Chennai Court October 1912 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.
Venkatrama Aiyar Vs. Rangasami Aiyangar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-1912
Reported in: (1912)23MLJ588
1. The question raised in the memo of objections is whether the plaintiff is entitled to mesne profits in the four-fifths share sought to be redeemed from the date of plaint up to the time of his being put in possession of one-half share subsequent to the decree of the District Munsif. It is argued that he is, because he tendered four-fifths of the mortgage amount to the 1st defendant and the latter refused to receive it. It is argued that the mortgage-money ceased to carry interest after the 1st defendant's refusal to accept payment and to deliver up four-fifths of the properties and that 1st defendant was bound to account for 4/5 of the mesne profits from that date under Section 76, Clause (i) of the Transfer of Property Act. The claim is and cannot be rested on the ground that the plaintiff has actually sustained any damages by any wrongful act on the part of the 1st defendant. The right claimed is a statutory one. Does it exist in a case of this sort? The 1st defendant in his writt...
P.K. Govindan Nairand ors. Vs. P. Narayanan Nair and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.473; (1912)23MLJ706
Sundara Aiyar, J.1. The application which gave rise to this appeal was one under Act XXXV of 1858 to adjudicate the Karnavan of a Malabar tarwad a lunatic and to appoint a Manager for his estate. The application was dismissed by the District Judge of South Malabar, he being of opinion that no application would lie under the provisions of Act XXXV of 1858 to adjudicate a member of an undivided Malabar tarwad a lunatic. He did not, on the view he took, consider it necessary to hold an enquiry as to the question whether the Karnavan was in fact a lunatic or not.2. The question for our decision is whether that view is right. No decision bearing on the precise question has been brought to our notice. The competence of the court to adjudicate an undivided member of a Mitakshara family a lunatic has been considered in some cases. In Trimbaklal Govindas v. Hiralal I.L.R. (1895) B. 659 it was not necessary for the court actually to decide the question, an adjudicaton having as a matter of fact ...
Vencatrama Aiyar Vs. Rangasawmi Aiyangar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.368
1. The only question argued before us is that the finding on the question whether Ramachandra Rao was entitled to one-half or only one-fifth of the properties should not be accepted. The decision of the question depended upon whether Ramachandra Rao was adopted to Triambaka Rao, the uncle of Narayana Rao and Krishna Rao, or not. The Subordinate Judge has considered in detail the evidence on the question and has referred to the conduct of the parties which was relied on as proving an adoption. It is argued that there was evidence given of an oral partition at which Ramachandra Rao was given one-third of the property. This partition is said to have been in 1894, seven years before the mortgage, which was in 1901. The Subordinate Judge has referred to Exhibit III in which this oral partition was set up and he was not prepared to place reliance on Exhibit III. We cannot say that the absence of express reference to the oral evidence of the partition in 1894 would vitiate the finding when th...
The Secretary of State for India in Council, Represented by the Collec ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.373
Sundara Aiyar, J.1. This is a suit for a declaration that Government had no right to resume and assess certain lands which the Government treated as Karnam service inam and enfranchised under the provisions of Section 17 of Act II of 1894. The plaintiff's case, is that the lands were never Karnam service inam, and that they were jirayati lands held by his predecessors-in-title at a special rate of rent under an Agraharamdar. The District Munsif held that the lands were enjoyed as emoluments for service on favourable rents under the Agraharamdar, and that they must be held to be inam lands. On appeal, the Subordinate Judge reversed the Munsif's finding and held that it was not proved that the lands were service inam lands. Exhibit B, an extract from the Inam Register, shows that in 1787 the lands were in the possession of the Karnams on favourable rates of rent. The Agraharam was in the Zemindary of Mogalatore at that time. There is nothing to show, assuming that the lands were Karnam s...
Ruddaraju Sooraparaju Vs. Ruddaraju Narayana Raju and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.431
1. It is conceded that, in this case, the Subordinate Judge passed his decree on the same day on which the award of the arbitrators was submitted to him. But, under Article 158 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act IX of 1908, the parties had ten days from that day within which to make applications under Rule 16 of Schedule II of the Code of Civil Procedure (section 522 of the old Code of Civil Procedure, 1882) to set aside the award.2. The appellant appeals against the decree on the ground that the Subordinate Judge had no jurisdiction to make a decree before the expiry of the ten days allowed for making an application to set aside the award.3. The respondents contend that no appeal lies, and refer to the case reported in Mouji Premji Sett v. Maliyakel Koyassan Koya Haji 3 M.K 59. The contrary view, however, has been taken in the case reported as Najm-ud-din Ahmed v. Albert Puech 4 A.L.J. 450. In view of these conflicting decisions and of the decision of the Punjab Chief Court reporte...
Kelu Achan Vs. Umala Achan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.704a
1. The lower Courts have found that there has been a substantial increase in the income of the tavazhi property. We see no reason for holding that the plaintiff should not have increased the 'mucharam' in the circumstances. Nor are we able to say that the amount allowed is excessive. The plaintiff's suit is to recover arrears for five years; it is contended that the claim for the 1st and 2nd year is barred by limitation. This plea was not raised in the Courts below. If it had been raised, the plaintiff might have been able to make a satisfactory answer to it. We cannot, therefore, allow it to be raised here for the first time. We are of opinion, however, that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover the expenses for his medical treatment from the karnavan of the tavazhi. It is the tarwad that is prima facie bound to look after the health of its members and the plaintiff would have a valid claim against the karnavan of the tarwad for any expenses legitimately incurred for medical treat...
Sri Datla Venkata Suryanarayana Jagapati Raju Bahadur Garu and anr. Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.933; (1912)23MLJ699
1. The question in appeal is whether the Respondents (Defendants Nos. 2 to 8) decree-holders inO.S. No. 69 of 1902 are entitled to rateable distribution along with the plaintiffs who obtained a decree against the same judgment-debtor the 1st Defendant in O.S. Nos.57 and 58 of 1904. The plaintiffs after having obtained the decree sold the properties of the 1st defendant in execution thereof on the 3rd August 1906. One-fourth of the sale proceeds was then paid into court and th balance was deposited in court on the 17th August 1906. The defendants 2 to 8 obtained thejr decree on the 9th March 1903 against the 1st defendant who was the 2nd defendant in that suit and also some other parties. Whether it is a money decree are not so far as the 1st defendant is concerned, is one of the questions in dispute. On the 13th August 1906 they made an application under Section 90 of the Transfer of Property Act for a personal decree and on the 17th of the same month they obtained a decree by consent,...
Dharani Mudali Vs. Meenamba Bai Ammani
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.617
1. We shall deal with each of the objections to the application put in by the transferee decree-holder separately. The first point raised is that the assignee's right to execute the decree is res judicata by the orders, Exhibits G, H, Ia and IIa. We are of opinion that what was decided in every one of these orders was no more than that so long as an attachment on the decree sought to be executed subsisted, the assignee could not execute the decree. It is conceded that there was no subsisting attachment on the date of the present application except the attachment by Nilakanta Iyer. We are of opinion that Nilakanta Iyer's attachment had also ceased to subsist. He put in a petition to the Court abandoning the attachment. Any application, therefore, to execute the decree would not be barred by the rule of res judicata.2. The most important objection argued is that the present application by the assignee is not maintainable because it does not come within the purview of Order XXI, Rule 16, ...
Sri Datla Venkata Suryanarayana Jagapati Raju Bahadur Garu and anr. Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.940
1. The question in appeal is whether the respondents (defendants Nos. 2 to 8) decree-holders in Original Suit No. 69 of 1902 are entitled to rateable distribution along with the plaintiffs who obtained a decree against the same judgment-debtor, the 1st defendant in Original Suits Nos. 57 and 58 of 1904. The plaintiffs, after having obtained the decree, sold the properties of the 1st defendant in execution thereof on the 3rd August 1906. One-fourth of the sale-proceeds was then paid into Court and the balance was deposited in Court on the 17th August 1906. The defendants Nos. 2 to 8 obtained their decree on the 9th March 1903 against the 1st defendant who was the 2nd defendant in that suit and also some other parties. Whether it is a money decree or not so far as the 1st defendant is concerned, is one of the questions in dispute. On the 13th August 1906, they made an application under Section 90 of the Transfer of Property Act for a personal decree and on the 17th of the same month they...
Veera Raghava Aiyangar and ors. Vs. Vellai Mooppai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.704; (1912)23MLJ517
1. The preliminary objection is taken that no second appeal lies in this case. We are of opinion that this contention should be upheld. The suit was one merely for recovery of rent. It is contended that the first prayer in the plaint is that the plaintiff's right to the melwaram of the land should be declared; but this can be treated as only incidental tothe prayer for the recovery of rent. The cause of action as stated in paragraph 10 of the plaint is merely the non-payment of rent. No separate Court fee was paid for the declaration. There is absolutely nothing anywhere in the plaint to suggest that the prayer for declaration was treated as an independent one. The second appeal is dismissed with costs....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »