Chennai Court October 1909 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.
R.G. Orr and anr. Vs. R.M.M.S.T.Y.O. Chidambaram Chettiar (Since Decea ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-1909
Reported in: (1910)20MLJ36
1. This is an interpleader suit which has been dismissed by the Subordinate Judge as not sustainable in law. The plaintiffs appeal against this dismissal, and we think the appeal is well founded.2. For the purposes of this appeal it is sufficient to state the following facts. The late Zemindar of Shivaganga granted a perpetual lease of certain villages to his wife, Raku Nachiar, in 1887. Subsequently in the same year, he leased to the plaintiffs, for a long term of years, the whole Zemindari excluding the villages already leased to his wife and other relations. In 1889 Raku Nachiar gave a sub-lease of five of her villages to the plaintiffs for 29 years on a rent of Rs. 10,000 a year, and put the plaintiffs in possession receiving the rent in advance up to June 1900. 3. Raku Nachiar died in 1892, leaving her surviving four daughters who are defendants Nos. 3 to 6 and an adopted son. In 1898 the Zamindar died, and his adopted son (7th defendant) became the minor Zamindar. In O.S. No. 18 ...
Kumarasami Chetty Vs. Poosari Sakka Naik and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-1909
Reported in: (1910)20MLJ141
1. The plaintiff alleged he was a mortgagee of the plaint land which was Service Inam, under the 1st defendant from 1832; that it was resumed by the Zamindar in 1898, who granted it to the 1st defendant's son in 1901, who sold it to the plaintiff who remained in possession under the sale deed. It is found that the land belongs to the 1st defendant; that the plaintiff's vendor never acquired any title to convey to the plaintiff. In second appeal it is contended that as the plaintiff is a mortgagee under the 1st defendant who is now found to be the owner, he is entitled to remain in possession as mortgagee. The plaintiff's claim in the plaint was not based on his mortgage right under the 1st defendant. It was inconsistent with it as he alleged that the land became the exclusive property of the 1st defendant's son who sold it to him. He could have become such owner only after the land was freed from the mortgage. He is not, therefore, entitled to any relief for which he has not preyed and...
Corporation of Madras Vs. Masthan Saib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-1909
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ788
Wallis, J.1. This is a suit by the Madras Corporation to recover from the defendant with interest three monthly instalments of a sum of Rs. 16,000 which the defendant agreed to pay to the Corporation for the right of collecting the fees payable under Section 334 of the Madras City Municipal Act, 1904, for licenses to slaughter animals at the Monegar Choultry slaughterhouse during the financial year 1907-08. The defendant raised various defences, and, after the settlement of issues, was allowed to raise a further issue 'whether the contract referred to in the plaint is ultra vires of the Madras Corporation, and, if so, whether the suit is maintainable.' According to the evidence of Captain Ross, the Health Officer of the Corporation, which was not contradicted, the practice has been for the Corporation to have the animals intended for slaughter passed by an employee of the Corporation on admission to the slaughter-house and for the defendant or other lessee of the licensees to attend an...
In Re: Machi Reddi Chinnappa Reddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.37
ORDERMiller, J.1. The pleader when he presented the appeal informed the Magistrate that he was not prepared to argue it but some other pleader would do so and the Magistrate does not question the pleader's good faith. In these circumstances it cannot be said that the Magistrate, when he required the pleader to argue the appeal at once, gave him a reasonable opportunity of being heard in support of it, vide Ramtohal Dusadh v. Emperor (1909) 1 Ind. Cas. 668. The decision rejecting the appeal is set aside and the Magistrate will re-hear it....
R.G. Orr and anr. Vs. R.M.M.S.T.V.E. Chidambaram Chettyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.319
1. This is an interpleader suit which has been dismissed by the Subordinate Judge as not sustainable in law. The plaintiffs' appeal against this dismissal and we think the appeal is well-founded.2. For the purpose of this appeal it is sufficient to state the following facts. The late zamindar of Sivaganga granted perpetual lease of certain villages to his wife, Raku Nachiar in 1887. Subsequently, in the same year, he leased to the plaintiffs, for a long term of years, the whole zamindari, excluding the villages already leased to his wife and other relations. In 1889 Raku Nachiar gave a sub-lease of five of her Villages to the plaintiffs for 29 years on a rent of Rs. 10,000 a year and put the plaintiffs in possession receiving the rent in advance up to June 1900. Raku Nachiar died in 1892, leaving her surviving four daughters, who are defendants Nos. 3 to 6, and an adopted son. In 1898 the zamindar died, and his adopted son (7th defendant) became the minor zamindar. In Original Suit No....
Kundur Chirukandan Vs. Manunath Kandi Chathu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.262
1. The Original Suit No. 199 of 1904 brought by the same plaintiff was dismissed on the ground that the defendants were nut holding under the mortgage then sought to be redeemed and that they were holding under the lease of 1873. The plaintiff now sues on the lease of 1873 and on title. The lower appellate Court has found that the lease of 1873 is not proved. Assuming that the decision that the defendant held under the lease of 1873 is not res judicata, the decision in the suit of 1899 that the plaintiff, was not entitled to recover the land as that suit was one for redemption and the defendants were not holding under the mortgages, cannot obviously be a bar to this suit on title or on the lease. The fact that the plaintiff prayed for relief on title also makes no difference as the Court excluded that question from consideration and treated the suit solely as one for redemption of a specific mortgage. We must, therefore, set aside the decree of the lower appellate Court, direct the Jud...
In Re: Ramasami Servai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.933
ORDERMiller, J.1. The question whether the accused who have been committed to the Court of Sessions were acting in concert with those who have not jet been arrested is, the Sessions Judge opines, obscure; but that does not seem to be a reason for quashing the commitment: nor do I think that the inconvenience, if any, which will be caused by the trial in the Sessions Court of the 2nd accused before the others is of serious importance.2. I will not interfere with the commitment....
Desoo Venkatesa Perumall Chetty Vs. V. Srinivasa Ranga Row Pantulu and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-06-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.306
1. The decree-holder applied for execution, on the 15th February 1896, of his decree which was more than a year old.2. It was necessary to issue notice under Section 248, Civil Procedure Code of 1882. We have now ascertained that no notice was issued and an order for attachment was made on the 19th March 1896. The present application for the transmission of the decree for execution after substituting the appellant's name as transferee on record was made within 12 years from the date of the order. The question whether the application is barred depends upon the meaning to be given It the word 'revived' in Article 180, Schedule II of the Limitation Act. In all the cases cited an order to issue execution after notice to the judgment-debtor has been held to revive a judgment or decree. But we have not been referred to any case in which an order alone without any notice has been held to have that effect. The appellant's pleader argues that the absence of notice under Section 248 of the Code ...
Raman Nair Vs. Nrantha Kunhambu Nair and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-06-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.1076a
1. The appeal in the lower appellate Court having been withdrawn without any hearing, the respondents in the lower appellate Court were not entitled under Section 561 of the Civil Procedure Code of 1882, to take any objection to the decree. Rule 113 of the Rules of Practice does not apply. The decree of the lower appellate Court in so far as it allows the memorandum of objections must be modified. The memorandum of objections in the lower appellate Court must be dismissed without costs. The appellant is entitled to his costs in this second appeal....
Mallapragadu and anr. Vs. Lingam Veera Raghava Row and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-05-1909
Reported in: (1910)20MLJ398
ORDER1. This is an application to the Court to declare his appeal abated so far as the 2nd defendant (appellant) is concerned on the ground that he died in July 1908 and that in September his father and brothers were brought on as his legal representatives, whereas his legal representative was his mother who has not been brought on. We are unable to accept this Contention. The application appears to have been made bona fide by the 3rd defendant who was the father of the deceased 2nd defendant after consulting his vakil and was granted by the Court. In these circumstances we think it cannot be said that there was 'no application made to the Court, within the meaning of Section 366, Old Civil Procedure Code or Order 22, Rule 3, Sub-rule (1)of the New Code, so as to cause the suit to abate. This was laid down by this Court in Musal Reddi v. Ramayya I.L.R. (1899) M. 125. In that case some only of the legal representatives had been brought on the record instead of as here the wrong legal re...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »