Chennai Court December 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.
Sri Rajah Varadaraja Appa Rao Bahadur Zamindar Garu Vs. Gonepalle Punn ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-1915
Reported in: (1916)30MLJ545
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. Plaintiff is the appellant. He is the Zemindar of Gannavaram (one of the Nuzvid Zemindars). The suits out of which this appeal and the connected appeals and, certain connected revision petitions have arisen were brought by him (not as Zemindar but as a ryotwari owner of certain lands under the Government) for recovery of the arrears of the rents of the lands from his tenants. The suits were brought in the District Munsif's Court of Gudivada. The. District Judge on appeal returned most of the plaints in these suits on the ground that the tenants are entitled to treat the plaint lands as situate in an 'Estate' under the Madras Estates Land Act and that the suits ought to have been filed in the Revenue Court.2. The principal contentions argued before us are found in the grounds 3, 4 and 11 of the memorandum of second appeal which are as follows:3. The lands in dispute having been dealt with at the time of the Inam Commission as inam lands in which the Government posse...
Atyam Venkatasubbarayadu and Two ors. Vs. Sri Rajah Velugoti Govinda K ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-1915
Reported in: (1917)ILR40Mad651
Seshagiri Ayyar, J.1. Mr. Subrahmanya Ayyar has taken the preliminary objection that the High Court cannot entertain a Review in appeals preferred under Section 15 of the Letters Patent. The question is practically res integra as the decision in Hafiz Muhammad Moshin v. Sheo Prasad (1904) 1 A.L.J. 509 in which the point was directly raised, gives no reason for the conclusion arrived at.2. After hearing the matter fully argued by the learned vakils on either side, we are of opinion that there is no force in the objection. Clause 44 of the Letters Patent says that the provisions are subject to the legislative powers of the Governor-General in Council. As at present advised, we are in agreement with Mr. Subrahmanya Ayyar that this provision would not enable Courts, by implication, to supplement the Letters Patent by importing into it all acts ejusdem generis passed by the Governor-General in Council and that the provision is only intended to empower the Governor-General in Council to legi...
Kothandaraman Chetty and ors. Vs. Shunmugam Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.608
Seshagiri Aiyar, J.1. Defendants Nos. 1 and 5 executed a promissory note to the plaintiffs on the 3rd of February 1910. On the 8th of December, the 1st defendant made a part-payment. This suit was instituted on the 5th December 1913. The 5th defendant pleaded that the payment by the 1st defendant did not save limitation against him. The Subordinate Judge upheld this plea and dismissed the suit as against him. As against the 1st defendant and his sons (defendants Nos. 2 to 4) the lower Court passed a decree and allowed them to pay the amount in instalments.2. The plaintiffs have filed this revision petition. The first contention relates to the liability of the 5th defendant. Mr. Rajagopala Chariar has addressed to me an exhaustive argument on the question. There is some dispute as to the character in which the 5th defendant signed the promissory note. The plaintiffs regarded him as a compromiser with the 1st defendant. The 5th defendant pleaded that he signed only as a surety. The Subor...
Manchala Narayana Murthy Vs. Penumetcha Venkatapatiraju and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.711
1. I do not think we can interfere in this case. The learned Subordinate Judge in appeal admitted in evidence a lease, Exhibit H, on which the permissive nature of the defendant's possession was based by the plaintiffs. That document was not produced at the original hearing; but the plaintiff went into the witness-box and gave what, from reading this judgment of the District Munsif, X have no doubt, was in effect secondary evidence of that document which then could not be found. The learned District Munsif did not accept that evidence. But on appeal an application was put in by the plaintiffs to be allowed to produce the original document which it is alleged had in the meantime been found. It is not open to Mr. Ramesam in second appeal to argue that the document, contrary to the opinion of the Subordinate Judge, is a forgery, and, therefore, he is forced to contend that in law it could not be admitted. In our opinion this was, within the meaning of the ruling in Kessowji Issur v. Great...
Atyam Venkatasubbarayudu and anr. and Vs. Sri Rajah Velugoti Govinda K ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.873
1. Mr. Subramania Aiyar has taken the preliminary objection that the High Court cannot entertain a review in appeals preferred under Section 15 of the Letters Patent. The question is practically res integra as the decision in Hafiz Muhammad Mohsin v. Sheo Prasad 1 A.L.J. 509, in which the point was directly raised, gives no reason for the conclusion arrived at.2. After hearing the matter fully argued by the learned Vakils on either side, we are of opinion that there is no force in the objection. Section 44. of the Letters Patent says that the provisions are subject to the legislative powers of the Governor-General in Council. As at present advised, we are in agreement with Mr. Subramania Aiyar that this provision would not enable Courts, by implication, to supplement the Letters Patent by importing into it all Acts ejusdem generis passed by the Governor-General in Council and that the provision is only intended to empower the Governor-General in Council to legislate with a view to supp...
Rangaswami Pillai and anr. Vs. Vaidylinga Mudaliar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-1915
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.446
Coutts Trotter, J.1. This suit arises out of a question as to who is entitled to certain properties which during his life-time belonged to Tyagaraja Mudali. He died in 1856, leaving a widow who died in 1902. The plaintiffs are the reversionary heirs of Tyagaraja Mudali and the defendants are the persons who admittedly for a considerable period of time have been in actual possession of the property. The plaintiffs' case is that the defendants or their predecessors-in-title acquired or must be taken to have acquired the land from the widow.2. When such a case is scrutinized after a great lapse of time as in the present cage, it is not very surprising that the evidence should be of a somewhat scanty nature; and practically the whole case turns upon the effect of, and the inferences to be drawn from, three documents. The first of these is a razinamah or compromise decree in a suit brought by Tyagaraja Mudali in 1855, the year before he died, and there is no question but that in that suit a...
Chinnu Pillai and ors. Vs. Venkatasamy Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-1915
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.507; (1916)30MLJ347
Coutts Trotter, J.1. In a recent case my brother Spencer, J., and I had occasion to consider a question analogous to that which arises for determination here. All the decisions were cited before us, and having regard to their conflicting nature it is not surprising that we had very great difficulty in coining to a conclusion. No judgments were delivered, as the parties came to terms. But during the course of a careful and lengthy examination of cases, I came to the conclusion that Venkatagiri Aiyar v. Sadagopa-chariar 10 Ind. Cas. 83 : 14 Ind. Cas. 449 : 22 M.L.J. 129 was in conflict with the Full Bench decision in Mulla Veetil Seethi v. Achutlian Nair 9 Ind. Cas. 513 : 21 M.L.J. 213 : 9 M.L.T. 431 : (1911) 1 M.W.N. 165 and that if the former case was wrongly decided, then Venkata-narasammah v. Ramiah 2 M.P 108 could not stand either. My brother in the judgment which he is about to read and which I have had the advantage of perusing has exhaustively reviewed the cases; and I assent ent...
Chokkalingam Chetty Alias Peria Karuppan Chetty and ors. Vs. Annamalai ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-1915
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.417
Coutts Trotter, J.1. The question that arises in this appeal is solely one of law as the facts are admitted. On the 10th August 1905, a pending suit was settled by a compromise between the parties, who for practical purposes may be treated as the present plaintiffs and defendants. The result of the compromise was that a sum of 15,000 dollars was found due from the defendants to the plaintiffs. After that figure had been settled and admitted by the defendants, the. 1st defendant executed and handed over a document, which is Exhibit A in the case, which is called a chit and which, whatever else it is, is a promise to pay the plaintiffs a sum of 10,400 dollars with interest. The balance of the 15,000 dollars was accounted for in other ways. On the 14th May 1907, 2,000 dollars were paid off and a further payment of 1,000 dollars was made on the 30th August of the same year. Both these payments were endorsed on the back of the chit. On the 8th of August 1910, the present suit was brought an...
Sri Raja Varadaraja Appa Rao Bahadur Zemindar Garu Vs. Gonepalle Punna ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-1915
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.626
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. Plaintiff is the appellant. He is the zemindar of Gannavaram (one of the Nuzvid zemindars). The suits out of which this appeal and the connected appeals and certain connected revision petitions have arisen were brought by him (not as zemindar but as a ryotwari owner of certain lands under the Government) for recovery of the arrears of the rents of the lands from his tenants. The suits were brought in the District Munsif's Court of Gudivada. The District Judge on appeal returned most of the plaints in these suits, on the ground that the tenants are entitled to treat the plaint lands as situate in an 'Estate' under the Madras Estates Land Act and that the suits ought to have been filed in the Revenue Court.2. The principal contentions argued before us are found in the grounds 3., 4 and 11 of the memorandum of second appeal which are as follows:3. The lands in dispute having been dealt with at the time of the Inam Commission as inam lands in which the Government posse...
V.R.R.M.N.R.M. Ramakathan Chetty Vs. V.R.R.M.C.T. Murugappa Chetty and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-1915
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.969
Wallis, C.J.1. The plaintiff instituted these suits between the 6th and 10th days of September 1910, as found by the Subordinate Judge, having been born according to his own case on the 10th September 18.89. He thus delayed to bring the suit until a few days before the expiry of three years from the date when he says he attained majority, viz., the 10th September 1907, and the burden is thrown on him of proving that he was born on that date, a burden which the Subordinate Judge finds he has failed to discharge. The plaintiff and the defendants are members of divided branches of one family. Defendants No. 4 to 7 are the sons of A.L.A.R. Ramasami Chetty, a Nattukottai Chetty very well known in his day. The plaintiff and the defendants Nos. 1 to 3 are descended from his elder brother Ramanathan Chettiar, defendants Nos. 1 to 3 being descended from Chidambaram, one of Ramanathan's sons, while the plaintiff is descended from another brother; and according to his own case, which the Subordin...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »