Chennai Court February 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.
Kunyil Parkum Putthukkayi Kottayi Kanaran Vs. Varanakot Illath Ganapat ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-1911
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ550
1. Appeal No. 102 of 1908 - The 3rd defendant has preferred this appeal against the decree of the District Court of North Malabar, decreeing redemption of a kanom demise of the year 1870, made in favor of one Kunhi Lakshmi Kettilamma, the mother of the 2nd and 3rd defendants, by Iswaran, the 12th defendant's predecessor in title. The 1st defendant is the brother of Kunhi Lakshmi. Exhibit A is the demise sued on and it is executed by Iswara Vadhyan as the jenmi of the properties. It does not appear that there was any counterpart or kaichit executed by the demisee, but admittedly the demise was accepted by Kunhi Lakshmi who would seem to have been in possession of it on Putravakasam tenure. The property therefore seems to belong to the children of Kuuhi Lakshmi, who are entitled to hold them as tavazhi property with the incidents of such property under the Marumakathayam Law. There seems to be a dispute between the 2nd and 3rd defendants with respect to the question whether the 2nd defen...
Kota Subbayya Gupta Garu Vs. the Secy. of State for India and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1911
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ656
1. The suit in this case was instituted to set aside the sale of the village of Gopalpuram in the Karvetnagar Zemindari for faslis 1309 to 1311, and for a portion of the revenue due for fasli 1312. The village was sold in court auction in execution of a decree against the Karvetnagar Zemindar in 1886, and was purchased by one Ramasami Chetty who transferred it to the plaintiff on the 26th May 1890. The village was separately registered in the plaintiff's name by the Collector of the District on the 5th August 1901 till which date the registry had remained in the name of the Zemindar. The arrears for faslis 1309 and 1310 accrued due therefore while the Zemindar was the registered proprietor. The sale was held for the realisation of a sum of Rs. 1,344-3-6 out of which more than Rs. 1,000 was due for faslis 1309 and 1310 The sale was impeached as illegal and irregular on various grounds and the plaintiff alleged that in consequence of the irregularities complained of, the village which he...
Kota Subbayya Gupta Garu Vs. the Secretary of State for India and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.761
1. The suit in this case was instituted to set aside the sale of the village of Gopalapuram in the Karvetnagar zemindari for arrears of Government Revenue for faslis 1309 to 1311, and for a portion of the revenue due for fasli 1312. The village was sold in Court auction in execution of a decree against the Karvetnagur zemindar in 1886, and was purchased by one Ramasami Chetty who transferred it to the plaintiff on the 26th May 1890. The village was separately registered in the plaintiff's name by the Collector of the District on the 5th August 1901 till which date the Registry had remained in the name of the zemindar. The arrears for faslis 1309 and 1310, accrued due before while the zemindar was the registered proprietor. The sale was held for the realisation of a sum of Rs. 1,344-3-6 out of which more than Rs. 1,000 was due for faslis 1309 and 1310. The sale was impeached as illegal and irregular on various grounds and the plaintiff alleged that, in consequence of the irregularities ...
Muthu Chetty Vs. Sinna Velliam Chetty Alias Sinna Karuppan Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1911
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ236
1. In this appeal the 1st defendant is the appellant. The plaintiff sued to recover possession of a tope half of which was sold to him by the 1st defendant with the profits thereof from the 4th July 1903, the date of the conveyance, Exhibit C. The plaintiff's case is that as the defendant failed to execute a conveyance according to the agreement, Exhibit A, dated the 28th April 1903, within the time fixed, the plaintiff demanded performance of the agreement, and after some negotiations between the parties it was agreed that the plain tiff should pay the purchase money, Rs. 2,600, before the Registrar of Assurances at the time of registration of the conveyance after the defendant made an endorsement of discharge on a hundi for the amount which the plaintiff had previously executed in the defendant's favour and deposited with one Muthia Chetti. The plaintiff alleges that as the defendant refused to register the deed he applied for compulsory registration of Exhibit C, which had been prev...
Muthia Chetty Vs. Sinna Velliam Chetty Alias Sinna Karuppan Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1911
Reported in: (1912)ILR35Mad625
1. In this appeal the first defendant is the appellant. The plaintiff sued to recover possession of a tope half of which was sold to him by the first defendant with the profits thereof from the 4th July, 1903, the date of the conveyance (Exhibit CJ. The plaintiff's case is that as the defendant failed to execute a conveyance according to the agreement (Exhibit A), dated the 28th April, 1903, within the time fixed, the plaintiff demanded performance of the agreement and after some negotiations between the parties it was agreed that the plaintiff should pay the purchase money Rs. 2,600 before the Registrar of Assurance at the time of the registration of the conveyance after the defendant made an endorsement of discharge on a hundi for the amount which the plaintiff had previously executed in the defendants favour and deposited with one Muthia Chetti. The plaintiff alleges that as the defendant refused to register the deed he applied for compulsory registration of Exhibit C which had been...
Govinda Padayachi Vs. Doraisawmi Padayachi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.595
1. The judgment of the learned District Judge cannot be said to satisfactorily dispose of the questions he had to determine before reversing the judgment of the District Munsif, who found in favour of the plaintiff on all the issues. The patta standing in the name of one man, the kist receipts could not show whether any particular portion of the land covered by the patta belonged to the husband of the plaintiff's vendor or to the defendant. Yet the District Judge seems to discard the evidence of the 4th witness for the plaintiff solely on the ground that the kist receipts do not specify for what particular plot payments were made. The Judge has also failed to deal with the question raised by the 2nd issue, for if the plaintiff made out that he was in possession of the land and afterwards wrongfully dispossessed by the defendant the plaintiff would be entitled to a decree unless the defendant is able to make out his title to the property. We must, therefore, call for revised findings on...
Bhogavalli Venkayya Vs. Bhogavalli Ramakrishnamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.495
1. The Subordinate Judge was not entitled to find against the plaintiff that the purchase by him was nominal as such an issue was not raised at the trial.2. He finds that the properties belonged originally to the grandfather of the first defendant and the father of defendants Nos. 2 and 3 who were brothers and members of a joint family. That being so, the title of the first defendant's grandfather must be held to exist unless it is shown that it came to an end by some means known to him. The facts found do not make out any such cessation of the title of the plaintiff's vendor.3. It is, however, found that the first defendant's father had left the village about forty years before suit, and upon this, the question arises whether the suit of the plaintiff would not be barred. To a suit like this by the purchaser from a member of a joint family who is alleged to have been out of possession at the time of sale, Article 136 of the Limitation Act applies in terms and not Article 127 see Ram L...
Olagayee Vs. Pichammal Alias Avadai Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.524; (1911)21MLJ303
ORDER1. The finding now is that the 'other' house referred to by the Subordinate Judge is not a dwelling house. It is, therefore, contended that the 1st defendant, the senior wife, has a right of residence in the family house and the gift in favour of the plaintiff, the junior wife, must be subject to such right. The learned Vakil for the appellant admits that there is no decision of any High Court which has recognised the right of a Hindu wife to residence in the particular house in which she and her husband have been living so as to preclude the husband from alienating the house even if he is in a position and willing to provide suitable residence for her in some other house. The decided cases have only recognised the right of widows of co-parceners to right of residence in the family dwelling house and as for the wife of a Hindu, she is undoubtedly entitled as against her husband to be provided with suitable residence. It has also been held that the husband cannot alienate all his p...
Sivabagiathatchi Vs. Muthukumara Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.603
1. Mr. Rangachari raises two preliminary points; but we must overrule them both, He contends that the Munsif had no jurisdiction to try this suit as the plaintiff should have asked for a declaration in respect of all the properties of Pichai Pillai. We think he was not bound to do that. Section 367 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1882, entitles him to sue for a declaration that he is the legal representative of the plaintiff in the former suit, that is, that he is the legal representative as regards the property claimed in that suit. In any view, the plaintiff cannot be compelled to sue in respect of all the properties of Pichai Pillai. The plaintiff may be in undisputed possession of the bulk of them. The next contention is that the declaration now granted will be infructuous as the District Court in Pichai Pillai's appeal would still have to decide under Order XXII, Rule 5, of the new Code, whether the plaintiff was the legal representative. Assuming this to be so, it does not follow...
Unde Rajaha Raja Sri Raja Velugoti Sree Raja Gopala Krishna Yachendrul ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.763a
Munro, J.1. There is no ground taken that the fact of the remission was not communicated to the defendants. Plaintiff's own document Exhibit D, shows that the remission was communicated to the defendants and accepted by them. Under Section 63 of the Indian Contract Act the remission by the plaintiff does not require to be supported by consideration. See Davis v. Chandasami Mudali 19 MK. 398 and I do not think that after the remission had been communicated to the defendants and accepted by them the plaintiff can claim the amount remitted. The petition is dismissed with costs save in Civil Revision Petition No. 14 where there will be no costs....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »