Chennai Court August 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.
Yellammal Vs. Ayyappan Naick
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.914
Sundara Aiyar, J.1. The question for decision in this second appeal is whether the plaintiff's suit is barred by limitation. The facts on which the question has to be decided are not disputed. The 4th defendant obtained a decree against one Perumal Naick in Original Suit No. 37 of 1904. In execution of that decree, she attached, on the 1st of July 1905, a debt due to Perumal Naick from the 1st defendant in connection with a chit fund. The 1st defendant, after the debt became payable to Perumal on the 29th July 1905, paid the money into Court on the 15th June 1905, having obtained an order permitting him to do so on the 6th November 1905. The plaintiff pat in a claim petition objecting to the attachment and asserting that the debt was payable to himself by virtue of an assignment made to him by Perumal prior to the 4th defendant's attachment. The claim petition was rejected. He then instituted a suit, Original Suit No. 458 of 1905, under Section 283 of the Civil Procedure Code to establ...
G. Narayanaswami Naidu Garu, Receiver Nidadavole Estate Vs. Tirumala S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1912
Reported in: (1913)24MLJ79
1. In this case, the Receiver of the Nidadavole Estate seeks to recover possession of a holding in the occupation of defendants 1 and 2. The land was held by one Rangam till his death in 1897 or 1893. It descended on his death to his two sons Sobhanadhri (now dead) and the 1st defendant. The 2nd defendant is the son of Sobhanadhri. After Rangam's death, Sobhanadhri executed a Muchilika in favour of the estate acknowledging that it was kammatham land in which he had no occupancy right. Subsequently the Receiver, treating the holding as belonging to Sobhanadhri alone, instituted a suit against him to compel him to accept a patta. There was a decree in favour of the estate and as Sobhanadhri failed to accept the patta and execute a Muchilika, an order under Section 10 of the Rent Recovery Act VIII 1865 was passed against him. There is some dispute as to whether the estate actually obtained delivery of possession in pursuance of the Collector's order. It appears clear however that the pres...
Ramanathan Chettyar and anr. Vs. Kalimuthu Pillay and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1912
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.189
Napier, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment and decree of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Madura, dismissing a suit by the plaintiffs against defendants Nos. 1 and 2 on a foreign judgment. Plaintiffs sought to recover Rs. 7,336-1-7 from defendants being balance of the amount with interest due under a decree obtained by them in Suit No. 106 of the Supreme Court of Singapore. The decree is Exhibit A. The suit was brought by the plaintiffs against Oona Kavenna Suvenah Pillay, two other persons with whom this suit has no concern, Oona Kavenna and Co., and the two defendants to the present suit as carrying on business in Singapore under the firm name of Oona Kavenna and Co. The allegation in the plaint in the Court of Singapore, so far as appears from a writ of summons for service out of the jurisdiction (Exhibit B), is that all the defendants made two promissory-notes of August 2, 1905, jointly and severally payable to the plaintiffs and two pro-notes of the same date made in like...
G. Narayanasawmi Naidu Garu Vs. Tirumalasetti Subbaya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.698
Sundara Aiyar, J.1. In this case, the Receiver of Nidavole Estate seeks to recover possession of a holding in the occupation of defendants Nos. 1 and 2. The land was held by one Rangam till his death in 1897 or in 1898. It descended on his death to his two sons, Sobhandhari (now dead) and the first defendant. The second defendant is the son of Sobhandhari. After Rangam's death, Sobhandhari executed a muchilika in favour of the Estate acknowledging that it was kammatham land in which he had no occupancy right. Subsequently, the Receiver, treating the holding as belonging to Sobhandhari alone, instituted a suit against him to compel him to accept a patta. There was a decree in favour of the Estate and as Sobhandhari failed to accept a patta and executed a muchilika, an order, under Section 10 of the Rent Recovery Act, VIII of 1865, was passed against him. There is some dispute as to whether the Estate actually obtained delivery of possession in pursuance of the Collector's order. It appe...
Audi thevan and ors. Vs. Palani thevan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.702
1. The case has been argued very elaborately by Mr. T. Rangachariar, who has subjected the Subordinate Judge's judgment to a skilful and minute criticism. The Subordinate Judge has really found two points against the plaintiffs and in favour of the defendants. He has found that the plaintiffs have not shown that the defendants possession of the lands originated under their vendors, that the defendants have admittedly been in possession for a very long time and that they have been paying a unifrom rent throughout. In those circumstances, he was of opinion that the onus of proving that they had not a permanent right of occupancy was on the plaintiffs. We cannot say that he was not entitled to hold that the facts, established, and admitted, shifted the onus on to the plaintiffs to prove that the defendants were only tenants-at-will or tenants from year to year. His finding on the question of the defendant's right of occupancy must therefore, be accepted.2. The other finding that he has re...
Kattamoody Raghupathy Vs. Kattamoody Kannamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.710; (1912)23MLJ363
Sundara Aiyar, J.1. The subject-matter of this suit is a house. One Venkatrayudu left a widow, Seethamma. She adopted; one Madhavarayudu, the 1st defendant in this suit, Venkatrayudu's reversioner according to Hindu Law was the plaintiff. He instituted a suit to set aside the adoption of Madhavarayudu That suit succeeded. After the termination of the suit, two documents came in existence. One of them is Exhibit D, and the other is Exhibit E. Exhibit D was executed by the plaintiff in favour of the widow. According to that document, he received Rs. 400 from the widow, and then the document states: 'I have relinquished my reversionary right and claim in the said property (i.e., the property of Venkatrayudu). Therefore, you shall enjoy the said property with power to dispose of the same by means of gift or sale; but neither I nor my heirs shall have anything whatever to do therewith.' This document was executed on the 1st May 1896. On the 19th of the same month, the widow Seethamma execut...
Parvataneni Venkatramiah and ors. Vs. Parvataneni Narayudu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.246
1. The only question is this case is whether the plaintiff who is a minor inamdar is also entitled to the kudivaram right in the lands from which he seeks to eject the defendants.2. It has been decided in In re Bhabrayya Gudepillai 21 M.L.J. 803 that when a minor inam has been carved out of a...as in this case, the presumption is that only the melvaram right was granted as an inam (see also Appeal Suit No. 137 of 1908). The inam register and the cazalet's register (Exhibits F and G) do not prove that the lands themselves were granted as inam, and it is not probable that the lands themselves were so granted when the zemindar himself had presumably no rights in the kudivaram. In all these cases, the inamdar ought to show that he himself let the defendants as tenants at the beginning of their occupation of the land if he wishes the Court to hold that he owned kudivaram right also and was, therefore, entitled to eject the defendants.3. The distinction sought to be drawn by the appellant's ...
Narayanasami Aiyar Vs. Janaki Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.261
1. The principal ground on which the appellant asks us to appoint a Receiver in this case is the gift of Rs. 10,000 by the 1st defendant, the widow in possession, to the 2nd defendant, her mother-in-law. We are, however, of opinion that, in the circumstances in which that gift was made, we ought not to consider it a ground for depriving the first defendant of the control of the securities and investment which she inherited from her husband. We agree with the Subordinate Judge that she made the gift under pressure as the then best apparent way of securing possession of the documents, many of them unregistered, which formed a considerable part of the estate. These documents were, it is clear, in the possession of the 2nd defendant and her son-in-law v. Ramaswami Iyer with or without the knowledge of the 1st defendant's relations. Exhibit M indicates that on the 11th of August, the 1st defendant knew that the 2nd defendant or Ramaswami Iyer or both were attempting to collect outstandings ...
The Madura Municipal Council Through Its Chairmanl, R.V. Ramachari Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.890
1. This case is on all fours with Raman Chetty v. Municipal Council of Kumbakonam 30 M.L 290 : M.L.T. 294 with which we agree. We mast, therefore, hold that the contract between the Municipality and the defendant, not being in accordance with the provisions of Section 45 of Act IV of 1884, the suit is not maintainable, and that the defendants' enjoyment of the benefit of the contract for three months does not affect the applicability of the section.2. The petition is dismissed....
Mandi Mathar Saheb Vs. HossaIn Saheb and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-1912
Reported in: (1912)23MLJ734
1. The finding of both the Courts is that although by Ex. A the mother and the aunt of Syed Abdulla who sold the house in dispute to the plaintiff purported to make a hiba or simple gift of the property to the said Abdulla, yet in fact they never relinquished possession of it, but continued to live in it as before with, their other children. The District Judge also finds that the continued residence of the donors in the house was not in the capacity of tenants at will of the donee. At the same time itf is found that Syed Abdulla after the date of gift obtained pattas in his name and paid kists. The conclusion which the Lower Courts seem to arrive at, is that there was no transmutation of possession and the District Judge in more than one place in his Judgment calls the transaction a paper gift. If this be the correct reading of the findings of the Lower Courts, there can be no doubt that the gift is invalid and the plaintiff's suit was rightly dismissed.2. But it is urged that the Lowe...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »