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.
Esa Abbas Sait Vs. Jacob Harron Sait and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.425
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 (1). 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...
S. Sundaram Aiyar Vs. Ramasawmi Iyer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.762
1. We Lave no doubt that the lease was executed by the first defendant on behalf of the family. He admits his grandfather enjoyed these lands as lessee for 8 years; after him his father held the same as lessee for 6 or 7 years. His lease was granted on the 17th June 1899 and it was only registered with the security bond executed by him and his father for himself and as (sic) for his two other minor sons. It is (sic) the security bond would have been executed if the lease was not taken on behalf of the family. We, therefore, accept the evidence of the plaintiff's 2nd witness who says that the land was taken for the benefit of the family.2. It is also contended that there was no issue on this question. Though there is no specific issue, the 6th issue raises the question. No objection was taken to the reception of the plaintiff's evidence on this point and evidence was adduced in reply. As the lease was taken for the benefit of the family, the father, for, himself and the minor sons, and ...
Kutti Ali's wife Achumma and Anr. Vs. Elychan Edathil Karnavan and Man ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1909
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.290
1. The plaintiffs practically allege a covenant for quiet enjoyment and breach of it by the defendant. If it be so found, this circumstance takes the case out of the authority of Mammikutti v. Puzhakkal Edoun 29 M.K 353. The plaintiffs would be entitled to sue within 3 years of the breach under Article 15 of the 1st Schedule of the Indian Limitation Act. We reverse the decree of the District Judge and remand the case for disposal according to law. The costs will abide and follow the result....
G. Narayanaswami Naidu Garu, Receiver Vs. Cheilapalli Hanumannah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-1909
Reported in: (1910)20MLJ326
1. In the face of the specific instructions contained in Exhibits E and E the defendant had no business to appropriate the amounts realized in execution of the Small Cause decree towards his dues in other cases conducted by him, even if we are to assume a previous course of practice according to which it was usual to make such appropriations. It is not suggested that these instructions were subsequently cancelled or varied. The cases cited by Mr. Tiruvengatachariar are good authority for the position that a solicitor has no right of retainer in moneys realized by him in one cause for his dues in other causes conducted by him. See Bozen v. Bolland (1839) 18 R.R. 121 Hall v. Laver (1842) 66 E.R. 1158 : 1 Hare 571 Mackenzie v. Mackintosh (1891) 64 I.T. 706 pleader in India has no higher rights. Section 217 of the Contract Act does not help the defendant. We must, therefore, reverse the decrees of the Courts below. The plaintiff will have a decree for Rs. 556-14-4 with interest at 6 per ce...
G. Narainsawmy Naidu Garu, Receiver, Nidadavole Estate Vs. Chellapalli ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.398
1. In the face of the specific instructions contained in Exhibits E and F, the defendant had no business to appropriate the amounts realised in execution of the small cause decree towards his dues in other cases conducted by him, even if we are to assume a previous course of practice according to which it was usual to make such appropriations. It is not suggested that these instructions were subsequently cancelled or varied. The cases cited by Mr. Thiruvengadacharyar are good authority for the position that a solicitor has no right of retainer in monies realised by him in one cause for his dues in others causes conducted by him. See Bazan v. Bolland, 48 R.R. 121 Mackenzie v. Mackintosh 64 L.T.N.S. 706. A pleader in India has no larger rights. Section 217 of the Contract Act does not help the defendant. We must, therefore, reverse the decrees of the Courts below. The plaintiff will have a decree for Rs. 556-14-4 with interest at 6 per cent. from the 1st June, 1903, to this date with fur...
Koti Vencatramiah Vs. the Official Assignee of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.202
1. The facts upon which this case has to be decided are those set out in the appellant's affidavit which is not contradicted. It appears, therefore, that the appellant had a fixed deposit with Arbutbnot & Co., that, on the 8th October 1906 he asked Arbuthnot & Co. by letter to send the amount due under the deposit to one Narasimha Row, that on the 16th October Arbuthnot & Co. replied that the deposit would mature on the 16th October and that on that date they would deal with the amount due in accordance with the appellant's instructions of the 8th October, that on the 16th October Arbuthnot & Co. sent to Narasimha Row a money order for Rs. 4-7-0 and the first halves of currency notes for the balance of Rs. 4,930, that on receiving the halves Narasimha Row on the 20th October acknowledged receipt to Arbuthnot & Co., and asked them to send the second halves, that Arbuthnot & Co. became insolvent and the second halves were not sent and that the Official Assignee refused to hand over the S...
Aravamuthu Iyengar Vs. Kumarasawmi Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.490
1. Having heard the appeal on the merits, we find it unnecessary to express any opinion on the preliminary objection that no appeal lies.2. Rightly or wrongly the second mortgagee has obtained a decree for sale subject to the prior mortgage and we are unable to construe that decree as compelling the decree-holder to redeem the prior mortgage before taking steps to sell the property. The prior mortgagee was in possession not as mortgagee but as mortgagor (i.e.,) by virtue of his private purchase of the equity of redemption, and his right to possession as mortgagor passed by the sale to the plaintiff. The decision in Kasinatha Iyer v. Uthumansa Rowthan 25 M.k 529 proceeds on the construction of the decree in that case, and the case in Manavikraman Ettam Thamburan v. Ammu 24 M.k 471 depends on a consideration of the respective rights of the prior and puisne mortgagees: in the present case we are unable to go behind the decree which has determined the rights of the parties, and as we const...
Chockanada Gownden Vs. Salambura Gownden
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.132
ORDER1. We think the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to acquit the accused at the instance of the Acting Inspector, Aiya Ayyer, seeing that it is not shown that that officer was permitted, under Section 495 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to conduct the prosecution. All that he is shown to have done was to present himself before the Magistrate and ask for the withdrawal of the case. We set aside the acquittal and direct the Magistrate to dispose of the case according to Law....
Shuppu Ammal and anr. Vs. K. Subramaniam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.1083
1. We think the Court below are wrong in dismissing the suit altogether. It is true that the 1st plaintiff is not entitled to be paid the sum of Rs. 150 she asks for. But under the claim for further relief she is entitled to such relief as the nature of the case admits of. The lower Courts are not right in saying that the 1st plaintiff is not entitled to sue on Exhibit A. It is true she is no formal party to it. But the executants of the document have given a charge in her favour for Rs. 300 till the money is contributed by both the sons and then it ought to be invested on the security of immovable property in her favour. It is clear that she has a charge for Rs. 300 and that she is entitled to have that amount invested in her favour. The decisions of Rakhmabhai v. Govind Moreshwar 6 Bom. L.R. 421 and Hussain Begam v. Khwoja Muhammad Khan 29 A.c 151. justify an action by her on the ground that she is the beneficiary. But even apart from the relation of trustee and cestui que trust, she...
P. Parvathi Kattilammah and ors. Vs. P. Ramachandra Ejman and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-1909
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.1017
1. In Appeal No. 59 of 1905, the plaintiffs appeal from the decree of the Subordinate Judge dismissing their suit for the removal of the 1st 'defendant from the position of karnavan and for other relief.2. The first question is whether a suit will lie to remove the 1st defendant. Though the Subordinate Judge finds that the plaintiffs and the 1st and 2nd defendants form a separate tavazhi, it is not found and it does not seem to have been alleged by the plaintiffs that their ascendant Lakshmi Kattilamma severed all connection with the Ramath tavazhi of her own tarwad and we have not been shown any evidence to prove that she did so. Therefore, we must take it that it has not been shown that the plaintiffs and the 1st and 2nd defendants form a separate tavazhi or branch tarwad and consequently their group has no karnavan of its own in the strict sense of the word. This follows from the opinion expressed in Koroth Amman Kutti v. Perungottil Appoo Nambiar 29 M.K 322 and it seems clear that ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »