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.
Veerappa Naick and ors. Vs. Muthusami Naick and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1910
Reported in: (1910)20MLJ567
1. The District Judge is wrong in throwing the burden of proof on defendants Nos. 2 and 3. The mortgage was executed by the mother on behalf of her minor sons. The mortgagee is bound to show that it was executed for purposes binding on the minors.2. It is admitted for the 1st respondent that the father's debts were barred at the date of the mortgage. The guardian of the minor son has no authority to bind a minor's estate by seeking to revive them. See Chinnaya v. Gutunath I.L.R. (1882) M. 169 ; Suryanarayana v. Narindra Thatraz I.L.R. (1896) M. 255 ; Sobhanadri Appa Row v. Sriramulu I.L.R. (1894) M. 221 ; Subramania Iyer v. Arumugam Chetty I.L.R. (1903) M. 330.3. We must, therefore, reverse the District Judge's decree and restore that of the District Munsif with costs here and in the lower appellate Court....
Mulinti Virana Gowd Vs. D. Timma Reddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.809a
1. We are not satisfied that there was a subsisting attachment when the defendant purchased. The plaintiff has failed to produce the order of the former Munsif giving reasons for striking off the petition. We cannot hold that an order striking off a petition is always to be understood as having been made only for statistical purposes.2. We dismiss the second appeal with costs....
Chinnasawmi Chettiar and ors. Vs. Collector of Salem and District Boar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1910
Reported in: (1910)20MLJ771
1. We do not think the District Board is liable. The Collector was the person who levied the cess under Section 76 of the Local Boards Act. Following the decision in Harischandra Devu v. President District Board of Ganjam I.L.R. (1900) M. 114, we must hold that the suit was rightly dismissed as against the District Board.2. As regards the suit against the Collector we see no reason to think it is badly framed. The basis of the action is that the Collector acted in excess of his statutory authority. The liability is one which sounds in tort. It is true the plaintiff does not describe the relief claimed as damages for a tort, but as refund of money levied, The money levied is only the measure of the damages sustained. Except in cases of contractual agency there is no question of the liability of the doer of the act charged. It may or may not be according to circumstances that somebody else is liable also as master or principal. We must, therefore, reverse the decrees of the Courts below ...
Arunachala Nadan Vs. Kandasami Pillai and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1910
Reported in: (1910)20MLJ980
1. In this case a conditional order of attachment before judgment of certain property within its jurisdiction was made by the Subordinate Court of Madura, West. Subsequently, before the order was made absolute, the suit was transferred to the Subordinate Court of Madura, East.2. The effect of the transfer was to deprive the Subordinate Court, West, of the power to pass any further order with regard to the attachment as the suit was no longer pending there. Unless, therefore, it be held that the Subordinate Court, East, acquired jurisdiction to pass further orders regarding the attachment by virtue of the transfer, there would be no Court capable of raising the attachment or making it absolute. This can hardly have been intended by the legislature and reading sections 25 and 483 of the Code of Civil Procedure of 1882 together, we think that power to deal with the pending attachment must be taken to have been transferred by implication to the East Subordinate Court when the suit was tran...
Antony Cruz Gonzolves Vs. Makis Boopalrayan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1910
Reported in: (1911)ILR34Mad395
1. One Machado, a Native Christian, died in 1885 leaving a widow, the second defendant, two sons, the third and fourth defendants and two daughters, Defendants Nos. 3 and 4 hypothecated the suit property in 1891 to the first defendant. The first defendant instituted a suit upon the mortgage in 1901 and purchased the property. The second defendant the widow, obtained letters of administration in January 1905, and sold the property to the plaintiff. The Courts below upheld the sale to the first defendant to the extent of the one-third share of defendants Nos 3 and 4, and gave a decree to the plaintiff for two-thirds of the suit property. The plaintiff has preferred this second appeal. Sections 190 and 239 of the Succession Act have by Act VII of 1901 been made inapplicable to Native Christians. Section 179 provides that the executor or administrator of a deceased parson is his legal representative far all purposes and all the property of the deceased person vests in him as such. An execu...
Kistna Row and ors. Vs. Kuppier and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.697
1. It is found that this plaintiff has suffered no injury by the reduction in the quantity of water flowing. It has been held in many cases in this Court that Government has a right to distribute water in Government channels without prejudice to the rights of ryotwari-holders which they have acquired for the necessary cultivation of their lands.2 We dismiss the second appeal with costs two sets: one for Government, one for the other defendants....
Chinnasami Chettiar and ors. Vs. the Collector of Salem and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.799
1. We do not think the District Board is liable. The Collector was the person who levied the cess under Section 76 of the Local Boards Act. Following the decision in Harischandra Devu v. President District Board of Ganjam 24 M. 114, we mast hold that the suit was rightly dismissed against the District Board. As regards the suit against the Collector, we see no reason to think it is badly framed. The basis of the action is that the Collector acted in excess of his statutory authority. The liability is one which sounds in tort. It is true the plaintiff does not describe the relief claimed as damages for a tort, but as refund of money levied. The money levied is only measure of the damages sustained. Except in cases of contractual agency, there is no question of the liability of the doer of the act charged. It mayor may not be according to circumstances that somebody else is liable also as master or principal.2. We must, therefore, reverse the decrees of the Courts below as regards the 1s...
Mazhoor Pudukudi Perundatta Vasudevan Nambudri and ors. Vs. Pudiyapura ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.264
1. The Judge has decided that there was a waiver of the condition of forfeiture by acceptance of rent--but the rent was received after the institution of the suit. There was, therefore, no waiver.2. The respondents' pleader attempts to support the decree on the ground that even assuming that the defendant has broken the condition which provides that on breach thereof the plaintiff may resume possession, it has not been alleged or proved that the lessor has done any act showing his intention to determine the lease. As this point was not taken in the Court of first instance no evidence was taken and there is no finding. But there is an allegation in the plaint that the plaintiff had previously sued for getting the same relief and that suit was withdrawn with permission to institute a fresh suit. The institution of that suit was clearly a determination of the tenancy under Section 111, Transfer of Property Act.3. We must, therefore, ask the Judge to return findings on all the other issues...
Arunachala Nadan Vs. Kandasami Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.746
1. In this case a conditional order of attachment before judgment of certain property within its jurisdiction was made by the Subordinate Court of Madura West. Subsequently, before the order was made absolute, the suit was transferred to the Subordinate Court of Madura East.2. The effect of the transfer was to deprive the Subordinate Court West of the power to pass any further order with regard to the attachment as the suit was no longer pending there. Unless, therefore, it be held that the Subordinate Court East acquired jurisdiction to pass further orders regarding the attachment by virtue of the transfer, there would be no Court capable of raising the attachment or making it absolute. This can hardly have been intended by the Legislature and reading Sections 25 and 483 of the Code of Civil Procedure of 1882 together we think that power to deal with the pending attachment must be taken to have been transferred by implication to the East Subordinate Court when the suit was transferred...
Antony Cruz Gonzalves Vs. Mathis Boopalrayan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.242; (1910)20MLJ984
1. One Machado, a Native Christian, died in 1885, leaving a widow, the 2nd defendant, two sons, the 3rd & 4th defendants, and two daughters. Defendants Nos. 3 and 4 hypothecated the suit property in 1891 to the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant instituted a suit upon the mortgage in 1901 and purchased the property. The 2nd defendant the widow obtained letter, of administration in January 1905 and sold the property to the plaintiff. The Courts below upheld the sale to the 1st defendant to the extent of the one-third share of defendants Nos. 3 and 4, and gave a decree to the plaintiff for two-thirds of the suit property. The plaintiff has preferred this second appeal. Sections 190 and 239 of the Succession Act have by Act VII of 1901 been made inapplicable to Native Christians. Section 179 provides that the executor or administrator of a deceased person is his legal representative for all purposes and all the property of the deceased person vests in him as such. An executor is defined as ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »