Chennai Court September 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.
Asha Bibi Vs. P.N. Kadir Ibrahim Rowther
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-03-1909
Reported in: (1910)20MLJ1
1. One of the defences of the appellant as defendant in a suit for restitution of conjugal rights was that she had been divorced in the irrevocable form by the respondent (plaintiff in the suit) by pronouncement of Talak three times on the 9th January 1906 that is, sometime before the institution of the suit The District Munsif believed the evidence adduced on behalf of the defendant, on the point, but the District Judge in appeal did not come to a finding on the question whether Talak was in fact pronounced as alleged, but, being of opinion that the words of repudiation must be addressed to the wife, held that as in the pre- sent case Talak is not shewn to have been addressed to the defendant it would not be effective to dissolve the marriage. We have considered the evidence as to repudiation for ourselves and we think that the Munsif's conclusion that the respondent pronounced Talak three times is supported by evidence and the probabilities of the case. The words which the respondent...
Natesan Chetti Alias Chidambaram Chetty and anr. Vs. Vengu Nachiar,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-03-1909
Reported in: (1910)20MLJ20
1. In these suits the plaintiffs seek to recover rent alleged to be due to them, respectively, under a compromise entered into between themselves, on the one hand, and their sister and the defendants' father, on the other, in O.S. No. 18 of 1901, on the file of the Subordinate Court of Madura, East. The plaintiffs in these suits and their sister are the daughters of the late Rajah of Sivaganga. The Rajah granted a permanent lease of six villages to his wife, and his wife in turn leased 5 of the 6 villages to the European lessees to whom the Rajah had leased the bulk of the Zemindari and who are commonly known as the Sivaganga lessees. As stated in the plaint filed by the defendants' father in O.S. No. 18, the Sivaganga lessees paid her the rent for six faslies or Rs. 60,000 in advance in 1891. The plaintiffs' mother died in 1892, and in 1900 her youngest daughter, the present plaintiffs' sister, claimed to succeed to the six villages as heiress to her mother and to the exclusion of her...
V.A.R. Arunachellam Chettyar and ors. Vs. V. Subramanya Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-03-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.407
1. We are unable to agree with the Judge that the suit against the respondent is barred by limitation. Ex. 0 is relied on as an acknowledgment by 1st defendant. It is dated 15th July 1906 and it calculates interest due up to 16th July, the date following. It implies that there was a debt subsisting on that date for which interest was payable. That the 1st defendant so understood it is clear from his own deposition. He says When I signed Ex. C my idea was that I was signing an entry in the book as to interest and that I was liable for interest on an existing note.' This shows that the respondent understood it in the sense which we have indicated. We must, therefore, reverse the decree so far as the 1st defendant is concerned and pass a decree for the amount against him also. The decree will be modified accordingly. The appellant is entitled to his costs....
Natesan Chetty Alias Chidambaram Chetty and ors. Vs. Vengu Nachiar,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-03-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.701
1. In these suits the plaintiffs seek to recover rent alleged to be due to them respectively under a compromise entered into between themselves on the one hand and their sister and the defendant's father on the other in Original Suit No. 18 of 1901, on the file of the Subordinate Court of Madura East. The plaintiffs in these suits and their sisters are the daughters of the late Rajah of Sivaganga. The Rajah granted a permanent lease of six villages to his wife, and his wife in turn leased 5 of the 6 villages to the European lessees to whom the Rajah had leased the bulk of the zamindari and who are commonly known as the Sivaganga lessees.2. As stated in plaint, filed by the defendant's father in Original Suit No. 18, the Sivaganga lessees paid her the rent for six faslis or Rs. 60,000 in advance in 1891. The plaintiff's' mother died in 1892 and in 1900, her youngest daughter, the present plaintiffs' sister, claimed to succeed to the six villages as heiress to her mother and to the exclu...
Asha Bibi Vs. Kadir Ibrahim Rowther
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-03-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.730
1. One of the defences of the appellant as defendant in a suit for restitution of conjugal rights was that she had been divorced in the irrevocable form by the respondent (plaintiff in the suit) by pronouncement of talak three times on the 9th January 1906, that is sometime before the institution of the suit. The District Munsif believed the evidence adduced on behalf of the defendant on the point but the District' Judge in appeal did not come to a finding on the question whether talak was in fact pronounced as alleged but being of opinion that the words of repudiation mast be addressed to the wife held that as in the present case talak is not shewn to have been addressed to the defendant it would not be effective to dissolve the marriage. We have considered the evidence as to repudiation for ourselves and we think that the Munsif's conclusion that the respondent pronounced talak three times is supported by evidence and the probabilities of the case. The words which the respondent actu...
Muthiah Chetty and ors. Vs. Peyandi thevan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-03-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.1063
Miller, J.1. The pattas contain the dates on which payments of rent are to be made, though they do not contain a statement of the amount payable on each of those dates. They were tendered late in the Fasli after the last of the date was past and there is, therefore, nothing in the omission which can in any way mislead the tenant or injure him and nothing which introduces any uncertainty into the contract for the year. On the other hand, the tenant is, it may be, benefitted by having the use of his money till the end of the Fasli.2. Section 4 of the Rent Recovery Act does not in terms require the entry in the patta of the amount payable, at each period on which payment is to be made, but it may be that nevertheless a patta ought to be held to be improper, if it does not give the tenant the necessary information on this point when such information is essential to enable him to know what he has to pay. In the present case the whole rent was due before the patta was tendered and such infor...
Gnanamuthu Udayan and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.434
Miller, J.1. It was for the appellants to show that they acted in the exercise of the right of private defence and did not exceed their rights in this, and it is quite clear that they did not satisfy either Magistrate on the point. According to Dorasami Naidu v. Emperor 4 Cri. L.J. 498 the orders made by the Appellate Magistrate for the taking of security to keep the peace are illegal, and I am bound by that decision. I, therefore, set aside the orders made under Section 106, Criminal Procedure Code, and I do not interfere further....
T. Seshadri Iyengar Vs. C. Ramanuja Iyengar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.96
1. Exhibit A is found to have been executed in view of the contemplated dissolution of partnership between the defendant and Dorasawmy Iyengar. The partnership was not dissolved.2. The plaintiff was not credited with the amount of Rs. 430 in the account books, nor was the deed executed by the defendant as agreed, and the parties knew that the plaintiff had not obtained any lease from the Municipality. In these circumstances we are unable to say that the Judge is wrong in holding that there was any completed agreement.3. The appeal is dismissed with costs....
Ganapathy Mudaly and ors. Vs. O. Munisawmy Mudaly
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.754a
1. The suit is brought to recover the amount due, Rs. 582-0-0 on two promissory-notes executed by the defendant's father and in default of payment for the sale of certain properties, the title-deeds whereof were deposited with the plaintiffs as security by way of equitable mortgage. The execution of the promissory-notes is not denied and the finding of the City Civil Judge that the discharge alleged has not been proved, is not disputed before us. We agree with the City Civil Judge that the title-deeds were deposited with the plaintiff as security. They are produced by the plaintiff. The defendant's explanation that he got them by fraud and in collusion with Varadaraja Mudaliar is not supported by reliable evidence. No weight can be attached to the statement of Varadaraja Mudaliar that D. 1 and D. 2 were never given to him. ft was then argued before us that as Exhibit A, dated the 1st December 1904, is admitted to be a renewal of a prior promissory-note, dated the 1st January 1889, it i...
Vencatramaniah Vs. Venkatachinulu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-01-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.444
Abdur Rahim, J.1. In this case what was transferred was not the whole maintenance decree, but only that portion of it which related to the arrears of maintenance that had already accrued due, that being the only portion of the decree which could be transferred. The question is, whether the transfer should be recognised by the Court under Section 232, Civil Procedure Code. It is contended that transfers contemplated under Section 232, Civil Procedure Code, are transfers of the whole decree, and that transfer of a portion cannot be recognised. Kishote Chand Bhakat v. Gisburne and Co. 17 C.v 341 which was approved in Muthttnarayana Reddi v. Balkrishna Reddi 19 M.k 306 is against this view, and we are prepared to follow it. The transfer then may be recognised if the Court thinks the case is a proper one. We see no reason in this case why the transfer should not be recognised. The transfer is of all the arrears due up to the date of the transfer, and it is not shown that the judgment-debtor...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »