Chennai Court November 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.
Sivapada Mudali and ors. Vs. Pitty Thyagaraja Chettiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad736; (1914)27MLJ665
1. The defendants are the appellants. They were the tenants of the plaintiff who is the Zamindar of the Egathoor Zamin. The plaintiff purchased not only the Zamindari from the former Zamindar but he also purchased the kudivaram right in the plaint ryoti lands which the former Zamindar had purchased in rent auction sale of 1900. The plaintiff brought 'the suit out of which this second appeal has arisen as the purchaser of the kudivaram right from the rent auction purchaser for ejecting the defendants.2. This suit was brought in the District Munsif's Court of Tiruvellore about the end of 1906 before the Estates Land Act came into force. The suit was first dismissed by the District Munsif and by the District Judge on appeal. The High Court on second appeal held that the decision of the lower Courts against the plaintiff on the fifth issue was wrong and set aside the decree of the lower Courts and remanded the suit for disposal on its merits. The judgment of the High Court is dated 22nd Au...
Natesa Mooppan Vs. K.R. Ramachendra Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad688; (1914)27MLJ728
Kumarasami Sastri, J.1. The defendant is the petitioner. The plaintiff who is a Vakil practising in Tanjore sued to recover Rs. 136 with costs and further interest alleged to be due on a promissory note dated 28'th July 1909 for Rs. 100 executed by the defendant in his favor. The defendant, while admitting execution pleaded that there was no consideration for the promissory note, that it was obtained from him by the exercise of undue influence and that the note is void as the plaintiff did not file it in Court as required by Section 28 of the Legal Practitioner's Act. It was also alleged that the suit was barred under Order II, Rule 2, C.P.C. as the plaintiff had obtained another promissory note in respect of fees due to him and had not included this claim in the suit (O.S. No. 351 of 1912) filed on that promissory note. The District Munsif found against the defendant and passed a decree for the amount. There is no evidence to shew that the promissory note was either without considerat...
S.P. Abraham Servai Vs. Raphial Muthirian
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad675; (1914)27MLJ746
Oldfied, J. 1. The plaintiff and the defendant in this case were joint executants of a promissory note. It is common ground that each received part of the sum borrowed and the correctness of the Lower Court's, finding as to its division between them and the amount repaid by each cannot be disputed. They were however sued by their creditor for the balance due; and a decree was passed against the plaintiff for the whole, the defendant being exonerated on his plea of limitation. The plaintiff satisfied the decree and sues the defendant for contribution. The Lower Court held that, notwithstanding the defendant's exoneration, it was equitable that his should contribute towards the discharge of the common debt. This Civil Revision Petition has been argued against that decision. It has been referred to a Bench by a learned Judge sitting in the Admission Court.2. As pointed out by the learned Judge, the facts in Ramayya v. Veerapurani Venkatappiah (1910) M.W.N. 889 on which the Lower Court rel...
Kakerla Chukkamma Vs. Kakerla Punnamma and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad775; (1915)28MLJ72
1. The plaintiff, the senior widow of Kakarla Lakshmipati sued for a declaration that the alleged adoption of the 2nd defendant made by the 1st defendant the junior widow, is neither true nor valid, as it was made without her consent. The defence is that it is true and valid. The Subordinate Judge has found that the plaintiff was not consulted by the 1st defendant about the adoption and that she was not present at it, but that as it was made with the consent of the majority of the sapindas it is valid.2. In appeal it is argued that an adoption made without the consent of the senior widow (the plaintiff) and without even consulting her is not valid in law. There is no Madras decision directly in point. In Narayanaswami v. Mangammal I.L.R. (1905) M. 315 the learned Judges held that the omission by the senior widow to consult her co-widow, though no doubt improper, would not be sufficient reason for holding the adoption made by her to be invalid, because a junior widow, is bound as a matt...
S.R.M.A.R. Ramasawmy Chetty Vs. A.L.K.R. Alagappa Chetty and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-1914
Reported in: (1915)28MLJ199
1. In Appeal No. 192 of 1912. The suit was brought by the plaintiff a money lender living in Kanadukathan in the Madura District against the defendant who was his agent at Thagimyo in Burma to direct him to render accounts to the plaintiff and pay a certain sum of money amounting to more than Rs. 50,000 which he is said to have misappropriated. The defence is that accounts have been rendered and no sums have been misappropriated. The Subordinate Judge passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 2,300-6-3 with interest. Both parties appealed. 2. It appears to be the practice among the Nattukottai Chetties, who carry on money lending business at distant places to appoint their agents for certain periods generally for three years. A salary is fixed for the entire period part of which is apparently paid at the commencement of or. soon after the engagement and a certain amount before the termination of the agency and the balance is paid after the settlement of accounts and p...
Ambalavana Pandnra Sannadhi Avergal Vs. Sreeminakshy Sundareswaral Dev ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-1914
Reported in: (1915)28MLJ217
John Edward Power Wallis, Kt., Officiating C.J.1. This is a suit brought by the Pandara Sannadhi of the Tiruvaduthurai Mutt against the Manager of the Madura temple, and the temple Committee of the Madura District to recover possession with mesne profits of four villages as Hukdar or Trustee of the Thanappa Mudaly Kattalai or endowment for the performance of certain ceremonies in the Madura temple, and for an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with him in the discharge of his duties. The District Judge has found that he has not shown that he was ever entitled to possession and also that his suit is barred. With the latter conclusion I agree, but as the case may not stop hare, and has been very fully argued, I propose to state my reasons for differing from the conclusions at which the District Judge has arrived on the facts. It may well be that in the opinion of those best qualified to Judge the Manager appointed by the temple committee would be a much more satisfact...
Peruri Viswanatha Reddi Vs. D.T. Keymer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-1914
Reported in: (1914)27MLJ670
1. This is an appeal from the decision of Bake-well, J. on the original side giving judgment for the plaintiff in a suit on a foreign judgment obtained by the plaintiff against the defendant in the High Court in England. The defendant pleaded among other things that the English Court had. no jurisdiction, and that the case was not decided by the English Court on the merits. Bakewell, J. overruled both the defences and gave the plaintiff a decree on the judgment sued on.2. It appears from the certified copy of the English judgment filed by the plaintiff that the defendant was ordered to answer interrogatories and failed to do so, and that therefore it was ordered that his defence should be struck out and. that he should be placed in the same position as if he had not defended, and that the plaintiff should be at liberty to sign judgment against him for 425-17s. 2d. the amount claimed and costs and that judgment was signed accordingly.3. Now in this state of things the first question tha...
Raja Bahadur Narasingarji Gyangirji, Zemindar of Pamur Taluq, Represen ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-1914
Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.601
1. The only point arguable in second appeal, with which we have been pressed, is whether Section 11(3) of Act VIII of 1865 and the corresponding provision of Act I of 1908 should be given retrospective effect. Foulkes v. Muthusami Goundan 21 M. 503 : 8 M.L.J. 207 is against this.2. The second appeal is dismissed with costs....
Penumetsa Subbaraju Vs. Veegasena Seetharamaraju and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1914
Reported in: (1916)ILR39Mad283
Sadasiva Ayyar, J.1. The first defendant is the appellant before us He was the lessee under the defendants Nos. 7 and 8 for the year July 1907 to July 1908 of the plaint lands. The plaintiff purchased in court-auction in November 1907 in execution of a mortgage-decree against the defendants Nos. 7 and 8 (passed so long ago in 1898 or 1899) the plaint lands. The plaintiff purchased not only the lands but also the crops standing thereon. The sale was confirmed in December 1907 under the old Civil Procedure Code. The crops were harvested in January 1908 by the first defendant. The rent reserved by the defendants Nos. 7 and 8 with the first defendant was 212 bastas of paddy and its value is said in the lease-deed to be Rs. 1,272 at Rs. 6 per basta or bag. The first defendant paid Rs. 400 of the rent to the defendants Nos. 7 and 8 and carried away the crops in January 1908.2. The plaintiffs brought the suit for recovery of Rs. 1,272 (the value of the grain-rent due to the defendants Nos. 7 ...
Ponnusawmy Mudaliar Vs. Muthusawmy Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-1914
Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.585
1. The District Munsif dismissed the suit, applying the decision in Venkutasami v. Kristayya 16 Ma. 341 : 3 M.L.J. 169 and assuming that the document was not registered through the defendant's default. The learned Subordinate Judge rightly distinguished that case on the ground that the document in the present case was in the possession of mediators, not of the plaintiff. But he also then made an assumption, that the plaintiff was not in default in respect of the failure to register it. There is no finding of either Court as to the conditions on which the mediators had the document or on whose behalf they held it or whether the plaintiff could have got it from them and presented it for compulsory registration. He would be entitled to relief only if, in the words used in Subba Reddiar v. Visvanatha Reddiar 22 Ind. Cas. 941 the nonregistration was not due to any default on his part. Vide also Nynakka Routhen v. Varama Mahomed Naina Routhen 5 M.H.C.R. 123 and Chinna Krishna Reddi v. Dorasa...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›