Chennai Court November 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.
U. Kesavulu Naidu Vs. Arithulai Ammal and Six ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-1912
Reported in: (1913)ILR36Mad533
Charles Arnold White, Kt., C.J.1. This is a suit brought by the endorsee of a promissory-note of Rs. 1,500 which provided for the payment of interest at the rate of 60 per cent per annum. The makers of the none were five ladies. Two issues were raised: is the note genuine? is the rate of interest provided in the note enforceable? The judge found that the note was genuine but that the rate of interest was not enforceable and in lieu of the interest provided for in the note he gave the plaintiff interest at the rate of 24 par cent, per annum. The plaintiff appeals against this. There is no cross-appeal as regards the genuineness of the note. The contesting defendants are defendants Nos. 1, 6, 7 and 8. They plead that the note was fraudulent and that the rate of interest was high and unconscionable There is no plea that the note was procured by the exercise of undue influence on the part of anybody. There is no issue as to this and there is no finding of the District Judge as to this. Con...
Ramakrishna Mallay Vs. Baburaya Alias Venkatesha Hegade and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1912
Reported in: (1912)23MLJ715
1. We agree with the Courts below that on the true construction of the lease (Exhibit A) the sub-lease by the first defendant's father did not work a forfeiture. The Lower Appellate Court in holding that, assuming there was a forfeiture by reason of nonpayment'of rent, it could not be enforced as the plaintiff had not done any act to show he intended to avail himself of the forfeiture, would seem to have followed the decision of this Court in Venkalramana Bhatta v. Gundaraya 31 M.K 403. In that case, however, it was not brought to the notice of the Court that the lease in question was prior to the coming into operation of the Transfer of Property Act. The lease in the present case, was made in 1871 before the Transfer of Property Act came into operation and this being so, according to the decision in Padmanabhaya v. Ranga 34 M. K161 an act on the part of the landlord showing that he elects to take advantage of the forfeiture is not a condition precedent to his right to sue in ejectment...
Raja Kumara Venkata Perumal Raju Bahadurvaru Rajah of Karvetngar, Mino ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.759; (1912)23MLJ675
1. The decree in plaintiff's favour was made absolute only on the 1st March 1899. The present application was put in within 12 years from that date. According to the decision of the Privy Council in Ash fag Husain v. Gaur Sahai I.L.R. (1910) A. 264 limitation for the execution cf a decree for sale in a suit on a mortgage, would run only from the date when the first decree or decree nisi for sale is made absolute. This view was adopted by this Court in C.M.S.A. 86 of 1910. The application is therefore not barred. According to the terms of the decree the plaintiff is entitled to proceed in execution against'Other properties of the judgment-debtor.2. We dismiss the appeal with costs....
Randipurazil Kunhisow Karnavan and Manager of His Tarwad Vs. Alukandiy ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.933; (1912)23MLJ695
1. This is a suit for rent for three years 1083 to 1085 Malayalam year. Defendants 1 to 3 are sought to be made liable directly under the mampa or rental instrument, the 1st Defendant and the manager of the family of defendants 2 and 3 being the executants of the Marupat. The 4th Defendant purchased the rights of defendants 1 to 3 in the land on the 4th January l909 during the currency of the year 1084 and assigned his rights to defendants 6 & 7 on the 29th April 09; about 3J months after his purchase. The plaintiff's case is that the 4th Defendant is also liable for the rent of the Malayalam year' 1084 andthat Defendants; 6 and 7 are liable for the rents of the years 1084 and 1085. The District Munsif passed at decree against the 4th Defendant for the rent of the year 1084. He appealed to the District Court on the ground that he was liable only for the rent accruing from the date of his purchase up to the date of his assignment to defendants 6 and 7 i.e., from the 4th January to 28th ...
Kanakammal Vs. Ananthamathi Ammal and Two ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1912
Reported in: (1914)ILR37Mad293
ORDER16. I have been directed to return a finding on the following issue, viz.: 'Whether at the time of the death of Manikkammal, plaintiffs were the nearest heirs to her.'17. The vakils who appeared for the appellant and respondents in the High Court stated that they had no instructions and did not propose to call any evidence. I am unable from the records to record any finding on the issue sent down.18. This Second Appeal coming on for hearing after receipt of the report from the lower appellate court in pursuance of an order of the High Court, dated 27th September 1911, calling for a finding the court (The Chief Justice and Ayling, J.) made the following...
Randuparayil Kunhi Sou Vs. Ablukandiyil Parkum Mulloli Chathu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1912
Reported in: (1915)ILR38Mad86
1. This is a suit for rent for three years 1083 to 1085 (Malayalam year). Defendants Nos. 1 to 3 are sought to be made liable directly under the marupat or rental instrument, the first defendant and the manager of the family of defendants Nos. 2 and 3 being the executants of the marupat. The fourth defendant purchased the rights of defendants Nos. 1 to 3 in the land on 4th January 1909 during the currency of the year 1084 and assigned his rights to defendants Nos. 6 and 7 on the 29th April 1909 about 3 1/2 months after his purchase. The plaintiff's case is that the fourth defendant is also liable for the rent of the Malayalam year 1084 and that defendants Nos. 6 and 7 are liable for the rents of the years 1084 and 1085. The District Munsif passed a decree against the fourth defendant for the rent of the year 1084. He appealed to the District Court on the ground that he was liable only for the rent accruing from the date of his purchase up to the date of his assignment to defendants Nos...
Ramakrishna Mallay Vs. Ramakrishna Mallay Baburaya Alias Venkatesha He ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.947
1. The question whether a tenant is entitled to relief against forfeiture for non-payment of rent must depend on the facts of the particular case. Here we think, on the authority of the decision in Subbaraya Kamti v. Krishna Kamti 6 M.k 159 following Kottal Uppi v. Edavalath Thathan Nambudiri 6 M.H.C.R. 258 the tenant is entitled to relief. The cases relied on by the plaintiff (the landlord) are distinguishable. In Narayana Kamti v. Handu Shetty 15 M.L.J. 210 a long period was allowed, some eight months, after default, before the forfeiture was to take effect and, apparently, there was no stipulation that the tenant should, on default, loss the value of his improvements. In Mahalakshmi Amma v. Lakshmi (1911) 2 M.W.N. 385 : 12 Ind. Cas. 456 a period of grace was also allowed. There was, no doubt, a stipulation in that case that the tenant, on default, should lose the value of his improvements but the effect of this stipulation is not discussed in the judgment.2. We do not think the fact...
Kanakammal Vs. Ananthamathi Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1912
Reported in: 25Ind.Cas.901
ORDER16. I have been directed to return a finding on the following issue, viz.: 'Whether at the time of the death of Manikkam-mal, plaintiffs were the nearest heirs to her.'17. The Vakils who appeared for the appellants and respondents in the High Court stated that they had no instructions and did not propose to call any evidence. I am unable from the records to record any finding on the issue sent down.18. This second appeal coming on for hearing after receipt of the report from the lower Appellate Court in pursuance of an order of the High Court, dated 27th September 1911, calling for a finding the Court (the Chief Justice and Ayling, J.) made the following19. The Vakils on both sides now say their clients are in a position to adduce evidence. The case will go back to the District Court for a finding on the issue framed on the 27th September 1911 in the above second appeal.20. The finding will be submitted within one month after the re-opening of the District Court and the parties wi...
Sri Rajah Venkatanarasimha Appa Rao Bahadur Zamindar Garu (Died) Vs. M ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-1912
Reported in: 20Ind.Cas.753; (1913)24MLJ655
1. The plaintiff is, the proprietor of a share of an entire agraharam. The suits are to eject certain ryots of the village. The lower appellate Court has found that the ryots acquired occupancy rights under Section 6 of the Estates Land Act, even if they had none before. The plaintiff made no attempt to prove that any of the lands in question was his private land. The presumption with regard to an inam is that it consists only of the melvaram. The only evidence referred to to rebut the presumption consists of two dumbalas DD, EE, but they do not show that theinamdar was entitled to any thing more than the melvaram share of the produce. Annual dumbalas were often issued by Zamindars to enable inamdars to recover the melvaram share of the produce. No attempt was made to prove any circumstances which would show that the inam grant included the Kudivaram or that the inamdar was himself the owner of the Kudivaram at the time that the inam was granted. A Brahmin inamdar is hardly likely to h...
K. Sheik Meeran Saib Vs. C. Ratnavelu Mudaly
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-1912
Reported in: (1913)25MLJ1
Bakewell, J.1. The plaintiff in this case alleges that the defendant preferred a complaint in the Presidency Magistrate's Court charging the plaintiffs with the offence of defamation, which on the 30th July last was dismissed, under Section 203 of the Criminal Procedure Code after a preliminary inquiry, and prays for damages for the malicious prosecution of the plaintiff.2. Upon the case coming on for settlement of issues counsel for the defendant argued that the plaint does not disclose a cause of action, because the facts averred shew that there was no prosecution by the defendant. It is admitted that no process was issued to compel the attendance of the plaintiff before the Magistrate, but the latter issued the notice, Ex. A, to the plaintiff and held an inquiry under Section 202 of the code, and after hearing counsel for both parties dismissed the complaint. The notice recites that the defendant had filed an information and complaint before the Magistrate, charging the plaintiff wi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »