Chennai Court November 1915 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.
K. Seshagiri Rao and Two ors. Vs. Tanguturi Jagannadham Alias Hanumant ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-1915
Reported in: (1916)ILR39Mad1031
Napier, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant against the decree of the lower Appellate Court holding that the sale of item 13 in the suit is not binding on the plaintiff on the ground that he was a major when the execution proceedings were token against him. The first point taken is that a purchaser is entitled to assume that when an interest is sold everything has been done to make it available and reliance is placed on the wall-established doctrine that a bona fide purchaser at a sale under a Court decree which is subsequently reversed is not affected by the reversal [vide Narendra Chandra v. Jogendra Narain (1914) 20 C.L.J. 469, and also on the principle that where an estate has been represented by a person bona fide believed to be the true representative the decision will (in some circumstances) bind the true representative: vide The General Manager of the Raj Durbhunga v. Maharajah Coomar Ramaput Sing (1872) 14 M.I.A. 605. The latter principle has in my opinion no analogy, for ...
Pandiri Veeramma Vs. Mandavili Subba Rao and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-1915
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.98
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The 2nd defendant is the appellant. The plaintiff's case might be summarised thus: (a) The 1st defendant on the 19fch January 1905 wrongfully attached, in execution of his decree against one B.V. Narasimham, certain timber logs belonging to the plaintiff. (b) The 2nd defendant brought Original Suit No. 8 of 1905 against that same debtor, B.V. Narasimham, got an order for attachment before judgment of these same logs belonging to the present plaintiff and had them attached by a prohibitory order directed against the Village Munsif, the 3rd defendant, with whom the logs had been left in pursuance of the first attachment made at the instance of the 1st defendant, (c) Though the attachments were all released soon after (on 8th March 1905 and 24th January 1905), the 1st defendant brought a suit contesting the order of release passed in the plaintiff's favour and his suit was finally disposed of on appeal in plaintiff's favour only in December 1907. (d) Though the cause ...
The Secretary of State for India, Represented by the Collector Vs. Kom ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.207
1. These suits arise out of certain appointments to karnamships made by the Court Receiver of Nidadavole Estate and reported to the Revenue Divisional Officer under Section 15 of Act II 6f 1894 Vide Exhibits P., Q. and R, dated March 9th 1910.) These appointments have to be made by the 'proprietor' of the estate. The term 'proprietor' is defined, in Section 4 of the Act, and includes any person who is in lawful management of the Estates otherwise than as agent or servant of the proprietor or as mortgagee or lessee.2. The first question for determination is whether the Receiver of the Nidadavole Estate comes within this definition. Both the lower Courts have answered this question in the affirmative and in our opinion rightly, subject to certain remarks which we shall come to presently.3. The powers of a Receiver appointed by a Civil Court under Order XL, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code (as in the present case) are entirely conditioned by the terms of his appointment, subject to any ...
Manjappa Ajri and anr. Vs. Marudevi Hengsu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.165; (1916)30MLJ204
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The defendants Nos. 5 and 6 are the appellants. They and the plaintiffs and 2nd defendant and 2nd defendant's son, the 4th defendant, all belong to an Aliyasantana family. The 2nd defendant (mother of the 4th defendant) is the maternal aunt of the plaintiffs and of the defendants Nos. 5 and 6 and she is the senior lady in the tavazhi of the 2nd defendant's mother. As such senior lady in the branch of the 2nd defendant's mother, she was the ejamathi or manager of the branch. The 2nd defendant was one of four sisters. Of the four sisters, the 2nd defendant is the only one now surviving. One of the other sisters had a daughter Kusmaji and the finding of the lower Courts is that item 1 of Schedule B out of the plaint properties (and that is the only item in dispute in this second appeal) belonged to Kusmaji as her self-acquired property. Kusmaji died issue less. The 2nd defendant, the maternal aunt of Kusmaji, was alleged by the contesting 1st defendant to be the sole ...
Sri Sringeri Mutt Sri Jagathguru Chandra Sekhara Bharathi Swamigal, by ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.320
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. The District Munsif was wrong in holding that the application, under Order I, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is not maintainable because a previous application under Order XXII, Rule 4, was rejected. It is unnecessary to decide in this petition whether the principle enunciated in Veerappa Chetty v. Tindal Ponnen 31 M.k 86 applies where there are more than one defendants. There is nothing to prevent the petitioner to seek to add as parties persons who claim a derivative title from a defend ant already on record, where such persons are in possession and claim hostility to the plaintiff, I do not see any grounds for refusing to add them as parties. Order I, Rule 10, applies to such cases and the mere fact that they are the legal representatives of a person who died before the institution of the suit and who was wrongly imp leaded as defendant does not affect the question, where they are sought to be imp leaded in their individual capacity find not as lega...
K. Seshagiri Rao and ors. Vs. Tangaturi Jagannadham Alias Hanumantha R ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.391
Napier, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant against the decree of the lower Appellate Court, holding that the sale of item 18 in the suit is not binding on the plaintiff on the ground that he was a major when the execution proceedings were taken against him. The first point taken is that a purchaser is entitled to assume that when an interest is sold everything has been done to make it available, and reliance is placed on the well-established doctrine that a bona fide purchaser at a sale under a Court decree which is subsequently reversed is not affected by the reversal [Vide the case quoted in Krishna Chandra Mandal v. Jogendra Narain Roy 27 Ind. Cas. 139 and also on the principle that where an estate has been represented by a person bona fide believed to be the true representative, the decision will (in some circumstances) bind the true representative [Vide General Manager of the Raj Durbhunga v. Maharajah Coomar Ramaput Singh 14 M.I.A. 605. The latter principle has, in my opinio...
V. Sami Sah Vs. J. Parthasarathy Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad862; 31Ind.Cas.739
1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Mr. Justice Bakewell in a suit brought, by the plaintiff on two promissory notes for Rs. 2,000 each, alleged to have, been executed by the defendant. The defendant, who admittedly was a young boy just emerged from minority and was the undivided nephew of one Purushothama Sah who was possessed of considerable property, alleged in his written statement that there was no consideration for the notes, and he went on to set up a case that, he had been decoyed into the company of a young girl and had been drugged and that he had been made to sign his name on blank papers when he had not sufficient control over his mind and was in apposition to be dominated by the will of one Erappa Chetty, who introduced him to this woman. The learned Judge was not satisfied with the evidence produced by the defendant in support of this plea, but he thought the case was a sufficiently suspicious one to call upon the plaintiff to answer it; and the plaintiff produced evi...
Kota China Mellayya Vs. Kannekanti Veeriah and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad795(1); 31Ind.Cas.671
1. We are of opinion that a mutual mistake made in describing a piece of land in a registered mortgage-deed can be proved by oral evidence (Section 92, proviso 1, of the Evidence Act) and that when such a mistake is so established, the deed can be construed by the Courts as if the mistake had been rectified, without the instrument having been actually ordered to be rectified in a suit brought for the purpose under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, subject to the condition that the rights of third persons acquired in good faith and for value should not be prejudiced thereby. See also Mahadeva Aiyar v. Gopala Aiyar 8 Ind. Cas. 390 therefore, uphold the learned Subordinate Judge's decision in establishing the rights of the 3rd and 4th defendants as mortgagees of D. No. 196 seri land. But he should not have released the entire interest in the land, and we modify his decree by giving a declaration to plaintiff that he is entitled to attach and sell it subject to the mortgage in favour ...
M. Somasundaram Chetty and Co. Through their Authorised Agent, W.T. Ti ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-1915
Reported in: 31Ind.Cas.816
1. We think the learned. Judge was right and that the suit, being, based on an award, is not governed, as con-, tended, either by Articles 53, Article 113 or. Article 115 of the 1st Schedule to the Indian, Limitation Act. As held in Sornavalli Ammal v. Muthayya Sastrigal 23 M.P 593 : 10 M.L.J. 208, and in Bhajahari Saha Banikya v. Behary Lal Basak 33 C.P 881 : 4 C.L.J. 162, a suit on an award cannot be considered to be a suit on a contract. As observed in the latter case, it operates to merge and extinguish all claims embraced in the submission, and gives rise to a fresh cause of action, which in the present case is governed by Article 120 of the 1st Schedule of thes Indian Limitation Act as there is no other Article applicable. Kuldip Dube v. Mahant Dube 11 Ind. Cas. 705 : 34 A.P 43 : 8 A.L.J. 1138, is to the same effect.2. The appeal is dismissed with costs....
Raja Parthasaradhi Appa Rao Savai Aswa Rao Bahadur, Zamindar of Saniva ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-1915
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.444
1. Assuming without deciding that the effect of the arrangement between the plaintiff and the Government was that the suit lands were substituted as a part of his zemindari for the zenvin lands which are acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, it must be borne in mind that prior to the exchange the zemindar as regards the suit lands was in the position of a Government ryot, and owner of the kudivaram right. He had, therefore, in our opinion, a right of occupancy in the lands within the meaning of the explanation of Sub-section 6 of Section 6 of the Madras Estates Land Act and, therefore, he did not by the terms of the explanation lose such occupancy right by becoming interested in the land, as landsholder, that is, by the lands becoming part of his estate.2. It is then said that this is opposed to the plain provisions of Section 8 (1), which provides that in such a case the owner shall hold the lands as a landowner and not as a ryot. The language of Section 8 (1) is no doubt wide enou...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »