Chennai Court December 1914 Judgments
The Municipal Council of Kumbakonam Vs. Veeraperumal Padayachi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-1914
Reported in: (1915)28MLJ147
Napier, J.1. In this case the plaintiff brought a suit originally against the Municipality of Kumbakonam and another, a contractor, claiming to be interested in a contract made by his brother with the defendant Municipality, which contract was still in force, asking for an injunction against the defendant to restrain them from interfering with the work being done under the contract, and for a small amount of damages for extra expense to which the contractor had been put owing to past interference, the person with whom the contract was made not being joined as plaintiff but being made a defendant on the ground that he was at the time in jail and unable to bring the suit himself. Subsequently, leave was granted by the District2. Munsif to amend the plaint and to make the contractor-defend-ant a plaintiff. This was done and a claim, alternative to that for an injunction, in the form of a claim for damages for Rs. 312-8-0 was added in the view that possibly the conditions had changed in su...
Tag this Judgment!P.M.A.M. Vellayam Chetty Vs. Jothi Mahalinga Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-1914
Reported in: (1915)28MLJ138
1. This is an application by the appellant for an order to rehear the appeal under the following circumstances.2. Two days before the appeal came on for hearing, the 2nd Respondent had died. Neither the appellant's Vakil, nor the Vakil who filed a Vakalat on behalf of the 2nd respondent was aware of this. This appeal wag heard and we delivered judgment dismissing it with costs. The legal representatives of the 2nd Respondent do not ask us to hear the appeal on the ground that they have been prejudiced by the disposal of the case. The learned Advocate General who appears for the appellant on the present occasion contends that the Judgment passed without bringing the legal representatives of the deceased respondent on the record is a nullity and should be set aside. The question involved is one of considerable importance regarding practice.2. We have come to the conclusion that the appellant has no claim to a rehearing of the appeal. Under the Code of Civil Procedure, the death of one of...
Tag this Judgment!Sowcar Kamurudeen Sahib and ors. Vs. Noor Mahamed Usman Sahib and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1914
Reported in: (1915)28MLJ251
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The plaintiffs are the appellants. They are the heirs of one Abdul Gunni Sahib, deceased. Their case is that Abdul Gunni Sahib in order to defraud his creditors purchased the plaint properties in the name of Noor Abdul Kadir Sahib in a Court auction sale held in execution of the decree passed against Abdul Ganni Sahib and that in pursuance of the same scheme, he (Abdul Ganni put Abdul Kadir Sahib in possession of the properties, but, on the understanding that Abdul Kadir should be trustee of the property for Abdul Ganni Sahib and make over all the profits to Abdul Ganni till such time as Abdul Ganni could safely take back actual possession. The Court auction sale took place in November 1898 and it was confirmed in January 1899 though the sale certificate seems to have been issued only in June 1899. The possession of Abdul Kadir Sahib began in the beginning of 1899 evidently as soon as the sale was confirmed in January 1899.2. The Lower Courts dismissed the suit of ...
Tag this Judgment!Gopammal Vs. V. Srinivasa Iyengar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1914
Reported in: (1915)28MLJ96
1. Adequate reason has not been shown for dissent from the lower Court's appointment of Mr. V. Sreenivasa Iyengar as the guardian of the property of the ward.2. On the memorandum of objections taking objection to the amount which has been directed to be applied for the maintenance, education and advancement of the ward and of the persons dependent on him under Section 34 of the Act, a preliminary point is taken that the Act gives no right of appeal. It is clear that Section 47, under which appeals lie, does not provide specifically for an appeal. Rut it is contended that these directions, although given under Section 34, are given under powers vested in the Court by Section 32 of the Act : and that as orders under Section 32 are, by Section 47, appealable, this Court has power to hear this memorandum of objection. In our opinion, this contention is not sound. Section 47, in providing for appeals, specifies the sections from which an appeal shall lie in order and it is clear that the le...
Tag this Judgment!Dasi Svarnam Vs. Deivanayagam Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1914
Reported in: (1915)28MLJ378
1. The appellant claims the property under a deed of gift in her favour executed on the 7th December. It was not registered during the life-time of the donor, who executed and registered another deed of gift of the same property in favour of the respondents' predecessor in title on the 15th December. The appellant presented her deed for registration 3 days before the donor's death and she stated in her petition that the donor was unwilling to register it. It was registered after the donor's death. The gift in favour of the appellant was undoubtedly revoked by the donor and the registration was against her wishes.2. There is therefore, no valid gift if the decision in Ramamritam Gopala Ayyar I.L.R. (1896) M. 433 is right. The appellant's counsel contends on the authority of Meyyalu Nadan v. Anjalay I.L.R. (1902) M. 672. Parbati v. Baij Nath Pathak I.L.R. (1912) A. 3 and Kheshaba v. Chandrabhagabai I.L.R. (1908) B. 441 that the decision should not be followed. The later Madras decision o...
Tag this Judgment!Venkatachallan Chetty Vs. A.N.R.M. Narayanan Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1914
Reported in: (1915)28MLJ140
John Edward Power Wallis Kt., C.J.1. The first defendant was employed by the plaintiffs, a firm of Nattukottai Chetties of 'Devakottah in the Ramnad District to carry on business at certain places in Burmah as their agent under the terms of a document, Exhibit A, known as a salary chit executed by the 1st defendant on his appointment. By this he undertook to carry on the business under the direction on the 1st plaintiff and stipulated that on bringing back the cash and accounts to Devakottah and rendering the same he was to get back the salary chit. It is explained that in the case of these agents the return of the salary chit means that the agent has passed his accounts and that his conduct has been satisfactory. The present suit is brought by the plaintiffs for an account of his dealings, and the question is whether it is barred by limitation. The 1st defendant continued to represent the plaintiffs in Burmah after the expiry of the three years originally agreed upon, and the plaintif...
Tag this Judgment!Kammara Peda Subbayya and anr. Vs. Kararha Chennappa and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1914
Reported in: (1915)28MLJ303
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. I am not satisfied that the two documents A and B constituted a usufructuary mortgage as contended for by the appellants. Following the Full Bench decisions in reference under Stamp Act, Section 46, Srinivasayyar v. Lahkshmamma I.L.R. (1883) M. 203 I hold that as a definite sum is stated as rent due periodically to the father of defendants 1 and 2 and as the plaintiffs could under no circumstances be entitled to bring the properties to sale for recovery of the money advanced, the documents ate instruments creating a lease and creating an ordinary simple money debt.2. But a new question of law was allowed to be taken and argued by the appellants and after hearing both sides I think that that question should be decided in the appellant's favour. The plaint lands form the emoluments of the village blacksmith's office and cannot be detached from that office after Madras Act III of 1895 came into force in October 1895. They had not become so detached from the office by ...
Tag this Judgment!Venkatachalam Chetty Vs. A.N.R.M. Narayanan Chetty and Six ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1914
Reported in: (1916)ILR39Mad376
John Wallis, C.J. 1. The first defendant was employed by the plaintiffs, a firm of Nattukottai Chettis of Devakotta in the Ramnad district to carry on business at certain places in Burmah as their agent under the terms of a document, Exhibit A, known as a salary chit executed by the first defendant on his appointment. By this he undertook to carry on the business under the direction of the first plaintiff, and stipulated that on bringing back the cash and accounts to Devakotta and rendering the same he was to get back the salary chit. It is explained that in the case of these agents the return of the salary chit means that the agent has passed his accounts and that his conduct has been satisfactory. The present suit is brought by the plaintiffs for an account of his dealings, and the question is whether it is barred by limitation. The first defendant continued to represent the plaintiffs in Burmah after the expiry of the three years originally agreed upon, and the plaintiffs who were d...
Tag this Judgment!Gandi Ramaswami Vs. Puramsetti Pedamunayya and Seven ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1914
Reported in: (1916)ILR39Mad382
Hannay, J.1. The suit out of which this Second Appeal arises was brought by one Peramma to establish her right to certain inam land and to recover possession after ejecting the defendants. Her case was that the suit property belonged to her father Bapulu, that after his death her mother Venkamma enjoyed the land and that on Venkamma's death, the plaintiff became entitled to the land as daughter of Bapulu but that the defendants prevented her from taking possession.2. The defendants alleged that Bapulu had made over the land to one Rattam, the husband of the third defendant, to do the Inam service for him over fifty years before suit, and that their family had held the land and done service ever since.3. The plaintiff Peramma died pending the suit and the plaintiffs Nos. 2 to 5 were then brought on record as being her legal representatives. The plaintiffs Nos. 2 to 5 are the grandsons of Bapulu's brother. Both the lower Courts on the merits have given a decree in favour of the plaintiff...
Tag this Judgment!Sundarammal Alias Sowbhagiammal Vs. V. Subramania Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1914
Reported in: 30Ind.Cas.971
John Wallis, C.J.1. This is an appeal from the decision of the Subordinate Judge of North Arcot giving judgment for the plaintiff in a suit on three promissory notes, which were executed by the 1st defendant who died before the trial. The Subordinate Judge has written a very careful judgment, and I do not find it necessary to dissent from any of the conclusions of fact at which he has arrived. He has decided the case on the ground that under the Negotiable Instruments Act, the burden is on the representative of the 1st defendant to show failure of consideration in whole or in part and ho has observed in the course of his judgment that but for the burden of proof being this way he would probably, on account of the suspicious circumstances of the various transactions to which he refers, have decided the suit against the plaintiff except to the extent of the consideration admitted by the 1st defendant in his written statement. Farran, C.J., in Moti Gulabchand v. Mahomed Tharia Topan 20 B....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »