Chennai Court April 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.
Hyderman Kutti and anr. Vs. Syed Ali and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-13-1912
Reported in: (1912)23MLJ244
Abdur Rahim, J.1. In both these appeals one common question arises whether the sale of a minor's property by his mother acting as defacto guardian is valid under the Mahomedan Law and if so, under what conditions. In one case Appeal No. 1416, the sale deed alleges that the shop which was sold has been vacant as the municipality prohibited the selling of fish and flesh in that shop, that it was in a dilapidated, condition and the mother of the minor who is the 8th defendant was unable to execute repairs. The sale proceeds it is alleged were applied to the discharge of certain debts contracted for the marriage of a sister of the minor and for other purposes. It was to meet the expenses of the marriage that money was required and the other facts mentioned apparently furnished the reason for selecting this particular property for sale. In Suit No. 4 of 1909 which has given rise to S.A. No. 1639 of 1910 the allegation in the plaint is that the minor's mother who was managing the family affa...
A.S. Kadar Rowther and ors. Vs. M.L. Vencatachellapathy Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.573
Sundara Aiyar, J.1. Two points have been argued in this revision petition. The first point relates to the jurisdiciion of the Small Cause Court to try the suit. Two contentions have been urged in respect of the plea of want of jurisdiction. The first is, that the suit must be regarded as one for an account, which a Small Cause Court has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of. It does not appear from anything placed before me that the defendants were the agents of the plaintiff or occupied any other position with reference to him which would make it their duty in law to render accounts to him. The decision in Kailas Chandra Mandal v. Kiranenda Ghosh 10 Ind. Cas. 83 does not help the defendants, because there is nothing in this case to show that the taking of any accounts was necessary. It would be quite enough if the plaintiff proved what goods he sent to the defendants, of which he was entitled to receive the pi ice and whatever other amounts he was entitled to receive on account of hun...
V. Raman Nair Vs. Meerannan Alias Cheki Routhan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.571
Sundara Aiyar, J.1. The question raised in this case is of some importance. As I have arrived at a clear opinion on that question, I think it is useless to admit this revision petition. The plaintiff instituted this suit to recover rent due on a lease. The 6th defendant was a sub-lessee; it does not appear whether he took a sub-lease of the whole or a portion of the premises leased by the plaintiff. The finding of the lower Court is that the 6th defendant paid the rent due by him to the 1st defendant, his lessor, and surrendered the land to him. The lower Court, therefore, concludes that no rent was due by the 6th defendant. Mr. Madhavan Nair contends that a sub-lessee is liable for rent to the lessor of the head lease, the obligation to pay rent being a covenant attaching to the land, and he relies on the authority of Kunhanujan v. Anjeln 17 M.k 296. Assuming that that is the law with regard to sub-leases, irrespective of the question whether the sub-lease amounts practically to an as...
Balakrishna Pillay and ors. Vs. V. Mini Reddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.702
1. The District Judge has refused to give credit as part satisfaction of the decree in question to certain parts, of which two, one of Rs. 1,700 and one of Rs. 2,000, have been certified by the payee to the Court, and which sums were, it is alleged, paid by the judgment-debtor to a transferee decree holder, after transfer to him and after he had made an application for execution of the decree transferred but before order was passed on his application.2. The District Judge's refusal is based solely on the ground that the transfer had not been recognized by the Court. An application for execution was made under the old Code of Civil Procedure by the transferee, but permission to execute was not given, the ground of refusal being that the decree was attached by a creditor of the original decree-holder. No Court has yet decided that the transfer is invalid, fraudulent or voidable by creditors or that, for any other reason, the transferee has no right in the decree.3. It is contended before...
Thachoor Poonkuzhi Illath Kesavan Unni (Minor) by his guardian, Head C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-1912
Reported in: (1912)23MLJ165
1. There were three members in the Tachoor Poonkuzhi Illom, Narayanan and two women. They executed Exhibit IV in favour of one Damodaran whereby they constituted Damodaran their heir and stipulated that Damodaran should marry and beget issue for their illom, to succeed to the Tachoor Poonkuzhi Illom on the death of Narayanan. Damodaran married accordingly and the 6th defendant, a female child, was born as the result of the union. Narayanan's wife having subsequently given birth to a male child there were differences amongst the parties and a release was executed in Narayanan's favour by Damodaran on his own behalf and on behalf of the minor 6th defendant and by his wife whereby they renounced all interest in the properties of the Tachoor Poonkuzhi Illom in consideration of a sum of Rs. 18,000 partly paid and partly promised by the father of the plaintiff in this suit. The plaintiff's father who advanced this sum at the request of Narayanan obtained a mortgage from Narayanan and the two...
Velayudan Chetty Vs. Alangaram Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-1912
Reported in: (1912)23MLJ475
1. This is a suit to redeem a mortgage effected by the late Zemindar of Varappur in favor of Defendant 3 and of the fathers of defendants 1, 2 and 4. Portions of items Nos. 1 and 2 of the mortgaged properties were sold in execution of decrees obtained against the Zamindar in 1866 and 1867 and now belong to the 10th defendant. In a suit of 1884 the plaintiff obtained,a decree against the Zemindar's elder son and in execution acquired the elder son's share of the mortgaged properties in so far as it had not been already alienated. The plaintiffs case is that the estate was impartible and that by his purchase he acquired the whole equity of redemption subject to the prior alienations. In 1897 the Zamindar's younger son claiming that the estate was partible sold his share to a purchaser who transferred it to the 1st defendant, who claims to be entitled to a one-third share in addition to his rights as a representative of one of the original mortgagees. Both the lower Courts, however, have ...
Pasupuletti Venkamma Vs. Shaik Hamid Minor by Next Friend Pier Sarn Bi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.741
Sundara Aiyar, J.1. Two points have been argued in second appeal. The first contention is that the finding that the sale of a portion of the property mortgaged to the plaintiff was not proved to be in complete discharge of the mortgage debt should not be accepted, because the endorsement on the mortgage-deed, Exhibit A, has not been legally proved. The Subordinate Judge regards the signature of the 1st defendant to the endorsement as sufficiently proved on the ground that the signature bears a close resemblance to the 1st defendant's signature affixed to the deposition and the plaint in the suit and to some documents put in for the defendants. Mr. Ramadoss contends that an inference drawn by a mere comparsion of signatures can only be used for supplementing other evidence and cannot be regarded as legally sufficient by itself to prove the signature. He contends that the language of Section 73 of the Evidence Act supports his argument. I am unable to agree with this contention. As point...
Tachoor Poonkuzhi Illath Kesavan Unni, Minor, By his Guardian, Head Cl ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.100
1. There were three members in the Tachoor Poonkuzhi Illom, Narayanan and two women. They executed Exhibit IV in favour of one Damodaran whereby they constituted Damodaran their heir and stipulated that Damodaran should marry and beget issue for their Illom to succeed to the Tachoor Poonkuzhi Illom on the death of Narayanan. Damodaran married accordingly, and the 6th defendant, a female child, was born as the result of the union. Narayanan's wife having subsequently given birth to a male child, there were differences amongst the parties and a release was executed in Narayanan's favour by Damodaran, on his own behalf and on behalf of the minor 6th defendant, and by his wife, whereby they renounced all interest in the properties of the Tachoor Poonkuzhi Illom in consideration of a sum of Rs. 18,000 partly paid and partly promised by the father of the plaintiff in this suit. The plaintiff's father who advanced this sum at the request of Narayanan, obtained a mortgage from Narayanan arid t...
Aiyya Pillay Vs. Vrithachellam Pillay
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.273
ORDER1. No one appears on either side. We are of opinion that the suit is cognizable by the Small Cause Court. The only reason suggested by the Subordinate Judge for his contrary view is the fact that the plaintiff is a trustee; and that is clearly not a sufficient reason. Vide Sundaralingam Chetti v. Mariyappa Chetty 26 M.K 200 and Venkatachelapathy v. Kanahasabapathi Pillay 20 M.L.J. 146 : 5 Ind. Cas. 912 : 8 M.L.T. 67. These authorities support the view that the present case is not a suit relating to a trust within the meaning of Article 18 of the second Schedule of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act and is cognizable by the Subordinate Judge.2. We set aside the order of the Subordinate Judge and direct him to receive the plaint and dispose of the suit according to law....
Solamalal Mudaliar Vs. Vadamalal Muthiran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-10-1912
Reported in: (1912)23MLJ273
Sundara Aiyar, J.1. The question raised in this revision petition is whether the Lower Court was right in rejecting as inadmissible the promissory note on which the suit was instituted. The note was executed outside British India but was endorsed over to the plaintiff in British India. It is quite clear under Section 3, Clause (b) of the Stamp Act that the document required to be duly stamped. The District Munsiff held it to be not duly stamped because the stamp was not cancelled in such a manner that it could not be used again. The manner in which the stamp was cancelled in this case is stated by the Munsiff thus: 'Some blue pencil Iines are drawn over to the stamp.' The Munsiff considered this not to be an eftctive method of cancellation. I have looked at the stamp myself and I am unable to say that the District Munsiff was wrong in holding that the stamp was not properly cancelled. It is not possible to lay down any general rule as to what mode of cancellation could be effective. Th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »