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.
Alathoor Badrudeen and anr. Vs. Gulam Moideen and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-1911
Reported in: (1913)24MLJ541
1. This is an appeal against the order of the District Court of North Arcot on an application to execute the decree of that Court in Original Suit No. 24 of 1901. The application was put in by one only of the two plaintiffs in the suit. The judgment debtors (defendants) in their counter petition contended that a sum of Rs. 3400 was paid to the two plaintiffs in complete satisfaction of the whole decree the balance of the amount due to them (plaintiffs) being remitted in defendants' favour. They urged that the two plaintiffs had agreed to certify complete satisfaction of the decree to the Court and subsequently represented to the 1st defendant that they had done so; that the application for execution of the decree was therefore a fraudulent one and should not be allowed by the Court. They also contended that execution should not be allowed in favour of the applicant alone as he was only one of the two decree-holders in the suit. The District Judge was of opinion that he could not recogn...
Sinnachami Alias Kumarettu Servaigar, Minor Through His Guardian, Siva ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.7; (1912)22MLJ85
Charles Arnold White, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the 2nd defendant against a decree on a mortgage, dated the 11th October 1892, executed by the father of defendants Nos. 1 and 2 on his own behalf and on behalf of the defendants in favour of the plaintiffs' predecessor in title. For the purposes of the appeal the material dates are these. In January 1897 Kumarettu, No. 14 in the pedigree, died. In October 1892, the mortgage in question was executed by Sivathaiya, No. 18 in the pedigree. In 1896, No. 18 died and his estate devolved upon defendants Nos. 1 and 2. In December 1904, the present suit was instituted. In January 1905 the widows of No. 14 adopted the 1st defendant. It seems clear (in fact the appellant did not seriously contend otherwise) that the exercise of the power to adopt was the counter move on the part of the widows and the 2nd defendant to the suit on the mortgage. For the purpose of the appeal, I assume that a valid power to adopt was given and that this power was dul...
Sreevadhu Yerranna Vs. Pontiva Kannamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-1911
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ962
1. In S.A. No. 1569 of 1909 the plaintiff (appellant) was the vendee of the 5th defendant and 6th defendant's deceased husband, who held the plaint lands as Service Inam. They mortgaged the lands to defendants 1 and 2 in 1893 and in 1898 Government resumed the mam and imposed full assessment. On the strength of his sale-deed patta was transferred in plaintiff's name.2. Two main questions are raised in this appeal. It is first contended that the resumption by Government put an end to all prior eucumbrances and that the issue of a ryotwari putta amounted to a re grant. Admittedly Government have actually resumed possession of the land, which was in the possession of the mortgagees from the date of mortgage We think, therefore, that the so-called resumption did not operate to extinguish prior incumbrances. In a somewhat similar case of resumption by a zemindar the Privy Council remarked : 'The resumption consists in putting an end to the grant, remitting the services and requiring them to...
Hanumanthaiyan Vs. Meenatchi Naidu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-1911
Reported in: (1912)22MLJ12
1. In this case there are two questions raised before us:-(1) where there are two mortgages on a property and a person advances money for the payment of the first mortgage and that debt is satisfied, would the lender be entitled to stand in the shoes of the first mortgagee and claim priority if he had no interest in the mortgaged property either as purchaser of the equity of redemption or as mortgagee at the time of the advance, and (2) whether it is necessary that the first mortgage should be entirely discharged before the claim to priority over the 2nd mortgagee can be sustained. In this case only a portion of the mortgage money due under the first mortgage was paid and the first mortgage was not entirely discharged. We think there can be no doubt on principle that before a person advancing money for the purpose of discharging the debt due under the first mortgage can establish his claim to the rights of the first mortgagee it must be shown that the first mortgage had been extinguish...
In Re: Muthia Moopan and Six ors.; in Re: Marutha Moopan and Two ors.; ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1911
Reported in: (1913)ILR36Mad315
ORDER1. These are applications asking this Court to set aside the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Tanjore, directing the petitioners under Section 107, Criminal Procedure Code, to give security to keep the peace for one year. One Seethalakshmi Ammal, against whom also proceedings were taken under Section 107 along with petitioners but against whom the Magistrate did not think it necessary to pass an order directing her to keep the peace, is the owner of the Kapistalam Estate in the district of Tanjore. She executed a lease of ten villages belonging to her in the year 1903 in favour of one Swaminatha Moopanar for a period of ten years. She, however, cancelled the lease in February 1910 and attempted to take possession of the villages. Swaminatha Moopanar resisted the attempt. This led to an order being passed against Seethalakshmi Ammal under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code restraining her from taking forcible possession of the properties. Proceedings were also init...
Vadlamudi Venkatasubbiah and anr. Vs. Vadlamudi Seshachellum and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-1911
Reported in: (1912)22MLJ136
1. The main question here is whether this court has jurisdiction to interfere under Section 115, C.P.C., with the District Judge's order refusing amendment of the plaint on the ground that it materially altered the character of the suit. It is evident from his order and from the records that he did exercise his jurisdiction under Order Order VI, Rule 17, and on that ground no interference is possible. It is then contended that he exercised that discretion with material irregularity and I am referred to numerous rulings in which orders have been set aside on revision on that ground, the most important of which are Pramotha Nath Mitra v. Rakhal Das Ally (1910) 11 C.L.J. 420. Dwarkanath Sen v. Kisori Lal Gasain (1910) 11 C.L.J. 426, Kisandas Rupchand v. Rachappa Vithoba I.L.R. (1909) Bom. 664. Charu Chunder Datt v. Sarut Chunder Singh (1910) 12 C.L.J. 537 and C. Rev. P. No. 556 of 1910. It appears to me, however, that in cases of this sort each case must be treated on its merits. No doubt...
Bava Jeer Chetti Vs. Bava Rangasawmi Chetti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-1911
Reported in: 12Ind.Cas.618; (1912)22MLJ52
Sundara Aiyar, J.1. This is an appeal by a creditor against an order of the District Court of Trichinopoly, adjudicating the debtor an insolvent on his own application. The appellant in his statement in the lower court stated that all the debts stated in the debtor's petition except his own were non-existing debts at the date of the petition, having been previously discharged, and that the petitioner did not include in his schedule a house worth Rs. 1,000 which belonged to him. The learned District Judge, in his order, states that it was admitted before him that the debts due by the applicant exceeded Rs. 500. He disallowed the contention of the appellant that the court was bound to decide whether the debts which were questioned by him were real or fictitious debts and also whether the petitioner was really unable to pay his debts as stated by him in his petition. The argument appears to have been based in the lower court on the provisions of Section 15 Sub-S. (1), of the Provincial In...
Sri Rajah Bommadevara Venkata Narasimha Naidu Bahadur Zemindar Garu Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-1911
Reported in: (1913)25MLJ17
Arnold White, C.J.1. These are two appeals from awards made by the Acting District Judge of Kistna in proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act. They are both appeals by the Zamindar. The awards give the ryots the whole value of the trees that stood upon the land which was compulsorily acquired and apportion the total compensation awarded in respect of the land compulsorily acquired in the ratio of three-fifths to the ryots and two-fifths to the Zamindar.2. I will deal first with that part of Appeal No. 38 which has reference to the value of the trees. With regard to this the District Judge says ' I uphold the Collector's award.' Then he points out that the dispute centres round the value of the trees and he says and that the Zamindar has no evidence to adduce in this case.' That is practically the whole of his award with reference to this question as to whether the whole value of the trees should go to the Zamindar as the Zamindar claimed or the whole value should go to the ryots as ...
Sri Rajah Bommadevara Venkata Narasimha Naidu Bahadur Zamindar Garu Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-1911
Reported in: (1913)ILR36Mad395
Charles Arnold White, C.J.1. These are two appeals from awards made by the Acting District Judge of Kistna in proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act. They are both appeals by the zamindar. The awards give the ryots the whole value of the trees that stood upon the land which was compulsorily acquired, and apportion the total compensation awarded in respect of the land compulsorily acquired in the ratio of three-fifths to the ryots and two-fifths to the zamindar.2. I will deal first with that part of Appeal No. 38, which has reference to the value of the trees. With regard to this the District Judge says, 'I uphold the Collector's award.' Then he points out that the dispute centers round the value of trees and he says that the zamindar has no evidence to adduce in this case.' That is practically the whole of his award with reference to this question as to whether the whole value of the trees should go to the zamindar as the zamindar claimed or the whole value should go to the ryots a...
K. Ganapathi Bhatta Vs. King Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-1911
Reported in: 19Ind.Cas.310; (1913)24MLJ463
ORDER1. This is an application asking this Court to revise an order of the 2nd class Magistrate of Puttur disallowing a preliminary objection of the accused to his prosecution for an offence under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code and the order of the Sessions Judge of South Canara refusing to recommend to this Court the quashing of that order.2. The facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are briefly as follows:On the 5th February 1907 the accused made a complaint to the Police that certain articles had been stolen from his house. On the 4th February the Police made an inquiry in consequence and at that inquiry the accused repeated his complaint and said that he suspected the complainant as the person who committed the theft. It was found that no theft took place at all in the accused's house and that his complaint was false. The complainant then made a complaint in which he alleged the information laid by the accused on the 5th February and on the 11th February 1906 was fa...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »