Chennai Court December 1910 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.
C. Venkatasubbiah Chetty Vs. C.V. Venugopaul Mudeliar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-1910
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.260
1. The Judge finds that the money was in fact advanced for the purchase of the houses in question. The appellant raises several points of law and contends that the order of the Judge was wrong in law.2. The order was made in the course of summary proceedings, under Section 278 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The evidence shows a prima facie case in favour of the claimant and in an appeal from the order made in summary proceedings, we are not prepared to say the Judge was wrong.3. The appellant has his remedy by way of suit under Order XXI, Rule 63 of Civil Procedure Code of 1908.4. We think the question raised can be dealt with more satisfactorily in a suit brought for the purpose.5. We dismiss the appeal without prejudice to the questions of law raised.6. The costs will be reserved and dealt with at the trial of the suit. The parties will be at liberty to apply for costs should no such suit be instituted....
Velu Pillay Vs. Appasawmi Pandaram and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-1910
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.197a
Wallis, J.1. The award was made on the 27th September 1909, and the decree was passed on the 29th September 1909. Under Rule 16 of Schedule II of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court is empowered to pass the decree after the time for making an application to set aside the award has expired. A period of ten days is allowed for this purpose by Article 158 of the Limitation Act of 1906 whereas the Court allowed only two. The decree is set aside and the case remanded for disposal according to law. Costs will abide the result....
Chellamcherla Kalagayya Alias Sundaramayya Vs. Mummareddi Yanadamma (D ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-1910
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ180
1. The first question argued in this appeal relates to the payments pleaded by defendants Nos. 1 to 3. They form the subject of the 1st issue. We agree with the finding of the District Judge on it.2. The only substantial question in the case relates to the liability of the 6th defendant's share in the mortgaged property. The suit mortgage is dated 6th December 1890. The 6th defendant did not join in the execution, although he had been given a share in it under Exhibit VIII which is dated 7th May 1886. It was not argued before us on behalf of the respondent that the mortgage bound the 6th defendant's interest also, even though he was no party to the document. The ground on which the plaintiff has been given a decree for a portion of the mortgage money against the 6th defendant's interest in the property, is that it was applied in discharge of an earlier mortgage, Exhibit B, dated the 15th of August 1884, which was binding on the whole mortgaged property as it was, anterior to the carvin...
Tellapragada Surya Narayana Rao Vs. Tellapragada Sarabhaiah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-1910
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ263
Charles Arnold White, Kt., C.J.1. The question referred to us appears to assume that an award made in the circumstances stated in the question would not be a valid award. In the course of the argument the question was raised whether, under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, an award made in the circumstances stated would not be valid, notwithstanding the refusal of two of the arbitrators nominated by the parties to act, and the fact that the court had appointed arbitrators in the place of those who had refused to act without the parties 'desiring' (see Section 507 of, the Code of Civil Procedure of 1882) that the nomination of fresh arbitrators should be made by the court. As to this I am not prepared to dissent from the view taken by this Court in Pugardin v. Moidin I.L.R. (1889) M. 414 and Bala Pattabhirama Chetti v. Seetharama Chetti I.L.R. (1882) M. 498, and by the Allahabad High Court in Fayazudin v. Amiruddin (1909) 6 A.L.J. 351 and in Bepin Behary Chowdry v. Annoda P...
Ghulam Ahmed and anr. Vs. Shah Mahomed Yusuf
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-1910
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ450
1. This is a suit by two worshippers who have obtained leave under Section 18 of the Religious Endowments Act to remove the trustee of a mosque and to have another appointed by the court in his stead. The defendant objected to the suit on the ground that no leave had been obtained under Section 539 of the Civil Procedure Code to enable the plaintiff to ask for the appointment of a trustee in place of the trustee asked to be dismissed. There is, no doubt, force in the objection so far as the prayer for the appointment of a new trustee is concerned. But a suit for the removal of a trustee of a mosque may be instituted with the leave of the court under the authority of Section 14 of the Religious Endowments Act itself. Such leave having been obtained by the plaintiffs under Section 18, it was perfectly competent to them to maintain the suit so far as the prayer for the removal of the defendant was concerned. We must set aside the decree of the District Judge and remand the case to the cou...
The Krishna Jute and Cotton Mills Company Limited by their Secretary a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-1910
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ182
Wallis, J.1. My answer to the reference is that in both the cases put the damages must be ascertained with reference to the date provided for the performance of the contract. When before the date fixed for performance of a contract the promisor refuses to perform it, and the promisee rightly rescinds it under Section 39 of the Indian Contract Act, he is under Section 75 entitled to 'compensation for any damage which he has sustained through the non-fulfilment of the contract.' This appears to me to be the section applicable to the present case and I think that non-fulfilment of the contract means non-fulfilment at the date specified in the contract, and that, according to the proper construction of the section, compensation is to be ascertained with reference to that date, and not with reference to the date of the act of refusal which gave rise to the right to rescind. At the hearing of the appeal, however, and also at first on this reference, the case was argued as if the suit was one...
Abbikesava Yanthiar, Manager and Karnavan Op His Tarwad Vs. Vyal Kotal ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-1910
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.156
1. The plaintiff in Original Suit No; 16 of 1905, was the 1st defendant in Original Suit No. 10 of 1905. The judgment that we have just delivered in the other case Pallithara Vayal v. Abli Kesava 9 Ind. Cas, 155, covers the present case also. But some additional arguments were urged on behalf of the plaintiff in this case by Mr. Ananthakrishnier. He contended that so far as his client was concerned, there was no denial in 1875 This statement of his we cannot accept. Exhibit XII shows that the plaintiffs in that case namely, the predecessors of the present 4th and 5th defendants, claimed to be themselves urallars and would not admit the claim of any other person to the uraima. The present 1st defendant was joined subsequently to the institution of the suit as the 2nd defendant in that case. An issue was expressly raised as to whether the then plaintiffs were alone competent to institute that suit, and on that issue the District Munsif stated that it was unnecessary for him to express an...
Yattikutty Rajanna Vs. Sri Rajah Mantri Pragada Bhujanga Row Bahadur G ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-1910
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.160
1. Following the decision of the Frill Bench in Gorekala Kanahaiya v. Janardha Padhai 8 Ind. CAS. 736 : 1 M.W.N. 841 : 9 M.L.T. 64 we reverse the decree of the lower appellate Court and restore the decree of the District Munsif. We allow the plaintiff rent at the rate allowed by the District Munsif for five faslis subsequent to the date of the District Munsif's decree. The parties will bear their own costs throughout....
Tallapragada Suryanaraina Row Vs. Tallapragada Sarabaya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-1910
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.173
Arnold White, C.J.1. The question referred to us appears to assume that an award made in the circumstances stated in the question would not be a valid award. In the course of the argument the question was raised whether, under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, an award made in the circumstances stated would not be valid notwithstanding the refusal of two of the arbitrators nominated by the parties to act, and the fact that the Court had appointed arbitrators in the place of those who had refused to act without the parties desiring' (see Section 507 of the Code of Civil Procedure of 1882) that the nomination of fresh arbitrators should be made by the Court. As to this I am not prepared to dissent from the view taken by this Court in Pugardin v. Moidin 6 M. 414 and Bala Pattabirama Chetti v. Seetharama Chetti 17 M. 498 and by the Allahabad High Court in Fayaz-ud-din v. Amir-ud-din 6 A.L.J. 351 : 1 Ind. Cas and in Bepin Behary Chowdry v. Annoda Prosad Mullick 18 C. 324. In hi...
Bappu Raju and ors. Vs. Kondu Raja and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-1910
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.324
1. The suit in which this appeal arises was instituted by the plaintiff to have it declared that a deed of sale executed by his mother, a Hindu widow, on the 7th of March 1901, is not binding on him and to recover possession of the properties conveyed under the deed to the first defendant. On the date of the sale, the plaintiff was a minor being about 17 years old and Seethiammal, his mother, purported to execute the deed as his guardian. The consideration for the sale is recited as Rs. 9,000 out of which Rs. 260 is stated to have been paid in order to meet demands for rents and costs of certain litigation and the rest of the money is stated to have been paid towards the discharge of certain debts incurred by the husband of Seethiammal and father of the plaintiff, called Kumarasawmi Rajah, who had died in May 1900. The debts specified in the deed of sale consisted of Rs. 1,000 due on otti to one Thangammal, Rs. 2,150 due on a mortgage bond to one Nandaya Kone, Rs. 790 due on another mo...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »