Chennai Court January 1911 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.
Appanda Mudaly Vs. Raghuthamby Ammani and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.939
1. The question raised by this appeal is not free from difficulty, but after having heard the matter fully argued, we are of opinion that the rule embodied in Section 99 of the Transfer of Property Act does not extend to decrees by consent. The mortgagor and the mortgagee were entitled outside the Court to agree to the mortgage being substituted by the personal security of the mortgagor. This does not appear to us to be any good reason why they should be debarred from coming to such an arrangement after the suit has been instituted on the mortgage or why the Court should be precluded from passing a simple money-decree on the consent of the parties to that effect. If it was competent, then, for the Court to pass a simple money-decree by consent, does Section 99 of the Transfer of Property Act prohibit execution of the decree against the mortgaged properties? That really depends on whether the rule laid down in the section is intended solely or primarily for the benefit or protection of ...
Chinnu Pillai Vs. Kalimuthu Chetti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1911
Reported in: (1912)ILR35Mad47
ORDER1. I directed the question raised in this order of reference to be argued before a Bench of five Judges. The question was argued before a Bench of five Judges of whom the Hon'ble Mr. Krishnaswami Ayyar was one. The Hon'ble Mr. Krishnaswami Ayyar has now resigned his office. After the hearing of the arguments, he wrote what he intended to deliver as a judgment. The Advocate General has suggested that the judgment or opinion of the Hon'ble Mr. Krishnaswami Ayyar cannot be treated as a legal judgment since he resigned office before it could be delivered. The Advocate-General has also suggested that a question might be raised as to the validity of the judgment of a Bench consisting of four Judges, since the tribunal would not be constituted as directed by my order.2. To prevent the possibility of any difficulty arising I now direct that the question raised in the order of reference be heard before a Full Bench consisting of the four Judges who with the Hon'ble Mr. Krishnaswami Ayyar c...
Thachakavil Unni Koya Vs. Arapayil Pathutti Ummah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-26-1911
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ577
1. The suit was instituted for recovery of damages on the ground that the defendant who attached in execution of his decree against the plaintiff a decree for money which the plaintiff held against a third person allowed the decree by his negligence or by collusion with the judgment-debtor of the plaintiff to lapse by efflux of time. The defendant has realised the amount of his decree from the properties of the plaintiff. The Subordinate Judge gave a decree to the plaintiff finding the facts in his favour. Sankaran Nair J. in revision has set aside the judgment of the Subordinate judge on the ground that the plaintiff, the holder of the attached decree, could have executed the decree in spite of the attachment, and in support of this proposition the learned judge relies on the cases Pathumma v. Idivi Beari : (1903)13MLJ265 , Saint Pillai v. Krishnaswamy Chetty I.L.R. (1897) M. 417 and Aoher Chandra Dass v. Lal Mohan Dass I.L.R. (1892) C. 778. It is contended on behalf of the plaintiff ...
Thandavaraya Odayan Vs. Narayana Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-26-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.505
1. The property was allotted to the second defendant at the partition of 1878. The District Judge finds that the third defendant, who was also a party to the partition took possession or remained in possession after the partition. The presumption is that he held possession after the portion on behalf of his minor nephew, the second defendant. If so, it is on him to show when his possession became adverse. The District Judge has not considered this aspect of the case. Before deciding the case, we must ask the District Judge to find, on the evidence on record, whether the third defendant has been in adverse possession of the second defendant's portion for more than the statutory period. The finding should be submitted within six weeks from this date, and seven days will be allowed for filing memorandum of objections.2. In compliance with the above judgment the District Judge submitted the followingFinding3. In Second Appeal No. 322 of 1909 I have been directed to find whether the 3rd def...
Nagaraja Pillai Vs. Vythianatha Iyer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1911
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ484
1. As regards the preliminary objection that we have no power to revise the order in question we are of opinion that Section 15 of the Charter Act is sufficiently wide to cover a case of this nature see Somasundara Chettyar v. Manikka Vasaka Desika Gnana Sambanda Pandara Sannadhi I.L.R. (1907) M. 40 and Veerabhadra Chetty v. Nataraja Desikar I.L.R. (1904) M. 28 though it may be doubted whether the words of Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code of 1908 were intended to apply to interlocutory orders. It is not, however, necessary to decide the latter question.2. On the merits we think there can be very little doubt that by the words 'production * * is not in the interests of the public service' in the letter of the Engineer to the District Munsif, it was intended to convey that in the opinion of the Engineer the production of the documents would be detrimental to the interests of the public service within the meaning of Section 124 of the Evidence Act under which the privilege was clai...
Subramania and ors. Vs. Muthammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1911
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ482
1. We accept the finding of the lower court with respect to the annual income of the family and on issue 5. With respect to the rate of maintenance we think that the Subordinate Judge has exercised a sound discretion in fixing the amount at Rs. 15 a month. We dismiss the appeal with costs.2. With regard to the memorandum of objections) while we agree with Mr. Ramachandra Iyer that the rate of maintenance should be such as to enable the plaintiff to live comfortably, we cannot agree that Rs. 15 is not ample in the circumstances.3. We think that the lower court has misunderstood the principle on which arrears of maintenance are awarded to a widow. No demand is necessary to entitle her to arrears. The defendant has to show that the plaintiff either expressly agreed to waive heir right to arrears or led the defendant to believe as reasonable men that she would not claim arrears. See Raja Yerlagadda Mallikarjuna Prasada Nayudu v. Raja Yerlagadda Durga Prasada Nayudu I.L.R. (1901) M. 147 . W...
In Re: Chode Balavi Ramasawmi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.340a
ORDERWallis, J.1. I agree with the decision in Reg. v. Kalubhai Meghabhai 7 B.H.C.R.C.C. 35 that no appeal lies as to the accused who were fined Rs. 50. The criminal revision petition of the others is dismissed....
Maryammal Vs. Kaliyammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.613; (1911)21MLJ485
1. In this case the lower Court does not seem to have correctly appreciated the nature of the questions arising for decision. The whole case has been disposed of on the first issue 'whether the opinion of this Court (the District Court of Salem) in O.P. No. 6 of 1905 in the matter of the construction of the three Wills of Raja Gounden is res judicata so as to debar the plaintiff from asking the Court to place a different construction thereon.' O.P. No. 6 was an application by the first defendant herein for probate of the three Wills of Raja Gounden dated the 16th of April, the 11th September, and 19th December 1902. The plaintiff in the present case while admitting the genuineness of ail the three Wills contended that the two earlier Wills were revoked by the Will dated the 11th December 1902. The District Court held that the earlier Wills were not revoked by the last will. It expressly refrained from deciding whether on reading the three Wills together it would have to be held that an...
Subramania Aiyar and ors. Vs. Muthammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.614
1. We accept the finding of the lower Court with respect to the annual income of the family and on issue No. 5. With respect to the rate of maintenance we think that the Subordinate Judge has exercised a sound discretion in fixing the amount at Rs. 15 a month. We dismiss the appeal with costs.2. With regard to the memorandum of objections, while we agree with Mr. Ramchandra Iyer that the rate of maintenance should be such as to enable the plaintiff to live comfortably, we cannot agree that Rs. 15 is not ample in the circumstances.3. We think that the lower Court has misunderstood the principle on which arrears of maintenance are awarded to a widow. No demand is necessary to entitle her to arrears. The defendants had to show that the plaintiff either expressly agreed to waive her right to arrears or led the defendants to believe as reasonable men that she would not claim arrears. See Raja Yarlagadda Mallekajuna Prasadh Nayudu v. Raja Yerlagadda Durga Prasadha Nayudu 24 MP. 147. We allow...
Nagaraja Pillai Vs. Vythinatha Iyer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.672
1. As regards the preliminary objection that we have no power to revise the order in question we are of opinion that Section 15 of the Charter Act is sufficiently wide to cover a case of this nature (See Somasundram Chettyar v. Manicka Vasaka Desika Gnana Sambanda Pandora Sannadhi 31 MP. 60 : 3 M.L.T. 246 and Veerabadran Chetty v. Nataraja Desikar 28 M. 28 though it may be doubted whether the words of Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code of 1908 were intended to apply to interlocutory orders. It is not, however, necessary to decide the latter question.2. On the merits we think there can be very little doubt that by the words 'the production...is not in the interests of public service' in the letter of the Engineer to the District Munsif it was intended to convey that in the opinion of the Engineer the production of the documents would be detrimental to the interests of the public within the meaning of Section 124 of the Evidence Act under which the privilege was claimed. It is also ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »