery of 3 years' arrears. The kattalai is admittedly entitled to an inam in the locality mentioned in the plaint, the income thereof being liable to be devoted to the upkeep of the services in the temple. In the extract from the Inam Regiater embodying the results of the enquiry by the lnam Commissioner in 1865, as well as in the title-deed granted in pur-suance of that enquiry, the Inam is described as one of land, 2 acres and 23 cents in extent. The actual occupation of the said land has been with tenants and it is to the melwaram right alone that the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›