Chennai Court September 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.
B.M. Venkatappa Nayanivaru Vs. Rami Reddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-25-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.39
1. This is a petition to revise the order of the District Munsif of Chettur in a Small Cause suit filed by the proprietor of an estate against an inamdar. The plaintiff claims to recover a sum of Rs. 2-11-9. It appears from the plaint that the amount is made up of jodi and fasli jasti. The claim is made against the defendant on the ground that he is bound to pay it as inamdar. It is not, therefore, based on the relationship between the plaintiff and defendant as landlord and ryot. The claim is against the person who himself possesses an interest in the malvaram. The suit was, therefore, not triable in a Revenue Court and was rightly instituted in the District Munsif's Court on the Small Cause side. See Narayanaswamy Naidu v. Vencata Subaraydu 9 M.L.T. 315. We reverse the order of lower Court and direct that the plaint be restored to the file and the suit disposed of according to law. Costs will abide the result....
Kodi Venykatappa Row Vs. Barnala Sury Anarayana and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-25-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.442
Sundara Aiyar, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of the Subordinate Judge of Vizagapatam, returning a plaint for presentation to the proper Court. The suit was for recovery 'of immoveable property held on the mortgage by defendants Nos. 1 to 8. The plaintiff also alleged in his plaint that he believed that the mortgage-debt had been discharged by the usufruct of mortgaged property a few years before the date of the plaint. He stated also what he believed to be the annual income from the property. In the prayer in the plaint, he asks for the recovery of possession and for an account being taken of the income of the property and for payment of whatever might be found to be due on the taking of the account, The plaintiff did not value his prayer for the recovery of money. He apparently proceeded on the view that no extra stamp duty was payable for recovering any surplus that might be found due from the mortgagees. The District Munsif passed a decree for redemption and found that a ...
Mohideen Imbrahim Vs. Mahomed Mura Levai Through His Agent Mahomed Mir ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.437; (1912)23MLJ487
Ayling J.1. The facts of the case are sufficiently set forth in the judgment of the Subordinate Judge : and his decision appears to me to be correct. Two points are argued on behalf of the petitioner, (1) that the present suit is not maintainable and (2) that it is barred by Article 62 of Schedule I of the Limitation Act.2. As regards the first point, the Court auction under which plaintiff (Respondent) purchased the property, the filing of O.S. No. 341 of 05 to declare the title of a third person other than the Judgment-debtor and the final decision of that suit, all took place, while thfe old Civil Procedure Code (Act XIV of 1882) was in force. It has been repaatedly held that under Section 315 of that Act a suit by a Court auction purchaser to recover the sale price from the decree-holder would lie where it was found on a suit brought by a third party that the judgment-debtor has no title whatever to the property sold in Court auction (vide Gurnshidawa v. Gangaya I.L.R. (1897) B. 78...
Armugha Mudeliar Vs. Yagamba Bai Ammani and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.323
Sundara Aiyar, J.1. This appeal arises out of an application for execution of the Subordinate Judge's Court of Tanjore in Original Suit No. 13 of 1903. The application was dismissed by the Subordinate Judge. The appellant is the assignee of the decree under a document dated 5th July 1909. The decree was for possession of certain lands, mesne profits and costs. The appellant obtained an assignment only so far as the award of mesne profits and costs was concerned. Prior to the assignment, the decree had been attached by several persons who had, obtained decrees against the assignor, Yogamba Boyi Ammani. Of these, the 16th respondent made the attachment in execution of his decree in Small Cause Suit No. 905 of 1903, on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court of Tanjore; his attachment was in October 1904. The 17th respondent was the decree-holder in Original Suit No. 53 of 1905, on the file of the District Munsif's Court of Tiruvadi; his decree was transferred for execution to the Tanjo...
Ravinuthala Venkatappiah Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Counc ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.895
Sundara Aiyar, J.1. The Government Pleader says that all that the District Munsif intended to do was to warn the petitioner that if he went to his Court without a summons or order of the Court, he would take steps to have him adjudged a law tout by the District Judge. In my opinion, such an order ought not to have been passed. If there was any reason to suspect that the petitioner was a tout, it was, no doubt, the duty of the Munsif to take steps to have him declared a tout. It appears to me to be objectionable to direct that the petitioner should not go to the District Munsif's Court, where justice is openly dispensed, without a summons or order. The notice to the petitioner expressly states: 'you are a law tout.' This again is, in my opinion, absolutely without justification. Admittedly, the District Munsif held no inquiry into the matter. In his order, the Munsif says: 'I see no reason to alter my opinion of the fact of his being a tout, though his Pleader has said that I should mak...
MuThe Venkatachellepati and ors. Vs. Row Sahib Pyinda Venkatachellapat ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-1912
Reported in: (1912)23MLJ652
Abdur Rahim, J.1. These two appeals arise in a suit to recover certain immoveable property. The suit was instituted by the appellant in A.S. No. 209 of 08. He is the respondent in the other appeal No. 46 of 09. The facts that led to the institution of the suit, so far as they are relevant to these appeals, are these:-The plaintiff executed a deed of mortgage in favor of the defendant in November 1894. In 1896 he executed a deed of sale with respect to the same property for Rs. 8,000 and odd made up of the amount of the previous mortgage and Rs. 4,000 then paid to the plaintiff by the defendant. The sale deed is marked as exhibit A in this case. On the same day as exhibit A document was written which showed that the transaction between the parties was intended to be an usufructuary mortgage and not a sale. This document which is in the shape of a letter was not registered. Then in 1900 the defendant in the present suit tried to enforce what was intended to be a usufructuary mortgage, bu...
Mutta Venkatachalapathy (Died) and ors. Vs. Rao Sahib Pyinda Venkatach ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.987
Abdur Rahim, J.1. These two appeals arise in a suit to recover certain immoveable property. The suit was instituted by the appellant in Appeal Suit No. 209 of 1908. He is the respondent in the other Appeal No. 46 of 1909. The facts that led to the institution of the suit, so far as they are relevant to these appeals, are these: The plaintiff executed a deed of mortgage in favour of the defendant in November 1894. In 1896, he executed a deed of sale with respect to the same property for Rs. 8,000 and odd, made up of the amount of the previous mortgage and Rs. 4,000 then paid to the plaintiff by the defendant. The sale-deed is marked as Exhibit A in this case. On the same day as Exhibit A, a document was written, which showed that the transaction between the parties was intended to be a usufructuary mortgage and not a sale. This document, which is in the shape of a letter, was not registered. Then in 1900 the defendant in the present suit tried to enforce what was intended to be a usufru...
Gopala Iyengar Vs. Venkatakrishna Iyengar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.748
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The defendant is the petitioner in the revision. He executed a promissory-note in favour of one Venkatavaratha Iyengar (defendant's son-in-law) for Rs. 200 on 26th September 1908. Venkatavaratha Iyengar died in May 1909, leaving a widow and two paternal uncles (plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 in this suit). He was 30 years old at his death. Then his widow (defendant's daughter) brought Original Suit No. 292 of 1909, against her husband's paternal uncles (plaintiffs NOS. 1 and 2) for maintenance, evidently on the basis that her husband and his paternal uncles were undivided in interest and that she was entitled to maintenance as the widow of an undivided co-parcener in a joint Hindu family owning joint family property. Though the present plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 (defendants therein) at first contested her claim on the ground that Venkatavaratha Iyengar and themselves did not own any joint family property (See Exhibit D), the present plaintiff afterwards consented to give def...
Narayanasamy thevar Vs. Aiyasamy Iyengar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-1912
Reported in: (1913)24MLJ184
1. The plaintiff is the petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition. He alleged in his plaint that in 1896, he gave 20 loose rubies to defendant who was his friend in order that the defendant might give the rubies to a goldsmith and have an 'olai' ear ornament, made through that goldsmith, the 20 rubies to be used in making that 'olai.' The plaint further alleges that the defendant was requested to have the ' olai' made as soon as possible. The 20 rubies were thus not to be returned to the plaintiff as loose rubies but to be worked into the ' olai.' It is clear, to my mind, (see Bouvier's Law Dictionary, page 547, as to the definition of a deposit and also Halsbury's Laws of England, Vol. I, page 535, as regards the difference between a deposit and a mandatiim and also Encyclopaedia of the Laws of England, page 458, and the American Cyclopaedia, Vol. XIII, page 794, as regards the definition of a depositary) that the plaintiff did not make a deposit in the legal sense, of the rubies wit...
Narayanasamy thevar Vs. Aiyasami Iyengar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-1912
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.921
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The plaintiff is the petitioner in this civil revision petition. He alleged in his plaint that in 1896, he gave 20 loose rubies to defendant who was his friend in order that the defendant might give the rubies to a goldsmith and have an olai, ear ornament, made through that goldsmith, the 20 rubies to be used in making that olai. The plaint further alleges that the defendant was requested to have the olai made as soon as possible. The 20 rubies were thus not to be returned to the plaintiff as loose rubies but to be worked into the olai. It is clear, to my mind, (see Bouvier's Law Dictionary, page 547, as to the definition of a deposit and also Halsbury's Laws of England, Volume I, page 535, as regards the difference between a deposit and a mandatum, and also Encyclopedia of the Laws of England, page 458, and the American Cyclopedia, Volume XIII, page 794, as regards the definition of a depositary) that the plaintiff did not make a deposit, in the legal sense, of th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »