Chennai Court November 1905 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.
Doraraja Lakshmi Nachiar Vs. Ramachandra Dorai Alias Ponnusami Tevar, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1905
Reported in: (1906)16MLJ5
1. After dealing with the question of the age of the plaintiff their Lordships proceeded as follows:2. behalf of the plaintiff (appellant) it was contended that, assuming the plaintiff to have been born before October 9th, 1880, she was still entitled to redeem the mortgage by the plaintiff's mother of March 13th, 1882, the period of limitation being sixty years. The argument was that the defendants being lawfully in possession under the mortgage of 1882, they were only entitled to prescribe as mortgagees and did not acquire any prescriptive title on the strength of their possession under the sale to them by the plaintiff's husband, on November 22nd, 1886. In the case of Seshamma Shettate v. Chickaya Hegade I.L.R. (1902) 25 M. 507 the law is thus laid down. 'A person who lawfully came into possession of land as tenant from year to year or for a term of years, or as mortgagee, cannot, by setting up during the continuance of such relation, any title adverse to that of the landlord or mor...
Trikkaikkat Madathil Raman Alias Mullapalli Thirumumpu by His Muktiar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-1905
Reported in: (1906)16MLJ48
1. The contract on which the plaintiff sued in the present suit is distinct from that on which he sued in O.S. No. 91 of 1895. In the suit of 1895 the plaintiff included the whole of the claim which he was entitled to make in respect of the alleged cause of action on which he sued (Section 43). His claim in the present suit on the mortgage of 1854 is not a matter which might and ought to have been made a ground of attack in his previous suit on the alleged mortgage of 1860 (Section 13, explanation II).2. There is a very strong body of authority to support this view. The law was exhaustively considered in Ramaswamayyar v. Vythinathayyar I.L.R. (1902) 26 M. 760. We agree with the decision in that case and with the decision in the latter case of Veerana Pillai v. Muthukumara Asari I.L.R. (1898) 22 M. 259 which followed Ramaswamayyar v. Vythinathyyar I.L.R. (1902) 26 M. 760.3. Having regard to the current of authority we do not think the judgment in the case reported in Rangasami Pillai v....
Panchanada Velan Vs. Vaithinatha Sastrial and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-1905
Reported in: (1906)16MLJ63
1. Technically, no doubt, the tenant's appeal ought to have been in both suits, and the proper course for the District Judge to have taken would have been to require the appellant to amend his memorandum of appeal so as to make it an appeal in both suits: but the fact that the tenant only appealed in his own suit and did not prefer an appeal in the landlord's suit, did not preclude the District Judge from deciding upon the merits the questions raised in the appeal which was before him. The subject matter of the litigation in the two suits was the same, the evidence was the same and the two suits were tried together. The reasons for which the tenant's suit was dismissed were the reasons for which judgment was given in favour of the landlord in his (the landlord's) suit.2. We do not think that either under Section 13 of the Civil Procedure Code or on general principles, the doctrine of res judicata has any application to the facts of this case. The doctrine does not apply when, as here, ...
Runga Ayyar Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-1905
Reported in: (1906)ILR29Mad331
ORDER1. We are clearly of opinion that the Court of the Assistant First-class Magistrate in charge of Calicut Division had jurisdiction under Section 476 of the Criminal Procedure Code to direct the prosecution, though the Magistrate who made the order under Section 476 was not the same Magistrate who tried the case. The power is given to the Court, not to the individual Magistrate. Nor does the fact that the complaint was rejected as not properly stamped in any way bar the jurisdiction of the Court. There was no adjudication on the matter. It was not even necessary for the Court to have read the complaint before rejecting it as not properly stamped.2. As the Court of the Assistant First-class Magistrate in charge of Calicut Division had jurisdiction, we have no power to interfere with his order. We may say that we entirely agree with his his opinion that it is to be regretted that the Court did not originally deal with the matter under Section 476 of the Criminal Procedure Code instea...
Kristnam Sooraya and anr. Vs. Pathma Bee and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1905
Reported in: (1906)ILR29Mad151
1. On the facts stated by the District Judge we are of opinion that the suit is sustainable. We are unable to accept the view taken by the learned Judges in the case Kunhiamma v. Kunhunni I.L.R. 16 Mad. 140.2. In our opinion the proviso to Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act does not operate so as to take away from a party against whom an order has been made under Sections 280, 281 or 282 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the special right conferred by Section 28-3 to sue for a declaration of his title in so far as it is affected by the order which he seeks to impeach.3. We think the law on this question was correctly laid down by Muttusami Iyer, J., in his judgment in Ambu v. Ketlilamma I.L.R. 14 Mad. 23....
Chinnam Rajamannar and anr. Vs. Tadikonda Ramachendra Rao and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-1905
Reported in: (1906)ILR29Mad155
1. The will and the codicils upon the construction of which the questions raised in this case depend are not very felicitously drawn, and the number of codicils which have succeeded each other (five in number) add to the difficulty of construing them. A great deal of the judgment of the lower Court was devoted and much of the argument on behalf of the appellants was directed to the construction of paragraphs 13 and 14 of the will. We think it unnecessary to consider this matter as codicil No. 4 is sufficient for the disposal of the main question in the case. The material part of it runs thus : 'Excluding the amount payable to Venkata Krishnayagaru and Subba Lakshmi, and for the abovementioned scholarship of Rs. 6,000, the money payable for the other items shall be debited against and discharged from the profits derived from the business or transactions belonging to Venkannagaru and myself. But it shall not be out of the principal. This will shall be carried out until the boy attains hi...
Krishnan (Minor) by His Next Friend Pathma Parvathi Ammal Vs. Venkatap ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-1905
Reported in: (1906)ILR29Mad318
1. As regards the preliminary objection, we think that it must be over-ruled under the authority of the case of Sah Man Mull v. Kanagasabnathi I.L.R. Mad. 20 followed in Pranal Annee v. Sreeneavsa Mudali C.M.A. Nos. 152 to 156 of 1901.2. On the merits, we think that the decree (in Original Suit No. 5 of 1900) which is attached is essentially a decree for money. The case of Mallikarjuna Sastri v. Narasimha Rao I.L.R. Mad. 412 relied on by the District Munsif has been recently over-ruled by the Full Bench in Vaidhinathasamy Ayyar v. Somasundaram Pilai I.L.R. Mad. 473. It is therefore open to the appellant to set off against the decree in Original Suit No. 5 of 1900 any decree for money which he holds against the decree-holder therein.3. We must therefore set aside the order of the Courts below and remand the petition to the District Munsif for disposal according to law. Costs in this and in the lower Appellate Court will abide and follow the result....
Seetharama Aiyar, Dead and ors., Executors to the Estaes of the Deceas ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-1905
Reported in: (1906)16MLJ33
1. We think that the decision of the District Judge is wrong. The case of Periatambi Udayan v. Vellayya Goundan I.L.R. (1897) 21 m. 409 is exactly in point, and is directly opposed to the view taken by the. District Judge. We think that the view of Section 258, Civil Procedure Code, there taken, is correct. The only case quoted by the District Judge which is, m any way, opposed to this view is Ramayyar v. Ramayyar I.L.R. (1897) 21 M. 356 in which the Courp laid special, stress on the fact that a fraud had been practised on the Court; If this case is to be regarded as in conflict with the decision in Periathambi Udayan v. Vellaya Goundan I.L.R. (1897) 21 M. 409 as to the application of Section 258, C.P.C., to a case like the presenr, we are unable to follow it.2. We set aside the order of the District Judge and restore that of the District Munsif with costs in this and in the lower Appellate Court....
Ganapathy Ayyar and ors. Vs. Chenga Reddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-1905
Reported in: (1906)ILR29Mad312
1. We think that the decision of the District Judge is wrong. The case of Periatambi Udayan v. Vellaya Goundou I.L.R. Mad. 409 is exactly in point, and is directly opposed to the view taken by the District Judge. We think that the view of Section 258, Civil Procedure Code there taken is correct the only case quoted by the District Judge which is in any way opposed to this view is Ramayyar v. Ramayyar I.L.R. Mad. 356, in which the Court laid special strong on the fact that a fraud had been practised on the Court. If that case is to be regarded as in conflict with the decision in Periatambi Udayan v. Vellaya Goundon I.L.R. 21 Mad. 409 as to the application of Section 258 Civil Procedure Code to a case like the present, we are unable to follow it.2. We set aside the order of the District Judge and restore flint of the District Munsif with costs in this and in the lower Appellate Court....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›