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 Raja Varadaraja Appa Rao Bahadur Zamindar Garu Vs. Katnani Kuruvan ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1915
Reported in: (1916)30MLJ249
1. We have heard the learned Vakil who appeared for the respondents fully and we do not think that the findings of the learned District Judge are open to question before us. We accept those findings. The result of that will be that the plaintiff will have a decree for ejectment and also for occupation rent at the rate of Rs. 40 per acre per year from fasli 1319 till the date of the delivery of possession. The appellant will have his costs throughout....
Sri Raja Varadaraja Appa Rao Bahadur Zamindar Garu Vs. Katnani Kuruvan ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.722
1. We have heard the learned Vakil who appeared for the respondents fully, and we do not think that the findings of the learned District Judge are open to question before us. We accept those findings.2. The result of that will be that the plaintiff will have a decree for ejectment and also for occupation rent at the rate of Rs. 40 per acre per year from Fasli 1319 till the date of the delivery of possession. The appellant will have his costs throughout....
Muthuveerappa Chetti Alias Nellayappa Chetti Vs. Ramaswami Chetti (Dec ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-1915
Reported in: (1916)31MLJ264
John Wallis, C.J.1. The Subordinate Judge has found in this case--and we see no reason to differ from his finding on the evidence--that the plaintiff was induced to pay Rs. 7,000 to the defendants in order that a criminal prosecution instituted by the defendants against the plaintiff for an offence which was not compoundable should not be proceeded with. The agreement to stifle the criminal prosecution was illegal and it is said that money paid in pursuance of an illegal agreement cannot be recovered back. No doubt that is generally so according to the maxim in pari delicto potior est conditio defendeniis, but it appears to bewell established that when a payment of money is obtained by means of such an agreement the parties are not to be con-sidered in pari delicto and that the money may be recovered back. In Bullen and Leake's Precedents of Pleadings, 2nd Edn. page 51, the law is stated as follows:--' But where the plaintiff having paid the money in execution of an illegal contract or...
Muthuveerappa Chetty Alias Vellayappa Chetty Vs. Ramaswami Chetty and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-1915
Reported in: (1917)ILR40Mad285
John Wallis, C.J.1. The Subordinate Judge has found in this Wallis, case and we see no reason to differ from his finding on the evidence--that the plaintiff was induced to pay Rs. 7,000 to the defendants in order that a criminal prosecution instituted by the defendants against the plaintiff for an offence which was not compoundable should not be proceeded with.2. The agreement to stifle the criminal prosecution was illegal, and it is said that money paid in pursuance of an illegal agreement cannot be recovered back. No doubt that is generally so according to the maxim in pari delicto potior est conditio defendentis; but it appears to be well established that when a payment of money is obtained by means of such an agreement the parties are not to be considered in pari delicto and that the money may be recovered back. In Bullen and Leake's Prece dents of Pleadings, second edition, page 51, the law is stated as follows: 'But where the plaintiff having paid the money in execution of an ill...
Bugata Appala Naidu Vs. Chengalvala Jogiraju and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.237
1. It is the practice in this and other Courts to allow a claim for possession to be included in a claim for specific performance of a contract for the sale of immoveable property, and we are not prepared to question it. But in the present case the plaintiff has gone further and has impleaded the vendor's mortgagees who are in possession under a usufructuary mortgage. We have not been referred to any authority in this Court for joining such a claim against the vendor's mortgagees with a claim against the vendor and in Tasker v. Small 3 My. & Cr. 63; 6 Sim. 625; 5 L.J. Ch.321; 45 R.R. 212 it was expressly decided that this cannot, be done. In Krishnasami v. Sundarappayyur 15 M.L.J. 164 a subsequent vendee was joined under Section 27(6) of the Specific Relief Act and the case is distinguishable. This misjoinder was not in our opinion a sufficient reason for dismissing so much of the suit as asks for specific performance against the 1st defendant, and the decree will be modified according...
Devibhashyam Venkanna, Minor, by Paternal Grandmother and Guardian Lac ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.579
Abdur Rahim, J.1. There has been a delay of 34 days in the presentation of this appeal, and the affidavit filed on behalf of the appellant does not account for the greater portion of that delay. The appeal is dismissed with costs.2. The next question is whether we can hear the memorandum of objections, which was filed within one month from the filing of the appeal as required by law. The question depends upon the construction of Order XLI, Rule 22, of the new Code corresponding to Section 581 of the old Code. The new Code has made certain alterations in the law with respect to the hearing of the memorandum of objections. It provides by Clause 4 that even if the original appeal is withdrawn or dismissed for default, the objections filed may nevertheless be heard and determined. But it does not say in so many words, at least so far as that clause is concerned, what will happen if the appeal is dismissed on the ground that it was filed after the expiry of the time allowed by law.3. The qu...
Manchukonda Appadu and ors. Vs. Atchi Appalaswamy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.760
Abdur Rahim, J.1. The suit is on a mortgage-bond. As required by Section 69 of the Evidence Act the executant's signature has to be proved. The Second plaintiff in the case gave evidence and the form in which it is recorded is in these words: 'The bond was executed to me and to second plaintiff: Exhibit A', which is the mortgage-bond. Then he says later on in cross-examination: 'I took the bond from only two people as the patta stood in their name.' The District Munsif who delivered judgment' in the case was the very gentleman before whom the witness gave his evidence. He says in his judgment, paragraph 4:'Plaintiff's witness No. 2 who is 1st plaintiff in the suit proves that the bond was executed to him by A. Appanna and his son A. Pydayya.' There can be no doubt that what he means to convey by this is that the 2nd plaintiff in the witness-box proved the signature of these two persons and that the bond was, therefore, legally proved. It was only in the appeal before the District Judge...
Talagapu Tavudu, Vs. the Zamindar of Tarla
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.706
1. The really important question in this appeal is whether the order of the Deputy Collector in Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 38 of 1909 operated as res judicata on the question whether rent was payable in kind or in cash. That order was passed on an application made to the Deputy Collector under Section 74 of the Madras Estates Land Act; that is, an application for appraisement, division or determination of the crops where rent is taken by such means. The Revenue Inspector was appointed as provided under Section 74 to make an award. An objection was taken on behalf of the tenants before the Collector that the rent was not payable by division or appraisement. The Collector went into, the matter and upheld that objection.2. It is contended before us that that finding of the Collector operated as res judicata and bars the present suit. We think the learned District Judge is right in holding that it has no such effect. Under Section 75 of the Act what the officer deputed by the Collect...
Muthuveerappa Chetti Alias Vellayappa Chetti Vs. Ramaswami Chetti and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-1915
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.401
John Wallis, C.J.1. The Subordinate Judge has found in this case--and we see no reason to differ from his finding on the evidence--that the plaintiff was induced to pay Rs. 7,000 to the defendants in order that a criminal prosecution instituted by the defendants against the plaintiff for an offence which was not compoundable should not be proceeded with. The agreement to stifle the criminal prosecution was illegal. and it is said that money paid in pursuance of an illegal agreement cannot be recovered back. No doubt that is generally so according to the maxim in part delicte, potior est conditio defendentis, but it appears to be well established that when a payment of money is obtained by means of such an agreement the parties are not to be considered in pari delicto and that the money may be recovered back. In Bullen and Leake's Precedents of Pleadings, second edition, page 51, the law is stated as follows: 'But where the plaintiff having paid the money in execution of an illegal cont...
Avasarala Seshamma and anr., Vs. Sri Ravu Venkatakrishnarayanim Garu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-1915
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.833
Coutts Trotter, J.1. This appeal is on behalf of the 15th and 24th defendants; who are in possession of certain lands which form item No. 4 of the plaint schedule. The plaintiff seeks to eject them from the lands on the ground that he is the heir of the last male holder, one Venkayya. The defendants' title ultimately rests upon the document Exhibit VI, dated in the year 1876. By that time Venkayya had died, as also his uncle Seetharamayya, who had been, according to the evidence, the manager of the family up to a few years before the deaths of Venkayya. The alienation which is -challenged goes back as far as the year 1876, when by a sale-deed Butchi Venkayamma purported to convey for consideration the property in suit to the plaintiff's father, who had married her daughter. We are, therefore, given the task at this date of enquiry whether that alienation was for consideration and for necessary and proper purposes. I pay no attention to the fact that the plaintiff's father goes into the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »