Chennai Court January 1914 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.
Maharaja Raja Sahib Maharban Dostan Sri Raju Maharaja Sree Row Sir Ven ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1914
Reported in: (1916)ILR39Mad265
John Wallis, C.J. 1. This is an appeal by an auction-purchaser of an undivided share belonging to a co-parcener against the decree of the District Judge of Chingleput disallowing his claim for mesne profits in the suit filed by him for partition and delivery of the share purchased.2. The appellant rests his case on two grounds. The first is that the members of the family of the co-parcener whose share he purchased were divided in status and that he is consequently entitled to mesne profits and secondly that in any event he is entitled as a tenant In common with the other co-parceners to mesne profits in respect of the share which he purchased3. As regards the first contention there is no oral evidence on record. The appellant relies on Exhibits A and B as showing that the person whose share he purchased was divided in status from the other members of his family. Exhibit A is an affidavit filed by one of the members in a previous suit. The inference required to be drawn from Exhibit A i...
Kachi Yuva Rangappa Kalakka Vs. Kulandai Ayal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1914
Reported in: (1914)26MLJ205
1. It is claimed for 1st defendant that the suit is barred by limitation on the ground that the plaintiff's right to receive maintenance from the Zemindar was denied more than twelve years before the date of the plaint. It is on the 1st defendant to prove this denial and in our opinion he has failed. We agree with the Subordinate Judge that the four witnesses examined on the 1st defendant's side are untrustworthy and the story which they tell seems to us to be improbable. Eliminating that evidence there remains only the fact that no maintenance has been paid to plaintiff at any time since her husband's death and the plaintiff's allegation in Exhibit U that when the Zemindar was asked to provide for her he promised to arrange--a statement in paragraph 12 of the plaint is relied on as an admission of the alleged denial but it does not amount in our opinion to an admission of the denial of a right to receive maintenance. The evidence is insufficient to prove that the right was denied.2. T...
Yellammal Vs. Ayyappa Naick
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1914
Reported in: AIR1941Mad126; 22Ind.Cas.870; (1914)26MLJ166
Charles Arnold White, Kt., C.J.1. The qustion for determination in this appeal is--Is the plaintiff's suit barred by limitation? 2. The material facts and dates are as follows:On July 4th 1905 the 4th defendant who had obtained a decree against one Perumal Naik, attached a debt alleged to be due to Perumal Naik by the 1st defendant.3. On July 29th 1905 the alleged debt became payable.4. On November 6th 19.05 the 1st defendant obtained on order of Court giving him leave to pay the amount of the debt into Court. On June 15th 1906 the 1st defendant paid the money into Court. On October 3 1906 the money was paid out to the 4th defendant.5. On the attachment of the debt the plaintiff had put in a claim petition alleging that the debt was payable to him as having been assigned to him by Perumal Naik prior to the attachment. This petition was dismissed. He then instituted a suit under Section 283 of the Civil Procedure Code (1882). He failed in the Court of First Instance but succeeded on app...
Kajira Beeviammall by Next Friend and Husband Sheikpodir Rowther Vs. F ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Mad298; 24Ind.Cas.779
1. The Munsif's refusal to allow the petition for amendment of plaint seems to me to be clearly erroneous. Giving more weight (as I ought) to the very recent decision of this Court in Penumarli Vasantarayadu v. Reddi Subbamma 22 Ind. Cas. 39 : 14 M.L.T. 588 : (1914) M.W.N. 98. than to the decisions of the Calcutta High Court in Charu Chundra Dutt v. Sarat Chundra Singh 8 Ind. Cas. 87 : 12 O.L.J. 537. etc., quoted by the learned Vakil for the petitioner, I refuse to interfere in revision under Section 315 of the Code of Civil Procedure. There will be no order as to the costs in this petition....
S. Sabapathy Pillay and ors. Vs. Vanmahalinga Pillay and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-16-1914
Reported in: (1914)26MLJ331
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The judgment debtor is the appellant in this appeal preferred against the order of the Subordinate Judge's Court of Mayavaram passed on the execution petition filed by the 2nd and 3rd defendants as decree holders.2. The facts are a little complicated but it is necessary to set out many of them in order to understand the contentions in this appeal.3. The plaintiff and the 1st defendant are brothers. They effected a partition of their properties about July 1897. In that partition, about 34 items of landed properties (among other properties) were divided between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant, the plaintiff obtaining for his share certain specific properties out of the 34 properties and the 1st defendant the remaining properties. In June 1899, the 1st defendant and the father of the defendants 2 and 3, since deceased, executed a simple bond for Rs. 10,000 in favour of the plaintiff. It has here to be mentioned that though the plaintiff got in the partition of 189...
P.C. Manavikrama ZamorIn Raja Avergal Vs. R.P. Achutha Menon
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-15-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Mad377; (1914)26MLJ377
Arnold White, C.J.1. If this matter had been res integra I should have been disposed to hold that Article 131 should be construed as applying to a suit brought for the purpose of obtaining an adjudication as to the existence of an alleged periodically recurring right, and not to a suit in which it was sought to recover moneys alleged to be due by reason of the alleged right. The question of the existence of the right is no doubt distinct from the question of the right to recover moneys if it is established that the right exists. It is however, difficult to see why the period of limitation should not in both cases be the same, as it is in the case of a suit for a declaration of a right to maintenance and in a suit for arrears of maintenance. If the contention of the appellant is well founded there is no article which deals specifically with the period of limitation in the case of a suit to recover moneys due under an alleged periodically recurring right. There is force in the contention...
Rao Sahib T. Numberumal Chettiar Vs. Krishnajee
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-13-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Mad418; (1914)26MLJ356
Charles Arnold White, Kt., C.J.1. In this case two preliminary objections were taken by Mr. Grant on behalf of the respondent to the hearing of the Appeal. The appeal is from a Judgment of Wallis J. sitting on the Original Side. The right of Appeal is created by Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. Mr. Grant's first objection was that no appeal lay since this was an appeal from an order as to costs only. The learned Judge gave the plaintiff a decree for a certain sum and directed that the costs must follow the event. This is no doubt an appeal from an order as to costs only in the sense that the defendant only appeals from the judgment in so far as it directs that the plaintiff should have the general costs of the suit. It is not an appeal from a judgment or order which deals only with the question of costs. It is an appeal only as regards costs but it is not an appeal from an order as to costs only. For that reason it seems to me this case is distinguishable from the Full Bench decision i...
Thandayuthapani Sethuram and ors. Vs. Chinnathal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Mad149(1); 24Ind.Cas.872
Tyabji, J.1. This is a petition to revise under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code, an order of the District Judge of Tanjore dismissing a petition purporting to be presented, under Order XLI, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code, and Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act. In his order the Judge holds that the petitioner's appeal to his Court was barred by limitation and that there was no excuse for the delay in its presentation. He accordingly dismissed the petition : and (in effect) rejected the appeal as time--barred.2. The question is whether a revision petition will lie under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code. In so far as the petition was one to excuse delay in presentation I think it is quite clear that the order is not open to revision. Mr. Ramachandra Aiyar, however, contends that the appeal was not really time-barred and that the District Judge's order in so far as it declares the appeal to be time-barred is open to revision. The latest ruling on the point is a very recent one of San...
Potineni Gangiah and ors. Vs. Raja Venkata Ramayya Appa Row Bahadur Ze ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-1914
Reported in: 25Ind.Cas.372
1. We must accept the finding of the District Judge that the excess area of 212 acres is an encroachment on the zemindar's land; but there remains the plea raised by the plaintiff that his lessors, defendants Nos. 3 and 4, had acquired a title by adverse possession. The plea, embodied in issue No. 4, has not been decided in either Court. The District Judge has held, relying on Ragava v. Rajagopal 9 M. 39, that the decisions of the Revenue Courts in 1905 (copies filed as Exhibits I and II) operate as res judicata, so as to bar this plea. The decision in Gangaraju v. Kondireddiswami 17 M. 106 is a distinct authority for holding that in a case like the present where the alleged tenant set up in the Civil Court an independent title against his landlord, the decision of the Revenue Court would not be a bar to the same. Both these cases were considered by a Full Bench in Manicka Gramani v. Mamachandra Ayyar 21 Ma. 482 : 8 M.L.J. 210 and a perusal of the judgments of the learned Judges in tha...
Rao Sahib Pydah Venkatachalapathi Garu and ors. Vs. Muthu Venkatachala ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-1914
Reported in: (1914)26MLJ151
1. If the claim of the plaintiff in the present suit is to be treated as based on the footing of a mortgage-transaction we think it is clear that, as was held in Mutha Venkatachalapathi v. Pynda Venkatachalapathi I.L.R. (1903) M. 348 that the unregistered letter cannot be received as evidence of such a transaction.2. Assuming the plaintiff is entitled to sue for possession on the ground that no title passed to the defendants under the sale deed (Exhibit A), in order to succeed he must show that by virtue of the unregistered letter the sale deed does not affect the 'immoveable property which is comprised both in the sale deed and in the unregistered letter, in the way in which the sale deed purports to affect the property, and would affect the property if the unregistered letter had never been written. This being so it seems to us the unregistered letter is relied on as evidence of a transaction affecting immoveable property and, being unregistered, is inadmissible in evidence.3. We thi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »