Chennai Court December 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.
Veerabadran Achari and anr. Vs. Suppiah Achari and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.477
1. This is a suit relating to certain lands alleged to form part of the emoluments belonging to the office of carpenter in certain villages. The lower Courts have held that the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts is barred under Section 21 of Act fit of 1895. Section 21 states that no Civil Courts shall have authority to take into consideration or decide any claim to succeed to any office specified in Section 3 etc.2. The question is, whether this is an office specified in Section 3. Section 3 of the Act enumerates four classes. Clause 3 speaks of other hereditary village offices in proprietary estates except the offices forming class 4 below. Class 4 no doubt deals with hereditary offices of village artisans and village servants such as the village carpenter. But we must construe Clause 3 and Clause 4 together, and if in class 3 we find that in the case of hereditary village offices in proprietary estates the offices named in class 4 are excepted, we must construe Clause (4) to mean that...
B. Chengalroya Chetty and W. Ragavulu Chetty Adjudicated Insolvents Ya ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.347
Arnold White, C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order by the Commissioner in Insolvency directing that a sum of Rs. 900 and odd, now in the hands of the appellant, be paid over to the Official Assignee of the Estate of the two insolvents. The facts are these: The judgment-creditor, for whom Mr. Napier appeared, obtained a decree in: the Presidency Small Cause Court against the insolvents and on the 4th June 1908, an interim order of attachment; was made with regard to certain monies which were owing by a Mr. Lewin, who carried oil business as the Madras Sales Agency Co., to the insolvents. On June 10th the vesting order was made. On June 25th, the order for attachment which had been obtained, by the judgment-creditor was made absolute. On June 30th, an order was made that the money owing by Mr. Lewin to the insolvents should be paid into Court. On the 8th August, there was an application for execution. There was a further order on an application made to the Chief Judge with reference to...
Ekkanatha Eachara Unni Valia Kaimal and anr. Vs. Manakkat Vasunni Elay ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.774
Arnold White, C.J.1. The main defence in the suit was that Exhibit B, which is an arrangement which was entered into by the 1st defendant's predecessor-in-office as Karnavan of the tarwad and the plaintiff's predecessor-in-interest, had been revoked. The District Judge finds that it has not been revoked. This is a question of fact which is binding on us in second appeal.2. Then, on behalf of the appellant, it was argued that Exhibit B is not binding on him as the successor-in-office of the man by whom the agreement was entered into I feel some doubt as to whether we should allow this point to be raised before us at all, because the judgment of the learned District Judge, as I read it, strongly suggests that the point was never taken before him. The learned Judge refers to the fact in the 4th paragraph. The first defendant's Vakil supports the decree on the ground that the suit should be dismissed on the first issue, i.e., non-joinder. But it does not say that any decision took place be...
Sri Venkatachellapathy Sabyya Vyavasaya Co. by Its President, S.R. Ven ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1909
Reported in: (1910)20MLJ146
Arnold White, Kt., C.J.1. This is a petition under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, against the decision of the Subordinate Judge of Tuticorin on the preliminary objection that the suit being one ' relating to a trust ' within the meaning of Article 18 of the Second Schedule to the Act, it was not triable on the Small Cause side of the Court. The Subordinate Judge allowed the preliminary objection.2. The suit is by a limited liability company brought in the name of the ' President ' of the company, for ' subscriptions ' alleged to be due to the company under its articles of association and rules, from defendants Nos. 2 to 4 as members of the company.3. Defendants Nos. 2 to 4 are described in the plaint as the trustees of a 'Dharmam' or charitable trust, the trust itself being the 1st defendant. The claim is made against the defendants Nos. 2 to 4, as trustees, and alternatively in their private capacity. The plaintiff asks for payment of the amount claimed fro...
Perammal Vs. Ramanuja Naicken
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1909
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.858
1. We are of opinion that the so-called compromise in Suits Nos. 496 and 497 of 1889 is not binding on the reversioner. Subbammal v. Avudaiyammal 30 M.k 3 is not in point. Since there the widow was the defendant and the decree was on a claim binding on the inheritance, and there was a question of doubt which was settled by the compromise. The appellant is not entitled to raise the question of partition between father and son. The Munsif's finding on this question was against her and she apparently did not rely on the partition before the Subordinate Judge. At any rate there is no ground of appeal with regard to this.2. The second appeal is dismissed with costs....
Vasha Kuthiyakath Uduman Hajee and ors. Vs. Ashi Kalakath Mamikutti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.120
1. We do not think that the view taken by the District Judge is correct. The 1st appellant was one of the joint decree-holders and claimed to have an assignment from some of the others and alleged that the rest refused to join him and he, therefore, made them defendants. It is difficult to see how he could have proceeded; with a view to obtain the fruits of his decree otherwise than in the way he did. The fact that he failed to prove the validity of the assignment, does not, in our opinion, show, that his application was not in accordance with law.2. Sreepada Brahmayya Pantulu v. Parasuramayya 12 M.L.J. 348.3. We must, therefore, set aside the order of the learned District Judge and restore that of the District Munsif with costs in this and in the lower appellate Court....
Sabbiah Mudeliar Vs. Seshappier
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.422
1. The question raised is one of some difficulty, but we must hold that Section 70 of the Contract Act has no application to the facts of this case. The plaintiff did not even know that he was making payment of revenue for lands which belonged to the defendant, nor was the defendant bound to pay the revenue as he was not the pattadar Boja Sellappa Reddy v. Vrithachala Reddy 30 M.k 35. It cannot, therefore be said that the plaintiff made the payment for the defendant Amman Ammal v. Naiun Pillai Markayar 9 M.L.J. 489. In the case referred to by the District Judge, The Rajah of Venkatagiri v. Vudutha Subbarayudu 30 M.k 277 the zemindar did an act for the inamdirs, not intending to do it gratuitously, and the inamdars enjoyed the benefit, so that Section 70 was clearly applicable. As Section 70 is inapplicable to the present case, there was m ground for the remand. We allow this appeal, set aside the decree of the District Judge and restore that of the District Munsif with costs in this an...
Minakshi Ammal Vs. Visvanatha Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1909
Reported in: (1910)20MLJ339
Arnold White, C.J.1. In this case one Sub-bier and one Sesha Amtnal who were the father and the mother of the defendant in the suit and the grandfather and grandmother of the plaintiff (the plaintiff being the son of the defendant) made a joint will in December 1897.2. In the year 1899 the testator died. In the year 1904 the testatrix executed a gift to her daughter, the defendant, of the amount which the plaintiff in the present suit claims he is entitled to recover from the defendant as a legacy bequeathed to him by the will.3. Now if the testatrix's will is irrevocable, and that is the view taken by the District Judge, the plaintiff is entitled to succeed.4. If, on the other hand, the testatrix's will is ' revocable ' it must be taken that it had been duly revoked or superseded by the gift in 1904 to the defendant and the plaintiff is not entitled to succeed.5. That was the view taken by the District Munsif who dismissed the suit.6. The will is to this effect. It recites that the te...
Abdulla Beary Vs. Mammali Beary and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.87
1. The Courts below have given a decree to the plaintiff for the purchase money of certain property conveyed by him to the defendant on the liability of the properties conveyed. Exhibit A, dated the 22nd of January 1894, is the conveyance executed by the plaintiff. The price is fixed thereby at Rs. 1,650. It is stated to be kept with the purchaser in consideration of an agreement by him to discharge certain liabilities of the plaintiff. It is further stipulated that the money so reserved with the purchaser should be paid to the respective persons to whom the plaintiff was liable within eight days from the date of the sale and that the purchaser should, in default of payment, be liable for interest due to them from the date of sale and any damages resulting from such default. The defendant (the purchaser) having' made default in payment, the plaintiff is entitled to sue for damages for the breach of contract. The Courts below have treated the suit as one for the purchase money. They hav...
T.M. Mohamed Esuf Vs. B.M. Rajaratnam Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.712a
Arnold White, C.J.1. This appeal has been strenuously argued by Mr. Govindaraghava Aiyar. I see no reason to quarrel with his statement of law with regard to the question we have to determine. I think it may be said to be now well settled that a dealer in, or a manufacturer of a particular article who adopts a name for that article, whether the name be a purely fancy name or a descriptive name, cannot restrain another dealer from using the same name simply upon the ground chat the article so named has acquired a reputation, even though it may be that the public have grown accustomed to buy the article in question only relying on the name and without examining the quality of the article. For a man to be entitled to restrain another from using a particular name with reference to a commodity he must, I think as the law stands, be in a position to show that the public have grown to associate that particular name with himself as the manufacturer of, or dealer in, the article. I do not know ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »