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.
Neelagara Lingamma Vs. Kinnahal Hampiah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.167
1. It is first contended that the plaintiff had no title to recover the land at the time of the institution of the suit, and that the subsequent execution of a sale-deed in his favour would not entitle him to maintain the suit. But the plaintiff had an unregistered sale deed in 1901 and we take the finding of the Subordinate Judge to mean that, after he got that sale-deed, he was in possession of the land by leasing it out to others until dispossessed by the defendant. He had, therefore, a possessory title which was sufficient to entitle him to a decree for possession against the 1st defendant who had no title.2. It is next argued that plaintiff ought not to have been allowed to amend his plaint, by adding a prayer for possession.3. We do not think there are sufficient grounds to interfere with the discretion of the lower Appellate Court in allowing the amendment.4. The last point relates to the award of damages to the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, he was not able to cultivate...
Khaji Syyad HussaIn Saheb Vs. Ediga Narasimhappa and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.962
Sundara Aiyar, J.1. The suit which gave rise to this second appear was instituted for an injunction against the defendants directing them to remove a bund which, according to the plaintiff, obstructed a t public cart-track and for annas 8 as damages. The defendants denied that there was a public right of way for carts at the place in question and also denied that the plaintiff sustained any special damage. The District Munsif passed a decree in plaintiff's favour stating that the plaintiff had a right of easement to pass along the way and that the defendants obstructed the plaintiff in the exercise of that right. The Subordinate Judge, on appeal, has found that there was a public cart-track at the place where the bund was put up by the defendants bat he dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff did not allege or prove any special damage.2. In second appeal, it is contended, by the learned Counsel for the appellant, that the plaintiff was put to special inconvenience by the ob...
Sundara Gurukkal Vs. Subramania Archakar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.960
1. This is a suit to redeem a usufructuary mortgage of the office of Archaka in a temple together with the lauds attached to that office. The mortgage was in the year 1822. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 have been found to hold under the mortgage sat up by the plaintiff. The 3rd defendant claims his right through original mortgagee. He must also be, therefore, treated as holding under the mortgage. The District Munsif dismissed the suit. On appeal, the Subordinate Judge held that the plaintiff's right to recover was not barred by limitation as the defendants never setup an absolute right either to the office or to the lands but claim to hold them only as mortgagees.2. In second appeal, it is contended that the office of Archaka and the lands attached to such office being untransferable, the Court should not assist the plaintiff to recover the lands which were transferred by an instrument which must be treated as illegal. No authority has been cited in support of the proposition that, where a ...
Thuppati Veera Chetti and anr. Vs. Rengacharlu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-04-1912
Reported in: (1912)23MLJ516
1. This appeal is by the defendants and the question argued is that the suit is barred by limitation as there were no mutual open and current account between the parties. The District Munsif and the District Judge both held that there were such accounts between them. The District Munsif proceeds mainly on the ground that the accounts shewed that the balances were constantly shifting, sometimes in favour of one party and some times in that of the other. This is not the real test to be applied in deciding whether the accounts are mutual open and current. The test is whether there were mutual demands and not mere payments by one party to the other on account of a debt due by the former to the latter--see Shiva Gowda v. Fernandas I.L.R. (1911) M. 513, Velu Pillai v. Ghose Mahomed I.L.R. (1893) M. 293. The fact that balance was shifting between the parties would no doubt be an important matter in considering whether there were mutual demands. As the Lower Courts seem to have proceeded on th...
Krishna Aiyar and ors. Vs. Shamanna, Minor Legal Representative of the ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-04-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.497; (1912)23MLJ610
1. This is an appeal from the judgment of the District Court of North Arcot in a suit for specific performance of a contract. The defendants Nos. 1 to 5 were the members of a joint family of which the 5th defendant was the father and the 1st defendant the eldest son. Defendants Nos. 6 and 7 were persons who had taken from the 5th defendant a sale of the property in question after the date of the contract sued on. The contract is dated the 27th August 1906 and by it the property was agreed to be sold for Rs. 2,375 and it was executed by the 1st defendant and witnessed by the 5th defendant. The sale to defendants Nos. 6 and 7 of the same item of property is dated the 20th of September 1906 and was for a sum of Rs. 2,900. The District Judge has given a decree to the plaintiff directing defendants Nos. 1 to 3 and the 2nd defendant as guardian of the 4th defendant to execute a ssile-deed to the plaintiff and put the plaintiff in possesirm and with other reliefs has given a declaration that ...
Ethamukkala Konda Reddi and anr. Vs. Singampalli Venkata Subba Row and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-04-1912
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.85
1. The suit was instituted by the plaintiff on behalf of himself and all the other villagers of Kavali. The lower Courts have found that the villagers have the right of passing through the defendant's field Survey No. 970 over a track traversing it from south-west to north-east. The survey plan of the year 1861 contains a mark of this track. We have had a good deal of evidence in the case read to us, and we think, on the whole, the evidence is in accordance with what is shown in the survey plan. No doubt, it appears that the persona passing along the field did not always use the track as marked in the plan. This was probably because the land itself was waste and it would be immaterial for the owner of the field whether the track shown in the plan was used or whether there was a deviation from it. One of the witnesses says that the Pantakalvai was sometimes crossed near the south-eastern corner of the field Survey No. 170. This does not, in our opinion, affect the evidence that the righ...
Thuppati Veeri Chetti and ors. Vs. Moluguvam Renganayakulu Aiyar and a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-04-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.48
1. This appeal is by the defendants and the question argued is, that the suit is barred by limitation as there were no mutual, open and current accounts between the parties. The District Munsif and the District Judge both held that there were such accounts between them. The District Munsif proceeds mainly on the ground that the accounts showed that the balances were constantly shifting, sometimes in favour of one party and sometimes in that of the other. This is not the real test to be applied in deciding whether the accounts are mutual, open and current. The test is whether there were mutual demands and not mere payment by one party to the other on account of a debt due by the former to the latter. See Shiv Gowda v. Fernandaz 8 M.L.T. 412 : 8 Ind. Cas. 141 and Velu Pillai v. Ghose Mahomed 4 M.L.J. 140. The fact that the balance was shifting between the parties would no doubt, be an important matter in considering whether there were mutual demands. As the lower Courts seem to have proc...
A. Raghava Aiyar and anr. Vs. Murugesa Mudali and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-04-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.97
1. The 7th and 11th defendants did not object to the suit on the ground that the plaintiff had no cause of action against them. The Court of first instance tried the question of the validity of the alienations in favour of those defendants and recorded a finding on the question. Assuming that, strictly speaking, the suit for specific performance would not be maintainable against the alienees from the widow, we do not think that, when no objection was taken on that ground, and after the question between them and the plaintiff had been decided on the merits, the Appellate Court should have entertained the objection in appeal. It was open to the plaintiff to ask for a declaration that the alienation in favour of defendants Nos. 7 and 11 was invalid, and the only objection to his doing so would be misjoinder of parties and causes of action. By making them defendants, the plaintiff substantially wanted the Court to hold that defendants Nos. 7 and 11 had no valid right to hold the properties...
Subramaniam Chetti and ors. Vs. Doraisinga Tevar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-03-1912
Reported in: (1913)24MLJ49
1. This is a suit in which the 1st plaintiff claims to recover immoveable property of which he made a gift to his wife on the 19th December 1899, by setting aside the gift.2. The principal question is whether, at the time of the gift, the 1st plaintiff had attained the age of 21. Up to that time, he was under the protection of the District Court under the Guardian and Wards Act, and his father-in-law was, at that time, the guardian appointed by the Court. The Subordinate Judge finds that the preponderance of evidence is, that he had not attained the age of 21 in December 1899, and I certainly agree with his finding, apart from the expert evidence, that there is nothing in the whole case to show that the 1st plaintiff was of the age of 21 except that he has from time to time alleged it. His statements are unreliable and the only result of them is that they do not prove what is his real age. The statements of his mother at a time when she was likely to know what his age was and at a time...
G. Gopalakrishnam Razu (Minor by Mother, Bangarayya) Vs. S. Venkatanar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-03-1912
Reported in: (1914)ILR37Mad273
1. It is sufficient to say that we agree with the judgment of Krishnaswami Ayyar, J., in Kameswara Sastri v. Veeracharlu I.L.R. 34 Mad. 422; that marriage is obligatory on Hindus who do not desire to adopt the life of a perpetual Brahmachari or of a Sanyasi, and this being so, that debts reasonably incurred for the marriage of a twice-born Hindu male are binding on the joint family properties.2. This Second Appeal coming for final hearing after the expression of the above opinion of the Full Bench, the Court delivered the following3. Having regard to the decision of the Pull Bench the decree of the Lower Courts will be modified to this extent that there shall be a decree making the interest of the third defendant also liable. The appellant will be entitled to his costs from the respondents....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »