Chennai Court March 1914 Judgments
Alagappa Chettiar Vs. Subramania Pandia thevar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1914
Reported in: (1914)26MLJ509
1. In this case the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 executed a mortgage in favor of the 3rd defendant for Rs. 26000. Part of the consideration was made up of Rs. 10,920 to be paid by the mortgagee to the assignors of the present plaintiff on two bonds. The mortgagee did not pay the Rs. 10 920, but nearly two years later paid the interest due on the plaint up to that date and made no further payment on the plaint bond. The words of the mortgage are, 'The sum received by us in the matter of our having given you permission to pay off the said bond and obtain the return of the same is Rs. 10,920'. The Subordinate Judge was of opinion that the mortgagee was not an agent authoirzed to make any payment for the mortgagors because in his opinion it was optional for him to do so. Even if it was optional and not obligatory, still he could none the less be authorised to pay. The question, however, arises whether nearly two years after the date of the mortgage he was authorised to pay, the interest on the ...
Tag this Judgment!V.V. Srinivasa Aiyangar (Receiver) Vs. V. Cunniappa Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Mad88; 24Ind.Cas.895; (1914)26MLJ567
Sankaran Nair, J.1. A preliminary objection is taken as to the jurisdiction of this Court. It is first objected that the 3rd defendant does not live or carry on business in Madras and therefore the suit so far as he is concerned should be dismissed. Evidence has been taken on this point and I am of opinion that the suit is properly brought against the 3rd defendant. The evidence shows that he comes here to sell his casuarina trees and whenever he has any business to transact in Madras with reference to those trees he comes to Madras. Suits have been brought here against him and he has been arrested on warrants issued against him in Madras. I accordingly overrule the objection so far as the 3rd defendant is concerned.2. The more difficult question that remains is whether the suit is one for land within the meaning of those words as used in Section 12 of the Madras Letters Patent. The suit is brought for the recovery of damages for trees cut and removed by the defendants. They are said t...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Sri Sri Brundavana Chandra Harishchandana Jagadduva Rajah Bahadur ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1914
Reported in: 25Ind.Cas.664
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for. ejectment. It is argued before us that the learned District Judge was wrong in proceeding on the basis that the 2nd defendant had occupancy rights in the lands from which the plaintiffs wish to eject him that there is no ground on which the 2nd, defendant could have been held to be a ryot under Section 3 (15) of the Madras Estates Land Act that assuming that the second defendant could have acquired the status of ryot, he has not been admitted as such by the landholder under Section 163 (1), and that in the event of any of these contentions being upheld the plaintiffs would be entitled to eject the 2nd defendant from the land.2. All these arguments so far as the present appeal is concerned centre round one question: whether a person who is admitted into the possession of waste lands in 1884 can claim the rights and rely upon the presumptions in favour of ryots contained in the Estates Land Act.3. Section 3 (15) of the Estates Land Act is in the f...
Tag this Judgment!Tadiparti Hanumanulu Vs. Maddukuri Golayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1914
Reported in: 24Ind.Cas.822
1. The question in this appeal is whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover from the 19th and 21st defendants the lands referred to in Exhibits II and III and if so, on , what terms. The learned District Munsif held that the plaintiff could recover them but only on re-payment of the consideration for which the sales to the said defendants were respectively made. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover the lands at all, and the ground on which he proceeded was that the said defendants had made out their title to the lands under Exhibit IV. Exhibit IV refers to a sale on 11th November 1870. This sale was not by the widow but by the previous male owner. Each of these defendants in his written statement alleged that his pre decessor-in-title derived his title from the widow. If Exhibit IV is genuine. (as held by the learned Judge and we are bound by that finding) the question still is whether it refers to the land in question. That it may not re...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Sri Sri Brundavana Chandra Horischandana Jagadd Raja Bahadur Vs. P ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-1914
Reported in: (1914)26MLJ600
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for ejectment. It is argued before us that the learned District Judge was wrong in proceeding on the basis that the 2nd defendant had occupancy rights in the lands from which the plaintiffs wish to eject him; that there is no ground on which the 2nd defendant could have been held to be a ryot under Section 3(15) of the Madras Estates Land Act; that assuming that the second defendant could have acquired the status of ryot, he was not admitted as such by the landholder under Section 1631) and that in the event of any of these contentions being upheld the plaintiffs would be entitled to eject the 2nd defendant from the land.2. All these arguments so far as the present appeal is concerned centre round one question whether a person who is admitted into the possession of waste lands in 1884 can claim the rights and rely upon the presumptions in favour of ryots contained in the Estates Land Act.3. Section 3(15) of the Estates Land Act is in the following te...
Tag this Judgment!C. Prasanna Venkatachella Reddiar Vs. the Collector of Trichinopoly an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-1914
Reported in: (1915)ILR38Mad1064; 33Ind.Cas.45
Tyabji, J.1. The Collector of Trichinopoly is the plaintiff. The suit is instituted under Sections 92 and 93 of the Civil Procedure Code.2. The first defendant (now deceased) was the alleged trustee and manager of the charities referred to in the plaint. The second defendant was alleged to be a transferee from the first defendant of a portion of the lands appertaining to the charitable trust.3. The prayers against the first defendant were for removal of the first defendant from the trusteeship and for accounts. There was a prayer (b) 'to declare the sale to the second defendant of the lands belonging to the charity to be invalid.' This is the only relief claimed against the second defendant. There were other prayers for the appointment of a new trustee and for vesting the trust property in the trustee as appointed. The plaintiff obtained all the reliefs asked against both the defendants in the lower Court.4. There were appeals against this decree by each of the defendants. But the firs...
Tag this Judgment!Aravamudai Aiyangar Vs. Kalia Perumal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Mad58(1); 24Ind.Cas.143
Ayling, J.1. In this case the plaintiff (respondent) sued on a promissory note as the assignee of the widow of the promissee. He produced no succession certificate. The Subordinate Judge, gave him a decree directing at the same time that it should not be executed without filing a certificate.2. It is argued on behalf of the petitioner (2nd defendant) that the Court had no jurisdiction to pass such a decree in view of Section 4 of the Succession Certificate Act. See also Santaji Khanderao v. Ravji 15 B. 105. I think this contention must prevail. The plaintiff can stand in no better position than his assignor. Vide Karuppasami v. Pichu 15 M. 419 : 2 M.L.J. 116. The decree was illegal. The proper course in such cases is indicated in Manasing v. Ahmad Kunhi 17 M. 14. The plaintiff should be allowed a reasonable time to file succession certificate : failing which his suit would be liable to dismissal.3. The decree of the Subordinate Judge is set aside and he is directed to restore the suit ...
Tag this Judgment!Ananthanarayana Aiyar, Manager of the Meenatchi Sundareswaral Devastan ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad311; 25Ind.Cas.74
1. The first respondent's (plaintiff's) suit was decreed by the learned District Judge on his finding that he (the plaintiff) was entitled by hereditary right to the office of Athikara Parapathyam in the Madura Meenatchi Temple. The final decree granted the following relief to the plaintiff:(a) that the plaintiff do recover from defendants the plaint mentioned office together with the right to the honours and perquisites attached thereto.'(b) that the defendants be restrained by an injunction from interfering with the plaintiff's discharge of the duties of the office and from enjoying the honours, etc.'(c) that the defendants do pay plaintiff Rs. 100 for past profits and also subsequent profits at Its. 100 from the date of suit to the date of plaintiff's restoration,'(d) that defendants pay Rs. 294-15-5 (proportionate costs) to plaintiff and bear their own costs.2. The defendants Nos. 2 to 10 (the Stanika Bhattars of the temple and the person, 10th defendant, appointed by them in super...
Tag this Judgment!Subramania Chetty Vs. M. Rm.Vl. Somasundaram Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Mad303; 24Ind.Cas.86
1. We see no reason to doubt the conclusion that the Subordinate Judge has come to that the 2nd defendant was a partner. Exhibit D in 1906 is a letter in which the 2nd defendant himself is expressly stated to be one of the owners of the firm. S.P. Subramaniam Chetty was his father's name and S.P. Sub-ramaniam Chetty mentioned in Exhibit-D is the 2nd defendant himself. This man is said in the body of the letter to be one of the proprietors whose signatures are to be taken, and admittedly the signature of the 2nd defendant was taken When signed by the 2nd defendant and the other two, Exhibit D became a letter of guarantee by the firm. This letter goes to show that the 2nd defendant was a partner then and also that the oral evidence that the 2nd defendant's father had died at the beginning of 1906 was correct. There is evidence that the 2nd defendant was a partner even during his father's life-time. Even if he only became a partner on his father's death, very little evidence is required t...
Tag this Judgment!Vazhakuttia Kutti Uduman Haji and ors. Vs. A. Mammi Kutti and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Mad299; 24Ind.Cas.56
Tyabji, J.1. This a petition against an order amending a decree. It was presented 168 days after the order complained of. Following the decision in Visvanathan Chetti v. Ramanathan Chetti 24 M 646. I must take it that the petitioner should have appealed against the amended order and not petitioned under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. That case is sought to be distinguished before me in two ways. First it is. argued that in that case if the proper proceeding was to be an appeal, then the appeal would have lain to another Court and that' the High Court could not, therefore, have proceeded on the basis that the petition was an appeal. I accede to that distinction to a certain extent. If that were the only objection to the proceedings, it might have been proper for mo to consider whether the present petition should not be treated as an appeal and whether it should not proceed on that basis. But that would not meet the second objection which is the delay, and curiously enough the ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »