Chennai Court November 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.
Selamban Chetty Vs. Ramanadhan Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.301a
1. The decree was passed on the 12th October 1905. The respondent applied for a copy of the decree on the 18th October and obtained it on the 19th December. He then applied for a copy of the judgment on the 22nd December and obtained it on the 16th February 1906. The appeal was filed on the 3rd March and the question is whether the appeal to the lower appellate Court was barred under Article 152 of Schedule II of the Limitation Act of 1877. The Subordinate Judge has held that under Section 12 the respondent is entitled to a deduction of the time between the 18th October and the 19th December and the further time between the 22nd December and the 16th February and he relies upon the decision in Raman Chetty v. Kadirvelu 8 M.L.J. 148. This decision no doubt supports the Judge's conclusion though in that case the later application was made before the copy of the record first applied for was ready and a portion of the time in obtaining one record formed, a part of the time in obtaining the...
Subraveti Ramiah Vs. Gundala Ramanni
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.1080
1. The question in this case is whether Article 139 or Articles 144 of the Limitation Act applies Kondanna the father of defendants Nos. 3 and 4 was a lessee under Exhibit A which was a lease for a term certain. It is found by the District Judge that the lease was determined about the year 1891. It appears Kondanna died some time afterwards. It is not found exactly when. But he was succeeded by his sons in the possession of the property. The District Judge does not find adverse possession for 12 years to bar the suit. The tenancy having determined in 1891, if Article 139 is applicable the suit is clearly barred. The appellant argues that the suit is not one to recover possession from a tenant. It is urged that although Kondanna was a tenant and a suit against him after the determination of the tenancy might be described as a suit against a tenant on account of his former tenancy, the suit against the sons cannot be described as one to recover possession from a tenant for they were not ...
Subramania Iyer Vs. Vengappa Reddi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.1083a
1. Property purchased by the plaintiffs from the defendant was attached before judgment in a suit instituted by a third party for recovery of a debt due by the defendant. The plaintiffs paid the money and sued for its recovery. The question is whether the plaintiffs were interested in the payment of the money' within the meaning of Section 69 of the Contract Act. In his notes to Section 69, Sir Frederick Pollock says: 'The words 'interested in the payment of money which another is bound by law to pay' might include the apprehension of any kind of loss or inconvenience or at any rate of any detriment capable of being assessed in money.' In Tulsha Kunwar v. Jageshar Prashad (1906) 114 A.L.J. 372. the Allahabad High Court, in a case of attachment of movables belonging to the plaintiff for the revenue due by the defendant, held that the plaintiff was interested in the payment for the release of the goods attached and was entitled to be reimbursed by the defendant. It may be said that mere ...
Mari Veetil Chattu Nair and ors. Vs. Mari Veetil Mulamparol and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1909
Reported in: (1910)20MLJ86
1. It is found by the Courts below that the plaintiffs constituted the members of the Tavazhi tarwad of Mulamparol and that they are entitled to the kanom amount in deposit. It is contended for the defendants that this finding is not correct. The decision in Korott Amman Kutti v. Perunjottil Appti Nambiyar I.L.R. (1881) M. 141 is cited as opposed to the view of the lower Courts. It was there held by Moore and Sankaran Nair JJ., 'that when a female and some of, or all, her children obtain any property from their father or Karnavan they are not thereby constituted into a tarwad by themselves, the senior member among them having the ordinary rights of the Karnavan of a Malabar Tarwad so far as the other members in his branch are concerned.' This view has been adopted in A.S. No. 59 of 1905. All that these cases can be said to decide is that the mere circumstance of such a gift without more is insufficient to create a Tavazhi Tarwad. But whereas in this case there is the gift of property i...
R. Gopalakrishna Iyer Vs. D. Gopalakrishna Iyer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.420
Abdur Rahim, J.1. This second appeal is preferred by the plaintiff in a suit which he instituted in the Tinnevelly Subordinate Judge's Court to recover Rs. 3,200 consisting of principal (Rs. 3,000) and interest (Rs. 200) from six defendants of whom defendants Nos. 1, 3 and 6 are respondents before us and the question with which we are concerned relates to their liability. The sum of Rs. 3,000 was due on account of advances made from time to time by the plaintiff to defendants Nos. 1 and 3 who on the 19th November, 1902, executed a hypothecation deed (Exhibit--A) in favour of the plaintiff, by which they hypothecated the money due to them both from the S.I.R. Co., the 6th defendant in the case, on account of certain work done by them for the Railway Company in what is called the 1st Division and also the amount due to the 1st defendant alone from the same Railway Company for works done by him on the 2nd Division of the line. On the same date as the deed of hypothecation the 1st defendan...
Chandramathi Ammal Vs. C.S. Narayanasami Iyer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.23
1. This case has had an unfortunate history. On the 16th June 1904, time was given to the plaintiff to produce his evidence and the suit adjourned to the 25th of June. On that date the plaintiff was absent and as noted in the diary his Vakil stated he had no instructions. This according to the authorities clearly constituted a default in appearance. See Soondarlal v. Goorprasad 23 B.k 414, Ramanuja Reddiar v. Ramaswami Aiyangar 18 M.L.J. 51 Lalta Prasad v. Nand Kishore 22 A.j 66 and Mariannissa v. Ram Kalpa Gorain 34 C.xx 235. The District Munsif, instead of dealing with the case under Section 157 of the Code, decided the suit under Section 158, against the plaintiff on the issues raised. The plaintiff who had been ill for some days having died two days after the disposal of the suit his representative treating the Munsif's judgment as under Sections 102 and 157 applied for restoration of the suit under Section 103. The Munsif ordered it on terms. The defendants applied to the High Cou...
Mari Veelil Chathu Nair and ors. Vs. Mari Veelil Mulamparal Sekharam N ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.143
1. It is found by the Court below that the plaintiffs. constituted the members of the tavashi tarwad of Mulamparal and that they are entitled to the kanom amount in deposit. It is contended for the defendants that this finding is not correct. The decision in Korath Amman Kutti v. Perangottil Appu Nambiar 39 M. 322, is cited as opposed to the view of the lower Courts. It was there held by Moore and Sankaran Nair, JJ.: 'that when a female and some of or all, her children obtain any property from their father or Karnavan they are not thereby constituted into a tarwad by themselves, the senior member among them having the ordinary rights of the Karnavan of a Malabar tarwad so far as the other members in his branch are concerned.' This view has been adopted in Appeal Suit No. 59 of 1905. All that these cases can be said to decide is that the mere circumstance of such a gift without more is insufficient to create a tavashi Tarwad. But where, as in this case, there is the gift of property, en...
A. Gopala Iyer Vs. Ramaswami Sastrial
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-1909
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ153
1. Exhibit E purports to be a transfer by Sundari Ammal to the plaintiff of a right to sue for damages for breach of contract between Sundari Ammal and the defendant (Exhibit A), the breach of the contract having occurred prior to 11 the execution of Ex. E. It seems to us that this is a mere right to sue within the meaning of Section 6(e) of the Transfer of Property Act, and consequently could not be transferred. On this point we agree with the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Ali Mahommad v. S.C. Chander I.L.R. (1909) C. 345. We are of opinion that even prior to the amendment of the Transfer of Property Act, a mere right to sue for damages for breach of contract was not asssignable under the common law. The Advocate General has contended that the fact that the debts which the defendant contracted under Ex. E to discharge were debts owing by the plaintiff and that the plaintiff has in fact paid these debts give the plaintiff a right to sue the defendant under Ex. E. We know of no...
Seshu Gurukkal and anr. Vs. Somasundara Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.764
1. The first point argued by the appellants is that the suit is barred by Article 36 of Schedule II of the Limitation Act.2. With regard to this, the defendant's Vakil raises a preliminary objection that the question of limitation was decided by the District Judge when making an order of remand to the District Munsif prior to the final hearing of the appeal and contends that as the appellants did not appeal against the order of remand, it is not open to them now, with reference to Section 591 of the Code of Civil Procedure (1882), to appeal against the decision on the question of limitation. He relies on the decision in Subbalakshmamma v. Venhatarayudu 32 M.k 318. No authority is quoted in that case and it appears to be in conflict with previous decisions of this and of other Courts Subba Sastri v. Balachandra Sastri 18 M.k 421 Savitri v. Ranoji 14 B.k 232, Khorag Prosad Bhagat v. Durdhari Bai 14 A.k 348, Kanto Proshad Hazari v. Jagat Chandra Datta 23 C.k 335. But assuming without deci...
Esa Abbas Sait Vs. Jacob Haroon Sait and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1909
Reported in: (1910)20MLJ291
1. The plaintiff in this case became the owner of the western house through Exhibits B and Bi. The defendants on the other hand became entitled to the eastern house through Exhibits C and D. Both houses originally belonged to one Lazaro. The dispute relates to a lane three feet broad between the two houses, and certain rights claimed by the plaintiff therein. The defendants denied the existence of the lane. This plea has been negatived by the City Civil Judge, and we think his conclusion is perfectly right on the evidence. The plaintiff claimed common ownership in the lane and this question formed the subject of issue I. In his plaint the plaintiff restricted his claim to common enjoyment. It is admitted on the plaintiff's behalf that Lazaro did not convey any interest in the lane to the plaintiff. We must, therefore, uphold the Judge's finding as regards the claim to common ownership. The plaintiff's claim to a right of passage through the lane for his scavenger cannot also be sustain...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »