Chennai Court July 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.
Ramanathan Chetty Vs. Maruthappa Kone and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad495(1); 25Ind.Cas.643
Seshagiri Aiyar, J.1. In this case, the plaintiff sued defendants Nos. 1 and 2 for rent due under a registered lease executed by them in favour of the plaintiff and the third defendant. The third defendant was made a party, because, defendants Nos. 1 and 2 stated that he had received the full amount due from them.. In his written statement, paragraph 10, the 3rd defendant pleaded that he appropriated the amount which he had thus recovered from defendants Nos. 1 and 2 towards certain sums of money due to him under what he alleged to be a marakal hootoo right. He did not say that the amount due under this marakal hootoo right had been ascertained and that an ascertained sum of money was due to him. Under these circumstances no question of set-off arises in this case. The real question to be discussed in this case is whether defendants Nos. 1 and 2 have paid the money honestly to the third defendant and whether that payment is a bar to the plaintiff recovering his share. That question sho...
Vijayabhushanammal and Two ors. Vs. C.N. Evalappa Mudaliar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-1914
Reported in: (1916)ILR39Mad17
1. There are no merits in this Second Appeal. Some technical objections are raised but the only arguable objection is that Section 67(d) of the Transfer of Property Act prohibits a suit by one of several do-mortgagees who is interested in part only of the mortgage money from suing for sale of a corresponding portion of the mortgaged property, 'unless the mortgagees have with the consent of the mortgagor severed their interests under the mortgage' and that the present suit is such a suit.2. The rather unhappy wording of the section no doubt lends some colour to this contention; but we do not think that the legislature intended to on act that if the severance of the interests of the mortgagees has taken place in any other lawful mode legally binding on the mortgagor (as for instance by the decree of a Court of justice in a suit to which the mortgagor is a party and which has become binding on him, though he has not given his consent to the passing of the decree which has the legal effect...
Vijaya Bhushanammal Vs. C.N. Evalappa Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad344(1); 25Ind.Cas.91
1. There are no merits in this second appeal. Some technical objections are raised, but the only arguable objection is that Section 67 (d) of the Transfer of Property Act prohibits a suit by one of several co-mortgagees who is interested in part only of the mortgage money from suing for sale of a corresponding portion of the mortgaged property, 'unless the mortgagees have with the consent of the mortgagor severed their interests under the mortgage', and that the present suit is such a suit.2. The rather unhappy wording of the section, no doubt, lends some colour to this contention, but we do not think that the Legislature intended to enact that if the severance of the interests of the mortgagees took place in any other lawful mode legally binding on the mortgagor (say, by the decree of a Court of law in a suit to which the mortgagor was a party and which became binding on him though he did not give his consent to the passing of the decree which had the legal effect of creating the seve...
Ranga Ramanujachariar and anr. Vs. Srinivasa Aiyangar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-1914
Reported in: 25Ind.Cas.804
Sadasiva Iyer, J.1. (July 22nd, 1914)--I have already given some reasons (while admitting the petition) for holding that an agricultural tenant owning the kudivaram right ceases to be liable for subsequent rent after he gives notice to the landlord of the sale of his interest. The decision in Monica Kitheria v. Subbaraya 30 MA. 410 : 17 M.L.J. 258 : 2 M.L.T. 363, turned upon the existence of a privity of contract between the landlord and the mulgeni tenant in that case, but the relationship of landlord and tenant with permanent occupancy right was not created by any contract in this case.2. Section 55, Clause (j), of the Transfer of Property Act, also makes it clear that the vendee becomes liable for rent due on the property sold from the date of his acquisition of title by purchase. In the result the lower Court's decree will be modified by making defendants Nos. 1 and 2 liable for only Rs. 78 of the amount decreed and three-fourths of the costs of the suit. The petitioners must pay t...
Sri Rajah Satracherla Veerabhadra Suryanarayana Raju Bahadur Garu, Die ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad479; 25Ind.Cas.878
1. This is an appeal from the judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Viza-gapatam. The plaintiff, who is the zemindar of Peda Merangi, sued the Secretary of State and the ryots of the hamlet of Gadabavalasa for possession of the village and for mesne profits for three years, on the ground that this village had been granted to the ancestors of defendants Nos. 2 to 13 as a service inarm, the service being that of palanquin-bearers to the zemindar, and on the ground that the services were no longer being rendered and that he was entitled to resume the village. He joined the Government as a defendant, because, as alleged in paragraph III () of the plaint, ' while the plaintiff was a ward (of the Court) the Government treated the suit lands as at their disposal and granted jeroyiti pattas to the defendants Nos. 2 to 13 for these lands, freeing them from the burden of service, and placed the defendants in possession thereof. In other words, he alleged that during his minority the Government ha...
Ayyagiri Veerasalingam Vs. Koovur Basivi Reddi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-21-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad322; (1914)27MLJ173
1. There is a preliminary objection taken to the entertainment of the second appeal on two grounds:-One ground is that it is practically a second appeal preferred against the order of the District Court which was passed in appeal from the order of the Subordinate Judge recording a compromise under Order XXIII, Rule 3, and that such a second appeal is prohibited by Order XLIII Rule (m) and Section 104, Clause (2) -The short answer to this is that there was no appeal to the District Court against the order of the Subordinate Judge recording the compromise nor is the present second appeal against any order of the District Court passed in appeal against any such order of the Subordinate Judge. The appeal and second appeal are respectively from the decree of the Subordinate Judge passed in accordance with the compromise agreement after recording it and from the decree of the District Judge on appeal against the Subordinate Judge's decree.2. The next contention is that Section 96, Clause (3)...
Sir Venkataswetha Chalapathy Ranga Rao Bahadur and K.C.i.E. Maharaja o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-21-1914
Reported in: (1914)27MLJ409
1. This is an appeal by an auction purchaser of an undivided share belonging to a coparcener against the decree of the District Judge of Chingle put 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 coparcener whose share he purchased were divided in status and that consequently he is entitled to mesne profits and secondly that in any event he is entitled as a tenant-in-common with the other coparceners to mesne profits in respect of the share which he purchased.3. As regards the first contention there is no oral evidence on record. The appellant relies on Exhibits A and B 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 is that the parties wer...
Ayyagari Veerasalingam Vs. Kovvuri Basivireddi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-21-1914
Reported in: 25Ind.Cas.56
1. There is a preliminary objection taken to the entertainment of the second appeal on two grounds. One ground is that' it is practically a second appeal preferred against the order of the District Court which was passed in appeal from the order of the Subordinate Judge recording a compromise petition under Order XXLII, Rule 3, and that such a second appeal is prohibited by Order XLIII, Rule 1(m), and Section 104, Clause (2). The short answer to this is that there was no appeal to the District Court against the order of the Subordinate Judge recording the compromise nor is the present second appeal against any order of the District Court passed in appeal against any such order of the Subordinate Judge. The appeal. and second appeal are respectively from the decree of the Subordinate Judge, passed in accordance with the compromise agreement after recording it and from the decree of the District Judge on appeal against the Subordinate Judge's decree.2. The next contention is that Section...
Mahraja Raja Sahib Maherban Dostan Sri Raja Maharaja Sree Row Sir Venk ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-21-1914
Reported in: 25Ind.Cas.585
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 Chengleput 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 consequently he is 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 purchased.3. As regards the first contention there is no oral evidence on record. The appellant relies on Exhibits A and B 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 is that the parties...
Tekana Kavandan and ors. Vs. Aligiri Kavandan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-21-1914
Reported in: 25Ind.Cas.506
1. Under Section 12, Clause (1), of the Court-Fees Act, the decision on the question of Court-fee by the Court of first instance is final between the parties and hence that decision cannot be questioned by the defendant at the later stages of the suit, though the Court of Appeal under Section 12, Clause (2) might itself take the question of Court-fees in the interests of the revenue and pass necessary orders for the protection of the revenue. We do not see sufficient ground to take up and consider that question in second appeal.2. On the merits, we are not satisfied that any document has been misconstrued by the lower Courts and the facts have been found against appellants.3. The second appeal is dismissed with costs....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »