Chennai Court September 1914 Judgments
Muthiah Chettiar and anr. Vs. Bava Sahib and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad392; (1914)27MLJ605
Oldfield, J. 1. This appeal and the Revision Petition relate to an Order by the District Munsif which the District Judge has confirmed, setting aside a sale in the following circumstances. The decree under execution directed the sale of items in a particular order, and the sale proclamation followed it. They were however sold in a different order, and the sale was confirmed. The judgment-debtor then moved the Court successfully under Order XXI, Rule 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure. After an appeal against the order dismissing that petition had failed, he applied under Order XXI, Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure, obtaining an order excusing his delay in doing so. The District Munsif held that no case for interference under that rule had been established, but set aside the sale in the exercise of his inherent powers. The learned District Judge in the Order under appeal held that the delay could not be excused with reference to Sections 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act, but that the...
Tag this Judgment!Puchakayala Jagannaikulu and ors. Vs. the Manager of Nandigam Estate
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-1914
Reported in: (1915)28MLJ154
Oldfield, J.1. The appellants are defendants, enants of an estate of which plaintiff is the Court of Wards Manager. The question is whether defendants are bound to pay plaintiff the portion of the Road cess, for which they are responsible under Section 73, Local Boards Act (V of 1884 amended by VI of 1900) or can and should pay a mortgagee under Exhibit I, The Lower Appellate Court has held that they must pay plaintiff with reference to the terms of both Exhibit J and Section 73.2. The material portions of Section 73 provide that (1) every land-holder must pay the tax (except that leviable on water tax, which is hot in question here) directly to Government (2) the land-holder can recover a specified portion of the tax from ' any person, holding lands with or without right of occupancy as an intermediate landholder on an undertenure created, continued or recognised by the landholder,' (3) the intermediate land-holder can recover from the tenant's occupancy land half the tax payable by t...
Tag this Judgment!Seethai Ammal Vs. Mahadeva Iyer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-1914
Reported in: 25Ind.Cas.936
Oldfield, J.1. The question for decision is whether Exhibit B, a settlement by the 1st defendant in favour of the 2nd defendant, his daughter, will be operative beyond the former's life-time. The answer to it depends on whether at its date the 1st defendant was able to make an absolute disposition of the property or, as the plaintiffs contend, had already disposed of all except his life-interest in it by a prior deed, Exhibit A.2. Exhibit A is a deed of partition between the first defendant and his son, Nilakahtaiyar. It contains, first, dispositions regarding houses and debts, as to which there is no dispute. Next, the lands are divided, Schedule A going to the first defendant and Schedule B to Nilakantaiyar; and the difficulty arises from the fact that the balance of Schedule A, remaining in the former's hands after any alienations necessary in order to the payment of debts, is, in the words of the document, to 'be enjoyed by him, as long as he is alive, without being subjected to an...
Tag this Judgment!N.C. Kuppusamy Aiyangar and ors. Vs. N.C. Narayana Aiyangar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-25-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad48(2); 25Ind.Cas.647
Hannay, J.1. The preliminary objection is taken that this revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not sustainable, as it raises no question of jurisdiction. The Full Bench of the Presidency Small Cause Court dismissed the application of the present petitioners (defendants in the suit) for a new trial, on the ground that the application was barred by limitation, and it is this judgment of the Full Bench which is now sought to be revised.2. Though the petition for revision attacks the decision of the Full Bench upon the question of limitation as erroneous in law on various grounds, it nowhere raises any question of jurisdiction in that connection. The only paragraph of the revision petition which raises any question of jurisdiction (viz., No. 8) refers to other matters than that of limitation. Apart from this the cases Sundar Singh v. Doru Shankar 20 A. 78 : A.W.N. (1898) 168 and Ram-gopal Jhoonjhoonwalla v. Joharmall Khemka 15 Ind. Cas. 547 : 39 C. 473, cit...
Tag this Judgment!Ponnammal Vs. Ramamirtha Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-1914
Reported in: (1915)28MLJ127
1. The answer to the reference must be in the affirmative It seems to us that claims for possession and claims for mesne profits have always been treated as separate causes of action in the Codes of Civil Procedure following in this the English law. At common law claims for ejectment and for mesne profits were separate causes of action, and before the Common Law Procedure Act 1852 an action for mesne profits did not lie until judgment had been recovered in ejectment. Section 10 of the Code of 1859 expressly provided that a claim for the recovery of land and a claim for mesne profits arising out of such land should be deemed to be distinct causes of action within the meaning of the two preceding sections which dealt with joinder of causes of action in the same suit. When the Code was remodelled in 1877 after the Judicature Act and the Rules of Practice framed thereunder had come into force in England, the language of these Rules was in many instances substituted for the language of the ...
Tag this Judgment!The Vellore Taluk Board by Its President Vs. Gopalasami Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-1914
Reported in: (1915)ILR38Mad801
Spencer, J.1. The appellant is the Taluk Board of Vellore. The respondent was a contractor under the said Board of the right to collect market fees at the weekly fairs held at Karadigudi, As an earnest of his intention to perform the contract he deposited a sum of Rs. 36-2-8 being two months' rent in advance. Subsequently he made default in the regular payment of the monthly rents on the due dates, and acting on the terms of the contract, the Taluk Board re-sold the right at his risk.2. The appellant was the plaintiff in the District Munsif's Court and brought this suit to enforce two of the stipulations in the contract, viz., (1) that any loss resulting from a re-sale held in consequence of the defendant's default should be recovered from his properties, (2) that the defendant should forfeit his deposit of Rs. 36-2-8.3. The District Munsif allowed the plaintiff's claim on the first head and disallowed it as regards the second, on a consideration of Section 74 of the Contract Act.4. I ...
Tag this Judgment!Davvur Subba Reddi Vs. Kakuturi Venkatrami Reddi Alias Venka Reddi and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-1914
Reported in: (1915)ILR38Mad1187
Sankaran Nair, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree of the District Judge of Nellore dismissing the plaintiff's suit for specific performance of a contract entered into between himself and the first defendants. The plaintiff's case is that the first defendant who had brought a suit for partition against his co-parceners for his two-sevenths share of the family properties, was in embarrassed circumstances and in order to get rid of his debts agreed to sell the plaint properties to him for a sum of Rs. 8,429 on 14th April 1904 (Exhibit I). The properties were to be sold soon after the disposal of the suit and after he had obtained his lands on partition. This agreement was renewed on 1st August 1907. The plaintiff states that after the decree was passed in favour of the defendant he was placed in possession of some of the lands but has not obtained possession of the rest. He accordingly prays for specific performance and for possession of the rest of the lands. The suit was originally br...
Tag this Judgment!Adatrao Gavayayyamma Vs. Dandi Seetharamaswami and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad420; 25Ind.Cas.615
Oldfield, J.1. I think that the learned Judge was right in his order of remand, because the previous judgment was not res judicata. In the previous proceedings defendants were, I hold, debarred from raising the question of plaintiff's title with reference to Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act and neither authority nor reason has been shown for applying that provision only to tenants admitted to possession at the beginning of the lease and not to persons who are already in possession and continue in it. Vide also Madras Hindu Mutual Benefit Permanant Fund v. Raghava Chetti 19 M. 200. The appeal is dismissed with costs.Tyabji, J.2. This is an appeal from a decision of the learned District Judge who remanded the case for hearing on the merits on the ground that the matter now in issue between the parties was not res judicata. The matter in issue now between the parties is whether the defendant has title to the land referred to in the plaint. In the previous decision the plaintiff had ...
Tag this Judgment!Kancharla Venkatraman and ors. Vs. Koganti Venkatramiah and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-1914
Reported in: (1914)27MLJ569
John Edward Power Wallis, Kt. Officiating C.J.1. We see no reason to differ from the clear and well reasoned judgment of the Subordinate Judge. The question is whether the suit properties belonged to Bapayya who died about 1859, or to his wife Kannamma who died in 1875. From at least 1827 to 1875 when Rama-chandrudu Bapayya's son died, the suit lands are shown to have been cultivated by them. After Bapayya's death part of the land was alienated by Ramachandrudu's guardian. After Ramachandrudu's death there were disputes between his young widow who many years later adopted the plaintiff and his mother Kannamma, and eventually it was agreed to divide the properties between them. The lands which fell to Kannamma are now in possession of the descendants of heir daughters. The plaintiff suggests that the grant to Kannamma was for her maintenance and that after her death Kotamma failed to recover the properties and that on his adoption in 1904 he acquired a good cause of action. 2. We think ...
Tag this Judgment!P. Govindan Nair Vs. K. Nana Menon
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad618; (1914)27MLJ595
1. The suit has been treated as based on the promissory note executed by the deceased Karnavan of the defendant's tarwad, and not on the original cause of action. The decision in Krishna Aiyar v. Krishnaswami Aiyar I.L.R. (1900) M. 597 therefore does not apply and there is no ground for making the tarwad property in the hands of the defendant liable in the present suit.2. The petition is dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »