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.
Rama Iyengar Vs. M. Kasinivenda Iyengar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.746
1. The Subordinate Judge's judgment is entirely unsustainable: He begins it with the observation: 'it is meaningless to talk of the share in a well situate in another's property or an easement to take water in to the extent of a share.' We are quite unable to understand the Subordinate Judge's difficulty in realising that there may be ownership in a well in different persons though it might stand on property belonging to one of them only.2. The plaintiff's case clearly was baaed on ownership of a portion of the well. We cannot hold that the plaintiff was bound by the Pleader's acquiescence in the view of the law taken by the Subordinate Judge, that there can be no part ownership in a well. The Subordinate Judge ought to have dealt with the case on the footing on which it was put forward by the plaintiff.3. The Subordinate Judge was also mistaken in supposing, that the plaintiff claimed title under a gift to his grandmother. On the other hand, the defendant admitted in the Munsif's Cour...
The Southern Indian Mills Co. Ld. Through Managing Director, Kanthi Ma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.794
1. This is an appeal against an order of the District Judge framing the issues to be tried in a petition praying that the appellant Company may be wound-up under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1882. A preliminary objection is taken that no appeal lies, and we think this contention must prevail. It is argued for the appellants that an appeal lies under Section 169 of the Act, but it is admitted that the notice required by the section has not been given within the time limited. We are asked to extend the time for such notice, and we would be disposed to do so if we were of opinion that an appeal on the merits does lie against the order of the District Judge.2. We are however, of opinion that the framing of issues is not an 'order' within the meaning of Section 169 of the Companies Act. Order XIV, Rule 5, Civil Procedure Code, provides that the Court shall at a certain stage of the suit 'ascertain upon what material propositions of fact or of law the parties are at variance a...
R. Parasurama Gownden and ors. Vs. Sowcar Lodd Govinda Doss Krishna Do ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.903
1. This is a suit by a tenant in the Nowlac Estate (we use the word 'estate' in the popular sense) to set aside a distraint made by the 1st defendant, who is admittedly the propreitor, for rent due for the Fasli year 1317. The distraint was made in January 1909. The estate is exempt from the payment of Government revenue and it is admitted that both the kudivaram and the maharam belong to the proprietor. The distraint was objected to on several grounds before the Revenue Divisional Officer. He upheld one of the objections, namely, that the 1st defendant was not the registered proprietor under Section 134 of the Estates Land Act and set aside the distraint. On appeal by the 1st defendant, the judgment of the first Court was reversed and the suit dismissed. The only point decided by the District Judge was whether the 1st defendant was the registered holder of land in proprietory right under Clause 2, Section 134. He held that he was. The learned Vakil for the appellant wishes to place be...
Govinda Mudeley and ors. Vs. R. Mutthusawmy Pillay
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-15-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.169
1. The chief question argued in second appeal is that, under Exhibit G the share of Subramania Pillai's insane brother was not transferred to plaintiff. The executant, Subramania Pillai, it is true, does not describe himself as making the transfer as guardian of his brother. The Subordinate Judge has found that, as a matter of fact he made the transfer both on behalf of himself and on behalf of his brother. This finding is borne out by Exhibit G itself to a certain extent. The bond transferred is referred to; it was in fact in favour of both Subramania Pillay and his brother Part of the consideration for the transfer is stated to be due by Manonmani Ammal, that is really by both the brothers as the money was due from Manonmani Ammal as guardian of both. The whole amount of the bond due to both the brothers is transferred. No authority has been cited to show that it is necessary that the executant should describe himself as guardian of a person who is sought to be bound by the bond.2. I...
Subramanya Chettyar Vs. Arunachellam Chettyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-15-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.692
1. The basis of the plaintiff's claim before the Subordinate Judge was undoubtedly Section 70 of the Contract Act. The plaintiffs case is that he repair a certain channel. He holds a village called Pambur irrigated by a branch channel leading from Koothankal which itself takes its rise from the Vaigai river. He alleges that lower down, certain channels used to take off irrigating a village belonging to the Sndants, that plaintiff expended money in repairing the Koothankal from a point, a deal above the place where his branch channel takes off from the Koothankal and up to his own village, that the defendants have been benefited by the repairs made by him, that he made the repairs on behalf of himself and the owners of other villages, including the defendants, that he did not intend to do so gratuitously and that, therefore, he is entitled to recover contribution from the defendants on account of the expenditure incurred by him.2. It is admitted that there is now no branch channel which...
Sama Lakshmaya Chetty and anr. Vs. T.S. Manicka Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-15-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.749
1. The onus of proving that the sale-deed, Exhibit I, was a nominal transaction executed in order to delay creditors was on the plaintiffs. The District Judge in his judgment sets out in Paragraph 3 and in the first part of Paragraph 4 the state of the evidence on both sides. He then referred to the evidence of possession and proceeds to say: 'Possession not having been proved to have passed to defendants Nos. 1 and 2 before 1907, I think the evidence of defendant No. 3 and plaintiffs' witnesses Nos. 3 and 4 should be preferred to the evidence of defend April, the Court directed a Commission to ants Nos. 1 and 2 and defendants witnesses Nos. 2 and 3 and I, therefore, find that the sale under Exhibit I was nominal and executed to delay creditors, whose existence, at the time it was executed, defendant No. 3 admits in his evidence.' He does not record a positive finding whether possession passed or not under the sale. He says, 'possession is not proved to have passed.' In other words, if...
Krishna Doss Vs. Mahomed Mian Rowthen
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.484
1. We think that the order of the District Judge is right. We construe the order of 18th December 1903 on Execution Petition No. 780 of 1903 as directing that proceedings in execution be stayed until the claim to the attached property shall be disposed of and granting time to the execution creditor to put in the affidavit and encumberance certificates (for the want of which his previous petition had been dismissed) until the disposal of the claim petition. That petition was disposed of on 27th January 1904, and time began to run against the execution creditor from that time. He ought to have put in the affidavit and, encumberance certificate and moved the Court to proceed with the sale within three years at the farthest from that date, but he did not do so. The application Execution Petition No, 582 of 1909, made on the 24th June 1909, was an application to revive and carry through a pending execution petition within the meaning of the Privy Council decision report ed in Sheikh Kamar-u...
Tumumla Peddaya Alias Venkata Padmanabam Vs. Koppula Chinna Appanna an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.412
1. The question argued in second appeal is that a mandatory injunction should not have been granted in this case. The facts found are that the wall raised by the defendant on which he has also rested a tiled building has been built on a site belonging to the plaintiff, that the plaintiff objected to it as soon as the raising of the wall was commenced but the defendant persisted in raising the wall and the building, that soon after the wall was finished, the Court, in which the plaintiff could have instituted a suit, was closed and the defendant built his house during the holidays and that after the re opening of the Court, the plaintiff, a poor woman, was not able to file a suit immediately, as she had to raise funds and collect evidence of her title to the site wall. The suit was instituted in October, the construction of the building was completed before July. The District Munsif's observations show that there was other litigation between the parties in connection with the site of th...
Sundaram Minor by His Mother and Next Friend, Saradambal Vs. Meenakshi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.787
Sankaran Nair, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was brought by the plaintiff to recover possession of certain properties on the ground that ha was the dasi putra of one Sarvana Pillay. The suit was dismissed by the Subordinate Judge, who found that Saradambal, the plaintiff's mother, was a temple dasi and was the concubine of Saravana Pillay, but that it was not proved that she was kept by him 'exclusively and continuously.' He found that the plaintiff was born during the time his mother was Saravana Pillay's concubine, but that it has not been proved that he was the son of' Saravana Pillay. He also found that, even if he was born to Saravana Pillay, he is not entitled to the properties of Sarvana Pillay after his death under the Hindu Law.2. In appeal, these findings have been disputed.3. Saravana Pillay left a legitimate son by the 1st defendant, one of his widows. That boy having died, the plaintiff claims to recover the entire properties by survivorship. Defendants Nos...
Jaitum Bi Vs. Nabi Saheb and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.389; (1913)24MLJ15
1. The suit was brought by the plaintiff for partition and recovery of her share of her father's estate. It was dismissed by the District Judge on the ground that the parties had agreed to refer the matters in dispute between them to arbitration and that the suit was therefore barred by Section 21 of the Specific Relief Act.2. It is proved that on the 23rd Octobor, the plaintiff's husband acting under a general power of attorney and the defendants executed a muchilika (Exhibit B) by which they agreed to refer the dispute to arbitration. Three arbitrators were appointed by that muchilika; Mustan Saheb for the plaintiff, Gafur Saheb for the defendants Venkafcarangiah for both parties. On the 30th October, the plaintiff's husband issued a notice (Exhibit C) revoking the reference to arbitration as illegal because he said it was only to three persons and not to five. The plaintiff's husband also stated in the notice that unless in five days the defendants chose five arbitrators the matter ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »