Chennai Court March 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.
R.M.M. Ramanadan Chetty and Co. Vs. K.M. Abdul Karim Sahib and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1910
Reported in: (1911)ILR34Mad226
1. In this ease the plaintiffs and the second defendant carried on business as partners, and their claim against the first defendant is a joint-claim as partners. In his written statement the first defendant sets up counter-claims against the members of the partnership individually. Boddam, J., was of opinion that these separate claims could not be set up by way of counter-claim against the joint-claim of the plaintiffs.2. The question turns on the construction of Rule 47 of the original Side Rules. This rule is taken from Order XIX, Rule 3 of the English Rules of the Supreme Court. It was held in Manchester and Sheffield Railway Company v. Brooks (l877)2 Ex. D. 243, that when two or more plaintiffs sue for a joint-claim, the defendant may, under the Judicature Act and Rules, set up as against each individual plaintiff separate counter-claims. The correctness of this decision is questioned in Lindley on Partnership, Edition 7, page 331, but the decision would appear to have been accept...
Raghunatha Mahanty Vs. Damodra Mahanty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.720
1. It is unnecessary to consider in this case whether Govindarazulu Narasimham v. Deverabhatla Venkatanarasayya 27 M. 206, is correctly decided. The money was borrowed for the purpose of the defendant's marriage and the maintenance of, the family. It is found Rs. 600 was borrowed for the marriage and Rs. 150 for maintenance. The plaintiff made due enquiry, and the loan of Rs. 750 is justifiable. The learned Advocate-General does not press the claim as regards the sum of Rs. 250 which is alleged to have gone towards the discharge of Exhibit B. As regards Rs. 150 of the remainder, the fact that the whole of the amount borrowed for maintenance was not applied towards it does not affect the plaintiff's right to recover the full sum lent for maintenance. The District Judge does not say that Rs. 600 was not spent on the marriage. Nor does he find that such a sum was in excess of the status of the defendant. We are unable to hold that the plaintiff cannot recover the entire sum lent for the m...
S. Annaswami Iyer Vs. Zamindar of Ayakudi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.740
Wallis, J.1. This is a suit by the plaintiff, one Annaswami Iyer, against the zamindar of Ayakudi to recover a gum of Rs. 37,500 either as commission on a contract of sale brought about by him of the defendant's mittah, or as damages caused to the plaintiff by the defendant's' wrongful conduct in not completing the sale to the Court of Wards, thereby depriving the plaintiff of the commission to which he would be entitled. Now it is common ground that a contract was entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant first in August 1906, which was afterwards varied as to some of its terms; but by which, as finally settled, the plaintiff, if he effected a sale of the mittah for the zemindar before the end of. December 1906, was entitled to the commission which he claims. According to the final letter, the sale was to be for not less than three and a half lakhs and that the commission, was to be 10 per cent, calculated 'on the amount you settle.' That is Exhibit E. But then Exhibit E mu...
R.M.M. Ramanadan Chetty and Co. and ors. Vs. K.M. Abdul Karim Sahib an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.267a
1. In this case the plaintiffs and the 2nd defendant carried on business as partners, and their claim against the 1st defendant is a joint-claim as partners. In his written statement the 1st defendant sets up counter-claims against the members of the partnership individually. Boddam, J., was of opinion that these separate claims could not be set up by way of counter-claim against the joint claim of the plaintiffs. The question turns on the construction of Rule 47 of the Original Side Rules. This rule is taken from Order XIX, Rule 3, of the English Rules of the Supreme Court. It was held in Manchester and Sheffield Railway Company v. Brooks 2 Ex. D. 243 : 46 L.J. Ex. 244 : 36 L.T. 103 : 25 W.R. 413, that when two or more plaintiffs sue for a joint-claim, the defendant may under the Judicature Act and Rules, set up as against each individual plaintiff separate counter-claims. The correctness of this decision is questioned in Lindley on Partnership, Edition 7, page 331, but the decision w...
Khadersa Hajee Bappu Vs. Puthen Veettil Ayissa Ummah and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1910
Reported in: (1910)20MLJ288
1. We agree with the decision in Umardaraz Ali Khan v. Wilyat Ali Khan I.L.R. (1897) A. 169, where it is held that Article 123 applies only when the suit is for a share of an estate which it is the legal duty of the defendant to distribute. In the case of a Mahomedan dying intestate the estate is at once vested in the heirs as tenants in common and there is no one charged by law with its distribution, and as pointed out in Abdul Khader v. Aishamma I.L.R. (1893) M. 61 it does not appear that in Patcha v. Mohidin I.L.R. (1892) M. 57 or Kasim v. Aishamma I.L.R. (1892) M. 60 there was any contention that the defendant was not the lawful personal representative of the deceased. In Patcha v. Mohidin I.L.R. (1892) M. 57 the question whether Article 123 applied was not discussed or expressly decided but in Kasim v. Ayishamma I.L.R. (1892) M. 60 the learned Judges do apply Article 123 but as we think, wrongly.2. We think the answer to the question referred must be that Article 144 is applicable...
Ummanga and anr. Vs. Appadorai Pattar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1910
Reported in: (1910)20MLJ268
ORDER19. On payment by the 1st respondent to the appellants of the costs of the hearing in the District Court and, of the application to this Court the case will go back to the District Court for fresh findings.20. The findings should be submitted in six weeks from the re-opening of the District Court after recess, and seven days will be allowed for filing objections.21. In compliance with this order, the District Judge submitted the following22. FINDING:--'Certain findings were called for by the High Court on 3-3-1908 and submitted by this Court on 21-4-08. On plaintiff-appellant's affidavit to the effect that in consequence of the case not having been put down for judgment in the cause list of 3-3-1908 he had no information about the order calling for a finding and that consequently the finding happened to be recorded and returned by the District Judge in his absence, the case has been remanded for fresh findings after taking additional evidence. Plaintiff-appellant has again failed ...
Ummanga and Anr. Vs. Ramakrishna Patter's Son Appadorai Patter and Ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1910
Reported in: (1911)ILR34Mad387
ORDER21. On payment by the first respondent to the appellants of the costs of the hearing in the District Court and of the application to this Court the case will go back to the District Court for fresh findings.22. The findings should be submitted in six weeks from the reopening of the District Court after recess, and seven days will be allowed for filing objections.23. In compliance with this order, the District Judge submitted the followingFINDING.--Certain findings were called for by the High Court on 3rd March 1903 and submitted by this Court on 21st April 1908. On plaintiff-appellant's affidavit to the effect that in consequence of the case not having been put down for judgment in the cause list of 3rd March l908 he had no information about the order calling for a finding and that consequently the finding happened to be recorded and returned by the District Judge in his absence, the case has been remanded for fresh findings after taking additional evidence. Plaintiff-appellant ha...
Khadersa Hajee Bappu Vs. Puthen Veettil Ayissa Dmmah and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1910
Reported in: (1911)ILR34Mad511
Benson and Krishnaswami Ayyar, JJ.4. The Full Bench has decided that Article 144 and not Article 123 of the Limitation Act applies. We cannot decide whether on the facts of this case the suit is barred under Article 144. In accordance with the opinion of the Full Bench, we reverse the decree of the lower Appellate Court and remand the case to the District Court for disposal according to law. The costs will be provided for in the revised decree....
Thiagaraja Vs. Rathnasabapathi Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-1910
Reported in: (1910)20MLJ421
Arnold White, C.J.1. In this case I think the finding of the Subordinate Judge on the 5th issue, that the plaintiff's claim is barred by limitation, is right. It is admitted that Chockalingam, who represents one branch of the family, attained his majority more than 3 years before the institution of the suit. The other branch of the family is represented by the plaintiff. It is not admitted by the respondents that the suit was brought within 3 years of the attaining of his majority by the plaintiff. For the purpose of the question of limitation, I assume that he brought the suit within 3 years of his attaining his majority....2. The Advocate-General, on behalf of the appellant, has contended that the effect of the compromise which was entered into between the two branches of the family in connection with Original Suit No. 4 of 1885, was to create a right in severalty in the two branches with reference to this trusteeship and the management of the properties. I do not think that is the e...
Chelakote Rama Kurup Vs. Chelakote Shekara Kurup and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-1910
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ87
1. The suit is to eject defendants Nos. 7 to 9 from possession. They hold the properties sued for, under a mortgage with possession granted by defendants Nos. 1 to 5. Defendants Nos. 1 to 5 are members of the same Tarwad as the plaintiff, and he is the Karnavan. In a former suit, defendants Nos. 1 to 5 and other members of the Tarwad sued as plaintiffs to recover the same properties that are now sued for, from the members of a Tavazhi on the ground that the alienation to the Tavazhi was invalid. The present plaintiff, as the 13th defendant, supported the Tavazhi and also raised the contention that Anandravans could not sue for possession. The claim of the Tavazhi was negatived. The contention that the Anandravans could not claim possession was also overruled. A decree was passed that the plaintiffs were to get possession on behalf of the Tarwad. The plaintiff, who was the 13th defendant in the former suit, bases his suit on the former decree and claims possession as the only person ent...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »