Chennai Court September 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.
Lakshmi Vs. Mani Devi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-1911
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ1063
1. This is an appeal against the order of the District Judge of South Canara in an application for execution of the decree in O.S. 43 of 1906. The decree was the result of a compromise between the parties. The material portion of it was in these terms : 'The court doth order and decree that plaintiffs do pay the assessment on the entire property as per plaint karar dated 16-11-05; that 1st defendant shall enjoy land yielding 126 muras of rice, and house, out of the land referred to in the karar; that 1st defendant shall not alienate the said land of 126 muras of rice; that if alienated, the alienation shall be null and void; that after the death of the 1st defendant the said land and house shall be enjoyed by the 2nd defendant paying thereon 63 muras of rice to plaintiff annually by the end of June of each year through this court, etc., etc.' In 1909 the plaintiff applied for execution and asked for the order 'directing that from out of the lands mentioned in the decree, land yielding ...
Lakshmi Vs. Maru Devi and Four ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-1911
Reported in: (1914)ILR37Mad29
1. This is an appeal against the order of the District Judge of South Canara, dated the 29th January 1910, in an application for execution of the decree in Original Suit No. 43 of 1906. The decree was the result of a compromise between the parties. The material portion of it was in these terms: the Court doth order and decree 'that plaintiffs do pay the assessment on the entire property as per plaint karar, dated 16th November 1905, that first defendant shall enjoy land., yielding 126 muras of rice, and house, out of the land referred to in the karar, that first defendant shall not alienate the said land of 126 muras of rice, that if alienated, the alienation shall be null and void, that after the death of the first defendant the said land and house shall be enjoyed by the second defendant paying thereabout 63 muras of rice to plaintiff annually by the end of June of each year through Court, etc.' In 1909 the plaintiff applied for execution and asked for an order 'directing that from o...
K.P. Kalliani Amma and K.P. Karunakara Menon Vs. K.P. Govinda Menon an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-1911
Reported in: (1912)ILR35Mad648
1. These two second appeals arise out of the suit by the plaintiff to recover a paramba demised by the second defendant in favour of the first defendant. The parties to the suit are all members of a Marumakattuyarn tarwad. The plaintiff, first defendant, and defendants Nos. 3 to 6 are the children of the second defendant who is the senior lady of the tarwad. The other defendants are the children and grand-children of the second defendant's children. The plaintiff is the senior male member and according to the Marurnakattayam law the karnavan of the tarwad. Until about a year before the data of the suit the second defendant was in actual management of the tarwad. But in April 1907 she gave up the management to the plaintiff under Exhibit I, Prior to her doing so she executed in April 1906 a kanom-deed, Exhibit T, demising the paramba in question in favour of a junior son, the first defendant, for a period of sixty years. The demise purports to be made expressly for the purpose of enabli...
Moitheensa Rowthan and Seven ors. Vs. Apsa Bivi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-1911
Reported in: (1913)ILR36Mad194
1. In the suit which gave rise to this Second Appeal the plaintiffs claimed to recover from the defendants Rs. 800 as compensation for improvements made by them while they were in possession, as auction-purchasers, of a house from which they were subsequently ejected by the defendants. The house belonged to one Johnsa Levvai and one Ramachandra Sastrial. These two persons mortgaged the house to one Samboo Ammal, the fourth defendant, in the suit. The latter instituted a suit on the mortgage to which the defendants Nos. 1 to 3 in this suit were made parties as heirs of Johnsa Levvai, defendants Nos. 1 and 2 being his widows and the third defendant, his daughter. A decree was obtained on the mortgage and the properties brought to sale. The plaintiffs became the purchasers at the sale and obtained possession of the house on the 7th August, 1903. The third defendant was a minor while the suit was going on and represented by her uncle as guardian ad litem. Notice of the execution proceeding...
Veera Aiyan Chettiar and anr. Vs. Ponnusami Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1911
Reported in: (1913)24MLJ509
1. We are asked in this application to revise the judgment of the Subordinate Judge's Court of Negapatam in a Small Cause Suit instituted by the endorsee of a negotiable promissory note against the maker. The note was executed by the latter in favor of Chella Muppannar, Avergal, Agent of P.S. Picha Muppannar, Avergal. The endorsement in favor of the plaintiff is signed merely ' Chella Muppannar'. The defendant contended that the note was executed in favor of Chella Muppannar in his character as agent of Picha Muppannar and that the endorsement by him in his individual capacity and not as agent of Picha Muppannar would not entitle the plaintiff to maintain the suit. The Subordinate Judge upheld this contention. He construed the note as one executed in favor of Chefla Muppannar as agent of Picha Muppannar, that is really in favor of Picha Muppannar.2. The question we have to decide is whether his construction is right. The argument before us is that the description is not conclusive to s...
Kasi Visvanathan Chetty and Chidambaram Chetty Vs. Muthu K.R. Aranache ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1911
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ978
1. We think the learned Subordinate Judge is right in this case. It appears that when the summons was taken out on the first occasion the serving officer was informed by the agent of the defendants that they had gone to a village in Puducottah territory and the date when they would return was not known. He then affixed the summons to the door of the defendant's house. This was on the 14th November 1909. A second summons was issued in January 1910 and again the process server was informed by the agent of the defendants that they had gone 2 or 3 days previously to soma place in the Puducottah territory and it was not known when they would return. The peon thereupon again affixed the summons to the door of the defendant's house. The court then declared the defendants ex parte and proceeded with the suit. It is argued on behalf of the appellants that there is no order of the Subordinate Judge who heard the case declaring that there had been a sufficient service. But the whole record is not...
Khamrunnisa Alias Bibijanbi and ors. Vs. Shah Hazarath Saib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-1911
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ958
1. The question in this case is whether the plaintiff, the son of a Muhammadan named Shah, Nurullah, is entitled to succeed to certain properties as heir OH the death of Doolhum Bibi, Shah Nurullah's wife, in whose favour he executed the instrument which is marked as Exhibit I. According to the terms of the document Doolhum Bibi, the wife, was to enjoy the property till the end of her life, paying the assessment thereon but was not entitled to alienate it. It was executed in consideration of dower due to her. On her death the property was to go to the heirs of Shah Nurullah. It does not purport to be a deed of wife. The defendants, the daughter's daughters of Doolhum Bibi, who claim under a deed of gift executed by her, contend that she acquired an absolute right to the properties transferred to her under Exhibit 7. The Subordinate Judge decided the question with reference to the law of gifts governing Mahotnedans. He was of opinion that it was cot shown that according to the Shafei Sc...
Duraisawmi Sastrial Vs. Venkatarama Iyer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-1911
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ1088
1. In this case a decree was passed in favour of two persons, members of a joint Hindu family, by the Subordinate Judge's Court of Kumbakonam in a small Cause suit. The first plaintiff in the suit was the managing member. Both the plaintiffs were minors at the time when the decree was passed. The present application for execution was put in by both of them. The first plaintiff had attained majority more than three years before the date when the application was put in. But the second plaintiff is alleged to have attained majority less than-three years before that date. The judgment-debtor contended that the execution of the decree was barred by limitation and the Subordinate Judge upheld his contention. A petition to revise the Subordinate Judge's order was filed in this Court and Abdur Rahim J. holding that the application was not barred by limitation reversed the order of the lower court. This appeal is against the order of the learned Judge. The question has to be decided under the p...
In Re: Mahomed Ismail Rowther
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-1911
Reported in: (1912)ILR35Mad596; 17Ind.Cas.408
ORDERSpencer, J.1. Technically the petitioner committed an offence under Section 19 (c) of the Arms Act as soon as ha landed in British India with a revolver which he was not lawfully entitled to possess in this country, It is not necessary that there should be any particular intention in the mind of an offender to complete the offence punishable under this section, In this ease the facts, as found and admitted, are that between the landing stage and the custom abed, the petitioner was detected by the Customs Officer in the act of handing to a third person a parcel rolled in cloth which, when opened, was found to contain a revolver and 36 cartridges. The conduct of a traveller who honestly intended to comply with the rules would have been to leave the weapon in the bag where it was, till the luggage, had been convoyed to the Customs Officer and then before the examination of luggage to make a declaration about the fire arm and at once to deposit it with the customs Officials. When the ...
Mahalakshmi Amma and anr. Vs. Lakshmi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1911
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ960
1. We think in this case the lower appellate court was wrong in reversing the judgment of-the District Munsif which granted a decree for ejectment. The defendants failed to pay rent even within the period of grace, allowed to them in the tease and falsely plsaded discharge in answer to the suit. The cases Narayana Naicker v. Vusudeva Bhatta I.L.R. (1903) M. 389, Narayana Kamti v. Handu Shetty (1901) 15 M.L.J. 210 and Adhiragi Shetty v. Billa Tyampu : (1910)20MLJ944 lay down that, when a period of grace is provided for and payment is not made within that period, forfeiture should not be relieved against. The reason for the rule is that a clause for forfeiture is regarded in-equity as a penalty and when the tenant is given further time in the lease itself it cannot, ordinarily be said that the condition of forfeiture on non-payment within the further period was intended to be in terrorem.2. It also appears in this case that the defendants did not ask to be relieved against ferfeiture in ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »