Chennai Court February 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.
Kulondavalu Padayachi Vs. Kamatchi Ayyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-1912
Reported in: (1912)22MLJ456
1. I am unable to sustain the decision of the (sic) in this case. The plaintiff sued to recover monies paid by him on account of kist of certain land in the possession of the defendant, which, he alleged, the defendant was bound to pay to him. The plaintiff's case was really based on a contract. By a partition agreement between him and his brother it was provided that the defendant should enjoy certain land for her maintenance and pay the kist due on it to the plaintiff and his brother, Rs. 8 to each of them. The District Munsif dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff could claim no relief on the basis of the partition deed because the defendant was not a party to it. But it was under the partition deed that she got her right to hold the land. Though not a party to the contract she was one who took a benefit under it, subject to the burdens placed on her by that document. She was therefore bound to pay the kist to the plaintiff and his brother as provided therein. In fact s...
Sivaprakasam and ors. Vs. Palaniappa Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-1912
Reported in: (1912)22MLJ439
Sundara Aiyar, J.1. This is an application under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code, to revise the order of the District Munsif of Mayavaram in Miscellaneous Petition No. 825 of 1905 in so far as he refused to award to the petitioners here, the costs which had been incurred by their mother in O.S. 243 of 1904. It is necessary to state the facts briefly, to make the point arising for decision clear. O.S. No. 243 was instituted by Palaniappa Mudali against Thayali Anni, the mother of the petitioner, for a declaration that a certain will, which she had presented for registration, was a forgery. The suit was originally instituted in the Sub-Court of Kumbakonam. That court, holding that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, returned the plaint for presentation to the proper court. Subsequently the plaint was presented in the Munsif's Court of Mayavaram Thayali Anni died subsequently. After her death the plaintiff applied to the Munsif for permission to withdraw his suit, with leave t...
Unde Rajaha Raja Sir Raja Velugoti Sri Raja Gopalakristna Yachendra Ba ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-1912
Reported in: (1912)22MLJ447
1. This is an application by the plaintiff in S.C.S. 97 of 1907 in the District Court of Nellore to revise the judgment of the District Judge. The suit is to recover from the defendants a sum of Rs. 349-8-0 on a pronote executed by them in favour of the plaintiff in 1906. The defendants pleaded that there was no consideration for the note ; that they had instituted a suit O.S. No. 281 of 1907 in the District Munsif's Court of Nellore for the cancellation of the note, and that the suit was therefore not maintainable. It appears from the B Form Diary that the suit was adjourned pending the decision of the Munsif in O.S. 281 of 1907, and that, after the Munsif's decision of the suit declaring the pronote not enforceable against the defendant this suit was dismissed. The judgment of the District Judge states :'Both parties represented in this court that they would abide by the decree of the District Munsif of Nellore in O. Section 281 of 19O7 on his file in regard to the question raised in...
Unde Rajaha Raja Sir Raja Velugoti Sri Raja Gopalakrishna Yachendra Ba ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-1912
Reported in: (1914)ILR37Mad408
1. This is an application by the plaintiff in Small Cause Suit No. 97 of 1907 in the District Court of Nellore to revise the judgment of: the District Judge. The suit is to recover from the defendants a sum of Rs. 349-8-0 on a promissory-note executed by them in favour of the plaintiff in 1906. The defendants pleaded thaithere was no consideration for the note, that they had instituted a suit, Original Suit No. 281 of 1907, in the District Munsif's Court of Nellore, for the cancellation of the note, and that the suit was therefore not maintainable. It appears from the B From Diary that the suit was adjourned pending the decision of the Munsif in Original Suit No. 281 of 1907, and that after the Munsifs decision of the suit declaring the promissory -note not enforceable against the defendants, this suit was dismissed. The judgment of the District Judge states: 'Both parties represented in this Court that they would abide by the decree of the District Munsif of Nellore in Original Suit N...
Vencatachellam Chettiar Vs. Veerappen Ambalagaran and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.283
Sundara Aiyar, J.1. I am of opinion that the Subordinate Judge's decision with respect to the point in dispute in this Court cannot be sustained. The defendant executed a bond for Rs. 200 agreeing to re-pay the amount within one month, and in default he agreed to pay compound interest at 2 per cent, per mensem with six months' rests. The rate of interest provided till the due date was also two per cent. The Subordinate Judge awards the plaintiff 'compound interest,' as he says, but he does not allow any rests. In other words, he allows the plaintiff interest on arrears of interest. I doubt whether this is really awarding compound interest. 'Compound interest,' I believe, involves the idea of rests whatever the intervals may be for the rests. I see no reason for holding that a promise to pay compound interest with six months' rests from the date of default is a penalty. It was apparently not so regarded by their Lordships of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Sundar Koer v. ...
G. Narayana Iyer Vs. S. Venkatarama Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.202
Sundara Aiyar, J.1. I am of opinion in this case that the lower Court ought to have awarded costs to the plaintiff. The defendant received notice of the suit on the 2nd; the suit was filed on the 5th August 1909. It is not clear that the plaintiff filed his suit too early. But, apart from this fact, the defendant made payment of the amount more than four weeks after the suit was instituted; and then it was only on being arrested that he made the payment.2. It is contended for the respondents that costs were at the discretion of the lower Court and that I ought not to interfere in revision. But in this case the lower Court has given a specific reason for disallowing costs, and that reason is unsatisfactory. Ordinarily, costs should follow the event and, when the lower Court does not act on this rule, it ought to give a sufficient reason. The reason given in this case is quite insufficient.3. I, therefore, modify the decree of the lower Court by awarding to the plaintiff his costs in the...
Gopisetti Narayanasawy Naidu Garu, Receiver, Nidadavole and Medur Esta ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.359
Sundara Aiyar, J.1. I am of opinion that on the evidence on record the suit was rightly dismissed. The plaintiff, the Receiver of the estate, admits that the land was poramboke. There is no evidence as to the character of the poramboke. There is absolutely nothing to show that it is such as the zemindar would be entitled to let out on cultivation, or to receive kist for, if cultivated without his permission. Mr. Nagabhushauam may be right in his argument that the word poramboke' is a comprehensive one including lands which might be cultivated. But there is no presumption that any poramboke land is of such a character as could lawfully be cultivated or given out by the zemindar for purposes of cultivation. The only evidence on record is that of the kurnam who says that the land is a part of Survey No. 1 of the Ankuvedu village belonging to the estate. Mr. Nagabhushanam says the land that could not be cultivated would have no survey number. He has not shown me any evidence or any authori...
Subramania Pillai Vs. Dakshnamurthi Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.193
Sundara Aiyar, J.1. This is an application to revise the judgment of the Subordinate Court of Tinnevelly in Small Cause Suit No. 1476 of 1909. The plaintiff is the assignee of the rights of Nallu kannan, a ticket-holder in a chit conducted by the 1st defendant. Defendants Nos. 2 to 4 are the sons of the 1st defendant. The plaintiff gave notice of the assignment made to him to the 1st defendant. Subsequent to this notice, Nallakannan's right was attached by Subramania Pillai, who had obtained a decree against Nallakannan, and was brought to sale and purchased by the 5th defendant. The result is, there are two persons claiming the rights which Nallakannan originally had--the plaintiff who got an assignment from him, and the 5th defendant who purchased his right in Court-auction. The 5th defendant contended that the assignment in favour of the plaintiff was intended to defraud the creditors of Nallakannan and that, therefore, he and not the plaintiff was entitled to recover from the 1st t...
Kulandavelu Pedayachi Vs. Kamatchi Ayengar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.388
Sundara Aiyar, J.1. I am unable to sustain the decision of the District Munsif in this case. The plaintiff sued to recover monies paid by him on account of kist of certain land in the possession of the defendant, which, he alleged, the defendant was bound to pay to him. The plaintiff's case was really based on a contract. By a partition agreement between him and his brother, it was provided that the defendant should enjoy certain land for her maintenance and pay the kist due on it to the plaintiff and his brother, Rs. 8 to each of them. The District Munsif dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff could claim no relief on the basis of the partition-deed because the defendant was not a party to it. But it was under the partition-deed that she got her right to hold the land. Though not a party to the contract, she was one who took a benefit under it, subject to (he burdens placed on her by that document. She was, therefore, bound to pay the kist to the plaintiff and his brother...
T. Seetharama Chettiar and ors. Vs. M. Kristna Row, the Devan Trustee ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.406
1. The first question in this case is as to the effect of the order of the 31st January 1902, ending: with the words 'Petition struck off.' It has been repeatedly held that such an order is not known to the law, and that its effect is to be determined by a consideration of the circumstances of the case and the terms of the order itself. In the present case, the application was for execution of a decree by sale of a debt, and as we read the order, it states that the applicants had failed to pay certain warrant fees into Court, and the sale had been stayed by an order of the High Court and then adds: 'Petition struck off.' We do not agree with the District Judge that the words regarding the stay of execution were written by a clerk and form no part of the order of the Court. If the applicants had made the requisite payment, the Court could not at that date have proceeded with the application, and there was, therefore, no reason for punishing the applicants for their default by the dismis...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »