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.
Shaik Mohideen Sahib Vs. the Official Assignee, and as Such, Assignee ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1911
Reported in: (1912)ILR35Mad142
Arnold White, C.J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of Mr. Justice Wallis in favour of the plaintiffs in a suit for the balance of the price of goods sold and delivered. Pending the appeal the plaintiffs became insolvents and the Official Assignee has been made a party. The only points taken in appeal before us were, a point as to the jurisdiction of the High Court and a point as to limitation. As regards the question of jurisdiction, we are of opinion that the learned Judge was right for the reasons stated in his judgment in holding that the cause of action arose wholly within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the High Court.2. The question of limitation is one which is not altogether free from difficulty. But as we have had the benefit of hearing the point fully argued, and have made up our mind with regard to it, we do not think any useful purpose will be served by considering it further. With regard to this question I have come to the conclusion, with some reluctance tha...
The Deputy Collector, Calicut Division Vs. Aiyavu Pillay and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.341
Wallis, J.1. In this case the 4th respondent put in a claim at a late stage of the proceedings before the Deputy Collector to be entitled to compensation as Jenmi of Survey No. 54, of which the Government is the registered Jenmi. It is, in my opinion, clear that the Act does not contemplate or provide for the acquisition of any interest which already belongs to Government in land which is being acquired under the Act but only for the acquisition of such interests in the land as do not already belong to Government. When Government claiming to be the owner of the land seeks to acquire under the Act the interests of other persons therein, and such persons deny the title of Government and set up that they themselves are the owners and claim compensation on that basis, it becomes necessary, for the purpose of fixing the compensation to be paid to them, for the Collector to determine what is the interest in the land to which they are entitled, and whether they are owners as they claim to be ...
Thuchakovil Unni Koya Vs. Arapayil Pathutti Umma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.786
1. The suit was instituted for recovery of damages on the ground that the defendant who attached in execution of the decree against the plaintiff, a decree for money, which his 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 three cases Patumma v. Idivi Beari 13 M.L.J. 265; Sami Pillai v. Krishnaswamy Chetty 21 MP. 417 and Adhar Chandra Boss v. Lall Mohan Boss 24 CK. 778 : 1 C.W.N. 676. It is contended on behalf of the plaintiff who ...
iyetaly Surayya and anr. Vs. Nalamilli Venkanna
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.340
1. We think that the objection taken to the judgment of the lower appellate Court founded on Section 92, proviso 4, of the Indian Evidence Act, must be upheld. The effect of the agreement between the purchaser and the mortgagee, the appellant and the respondent respectively in this appeal as found by the District Judge, was to substitute for the mortgage an oral agreement to the effect that the purchaser would pay a sum of Rs. 1,000 (Rupees one thousand), the consideration for the deed of sale, to one Krishnayya to the credit of the mortgagee. This is clearly an attempted rescission of a contract required by law to be in writing by a subsequent oral agreement, which is forbidden by Section 92 proviso 4; and the rulings reported in Kattika Bapanna v. Kattika Kistnamma 30 M. 231 : 17 M.L.J. 30 and Srinivasaswami Aiyangar v. Athmarama Iyer 32 M. 281 : 19 M.L.J. 280 : 5 M.L.T. 84 : 2 Ind. Cas. 612 are in our opinion, applicable to this case.2. We need hardly observe that whatever remedies ...
T. Chinnammal and anr. Vs. Devanasammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.764
1. In this case two houses abutting on a public street and separated from each other by a lane belonged as also the lane to the same owner until 1883 when the plaint house was sold to the plaintiff's predecessor. Unfortunately the sale-deed of 1883 which might have assisted us in determining what rights over the lane passed to the purchaser of the plaint-house has not been exhibited and we have to decide the case without it.2. Both houses have backyards behind the second compartments abutting in the lane, and in both are gates opening into the lane and admitting the passage of horses and carriages. The evidence for the defence as to how this gate came into existence has not been acted on by the learned Judge, and is manifestly false. The evidence for the plaintiff is that the gate has always been here as long as can be remembered and at least one of the witnesses goes back to 1883 the date of the severance. We think the proper inference of fact is that the gate was opened before this d...
Raja Tirumal Raju Bahadur Varu (Died) and ors. Vs. Pandla Muthial Naid ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1911
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ169
1. The plaintiff's predecessors in title gave a usufructuary mortgage to the 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant's father for Rs. 24,600 in the year 1882. Part of the consideration for the bond consisted of Rs. 17,000 stated to be due under decrees previously obtained against the mortgagors. It is contended for the plaintiff that this sum was in excess of the amount actually due under the decrees and that the agreement to pay was in contravention of Section 257-A of the old code and therefore void. The court below has given no finding on the question, no evidence having been taken on the point. Assuming the plaintiff's contention to be well founded, the further point arises whether, the defendants having been in possession for more than 12 years under the usufructuary mortgage for Rs. 24,600, they have acquired a prescriptive title to that mortgage interest. The District Judge has decided in their favour. On appeal it is argued for the appellant that there was a good usufructuary mortg...
Rajai Tirumal Raju Bahadur Varu and ors. Vs. Pandla Muthial Naidu and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1911
Reported in: (1912)ILR35Mad114
Ayling, J.1. (Appeal 145 of 1906).--The plaintiffs' predecessors in title gave a usufructuary mortgage to the first defendant and the second defendant's father for Rs, 24,600 in the year 1882. Part of the consideration for the bond consisted of Rs. 17,000 stated to be due under decrees previously obtained against the mortgagors. It is contended for the plaintiff that this sum was in excess of the amount actually due under the decrees and that the agreement to pay was in contravention of Section 257 (a) of the old code and therefore void. The Court below has given no finding on the question no evidence having bean taken on the point. Assuming the plaintiff's contention to be well founded, the further point arises whether the defendants having been in possession for more than 12 years under the usufructuary mortgage for Rs. 24,600, they have acquired a prescriptive title to that mortgage interest. The District Judge has decided in their favour. On appeal it is argued for the appellant th...
Basu Kumthy and anr. Vs. Venkamma Hegadthi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.268
1. Following the Full Bench decision in Vidyapurna Thirthaswamy v. Ugganu 20 M.L.J. 640 : 1 M.W.N. 333 : 8 M.L.T. 173 : 7 Ind. Cas. 321, the judgment of the lower appellate Court is reversed and that of the Munsif restored. But, under the circumstances, each party will bear his own costs of this appeal and in the lower appellate Court....
B. Guromurthi Chetty Vs. Archibold Read and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.251
In O.S. Appeal No.7 of 19091. The question for decision is whether the purchase of the house in question in the name of Subbaya was benamee for the benefit of Kondiah, his father-in-law. Kondiah could not purchase the properties in his own name as he was one of the trustees to whom this and other properties were assigned by their owner for sale.2. It is proved that the purchase-money was paid by Kondiah though it is debited in his accounts to Subbiah. No accounts of Subbiah, if he had any, are produced to show that any money was due to him by Kondiah. Subbiah's family accounts make no reference to this payment or transaction. There is evidence that Kondiah received the rent in 1889 from the tenant-in-possession soon after the purchase and during the life-time of Subbiah. There is also evidence that in 1892, Kondiah obtained a decree for rent. Though this was after Subbiah's death and Kondiah was one of the executors of the Will, this evidence is not without weight when considered with ...
Raja Tirumal Raju Bahadur Varu and ors. Vs. Pandla Muthial Naidu and o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.289a
1. The plaintiff's predecessors-in-title gave a usufructuary mortgage to the 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant's father for Rs. 24,600 in the year 1882. Part of the consideration of the bond consisted of Rs. 17,000, stated to be due under decrees previously obtained against the mortgagors. It is contended for the plaintiff that this sum was in excess of the amount actually due under the decrees and that the agreement to pay was in contravention of Section 257A of the old Code and, therefore, void. The Court below has given no finding on the question, no evidence having been taken on the point. Assuming the plaintiff's contention to be well-founded, the further point arises whether the defendants having been in possession for more than 12 years under the usufructuary mortgage for Rs. 24,600, they have acquired a prescriptive title to that mortgage interest. The District Judge has decided in their favour. On appeal it is argued for the appellant that there was a good usufructuary mortg...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »