Chennai Court March 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.
Lakshmi Achi Vs. Subbarama Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad528; (1915)28MLJ491
1. One Arunachellan Chetty died leaving two widows. Prior to his death, he executed a will on the 25th July 1904. Two persons were appointed executors under it. They brought O.S. No. 49 of 1911 on a deed of mortgage executed in favour of the deceased testator. One of the executors died before the preliminary decree in the suit was passed, and the other after it. An application was presented by the appellant, the senior widow of the deceased, to continue the suit. It was opposed by the respondent, the junior widow. The Subordinate Judge dismissed the application. This appeal is against that order.2. Mr. Section Srinivasa Aiyangar raised the preliminary objection that no appeal lies against the order of the lower court. The question has been argued very fully before us by the learned vakils for the appellant and respondent; we have come to the conclusion that the preliminary objection must be upheld.3. Mr. T. Rangachariar's first contention is that after the passing of the preliminary de...
Pichi Aiyar and anr. Vs. Subbarayar Alias Subramania Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1915
Reported in: AIR1915Mad1218; (1915)28MLJ513
1. The decision of the learned Judge is right. Mr. Vatadachariar draws attention to the written statement in the suit of the manager against the subscriber and argues that the claim for profits was pleaded in that suit and must be deemed to have been decided against the subscriber; the defence in that case was one of discharge and no question of set off arose for decision.2. The learned Vakil broadly contends that in all cases where independent obligations arise out of the same contract, the defendant is bound to plead his claim by way of reduction of the amount sued for. We do not think that such a contention is well founded,| The authorities cited by him Vinayak v. Dattatraya I.L.R. (1902) B 661 and Ruhmani Rai v. Venkatesh I.L.R. (1907) B 527 do not support him in that contention. In those cases, the learned Judges held that the plaintiff omitted to sue for a right which was an adjunct to the main right claimed and that it was not open to him to agitate the matter again.3. A defenda...
P.M.M. Velliappa Chettiar and anr. Vs. S.N. Subrahmanyam Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1915
Reported in: (1916)ILR39Mad485
Seshagiri Ayyar, J.1. The appellants obtained a decree for money against the respondent in the Calcutta High Court. As the respondent was residing within the. jurisdiction of the Subordinate Judge's Court of Ramnad, the decree was transmitted on the 2nd September 1912 under the latter portion of Order XXI, Rule 5, to the District Court of Ramnad for execution. This latter Court sent the decree to the Subordinate Judge. An application for execution was made to him on the 22nd of April 1913 and certain properties were attached. While the application was pending in the Sub-Court, the respondent moved the District Court to call up the records from the Sub-Court on the ground that under Rule 161-A of the Civil Rules of Practice the proceedings taken in execution were void as they were instituted more than six months after the transmission of the decree by the Calcutta High Court. The District Judge upheld this contention and ordered 'that the decree will be recalled from the Sub-Court and r...
Panda Patyya Vs. Panda Venkamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1915
Reported in: AIR1915Mad1182; 29Ind.Cas.54
1. This is a suit brought by the plaintiff to declare that the sale of the properties, items Nos. 1 to 23 in the Schedule to the plaint, to the 3rd defendant, in execution of the decree in Original Suit No. 329 of 1893 of the Court of the District Munsif of Ongole against one Venkamma, the widow of one Rangayya, is not binding on the plaintiff's reversionary right to these properties. The suit is on the footing that Rangayya was adopted by Ademma, the widow of one Venkatadri, after the death of Venkatadri and of Venkataramayya, Rangayya's brother, whom Venkatadri had himself adopted during his life-time. Venkataramayya died after Venkatadri; and according to the evidence for the plaintiff Lakshminarasu, Rangayya's father, being then the next reversioner and there being no other reversioner in the same degree, gave his son Rangayya in adoption to the widow. The Subordinate Judge has found among other things that this adoption was bad for want of authority, although it was made with the ...
Maniyam Kuppanna Gounden and ors. Vs. Kuppana Gounden and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad14; 29Ind.Cas.195
Spencer, J.1. These two appeals arise out of the same transaction. Second Appeal No. 1644 of 1913 is a suit by a purchaser to compel the seller to execute a proper sale-deed for the land which he purchased in 1906 under a sale-deed which was not registered.2. The Appellants' main contention is that the verbal agreement between the parties in October 1909 to execute a fresh sale-deed is not capable of being enforced, as it is devoid of consideration.3. It has been found by the Subordinate Judge that over and above the Rs. 200 which formed the consideration for the original sale-deed of 1906, which remained unregistered owing to the sickness of the vendee, Rs. 25 were paid at some date subsequent to the execution of that sale-deed.4. This sum will serve as sufficient consideration for the later agreement; but it is argued that the Subordinate Judge's conclusion that this was paid as an inducement to execute a fresh deed was not warranted by the evidence. It is true that plaintiffs' witne...
P.M.A. Velliappa Chettiar and anr. Vs. S.N. Subrahmaniyam Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1915
Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.119
1. The appellants obtained a decree for money against the respondent in the Calcutta High Court. As the respondent was residing within the jurisdiction of the Subordinate Judge's Court of Ramnad, the decree was transmitted on the 2nd September 1912 under the latter portion of Order XXI, Rule 5, to the District Court of Ramnad for execution. This latter Court sent the decree to the Subordinate Judge. An application for execution was made to him on the 22nd of April 1913, and certain properties were attached. While the application was pending in the Sub-Court, the respondent moved the District Court to call up the records from the Sub-Court on the ground that under Rule 161A of the Civil Rules of Practice, the proceedings taken in execution were void as they were instituted more than six months after the transmission of the decree by the Calcutta High Court. The District Judge upheld this contention and ordered 'that the decree will be re-called from the Sub-Court and returned to the Hig...
Godavarthi Periah Alias Ethirajah Vs. Godavarthi Lakshmidewamma and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad621(1); (1915)28MLJ441
1. In remanding the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, the High Court ordered 'that the costs shall abide the result.' On the re hearing the Court below in the exercise of its discretion refused to give costs to the appellant. It is contended that the language of the order of the High Court makes it incumbent upon the Court below to award costs to the person who succeeds and that the District Judge had no jurisdiction to pass any other order. We are not prepared to agree with this contention. If the words used were ' to abide and follow the result' they may be interpreted as conveying the suggestion that the successful party must be given his costs. But the words 'abide the result 'only connote that the order as to costs is to await till decision is given in the case. They have not the effect of fettering the discretion of the trying Court. In Tetnpleton v. Laurie I.L.R. (1900) B. 230 the language was ' to follow the event '. The learned Judges held that the Court below had no discretion in t...
Bheema Venkataramana and ors. Vs. Bommini Gurappa
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad1006; (1915)28MLJ488
1. Plaintiff brought a suit against the defendant to recover the property which was sold by the latter to the former. The matter in suit was compromised; the terms of the compromise in so far as they are material to this appeal are that the defendant should pay into court a certain sum of money within the 13th of January 1913, that he should get back the promissory notes exhibited in the suit and return them cancelled to the plaintiff within the said date. The defendant paid the money on the 7th January 1913, that is, within 6 days of the time fixed for payment but he did not get back the notes from the court within the time. He took them out subsequently and deposited them in court on the 4th February, 16 days after the time given to him. On his applying for entering up satisfaction of the decree, the courts below held that as the term of the consent decree, relating to the promissory notes was not complied within time, his application should be rejected.2. It is contended before us t...
G. Periah Alias Ethirajayya Vs. G. Lakshmidevamma and Four ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-1915
Reported in: (1916)ILR39Mad476
Seshagiri Ayyar, J.1. In remanding the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, the High Court ordered 'that the costs shall abide the result.' On the rehearing, the Court below in the exercise t of its discretion refused to give costs to the appellant, It is contended that the language of the order of the High Court makes it incumbent upon the Court below to award costs to the person who succeeds and that the District Judge had no jurisdiction to pass any other order. We are not prepared to agree with this contention. If the words used were 'to abide and follow the result,' they may be interpreted as conveying the suggestion that the successful party must be given his costs, But the words 'abide the result' only connote that the order as to costs is to await the passing of the final decision in the case. They have not the effect of fettering the discretion of the trying Judge. In Templeton v. Laurie 4 C.W.N. 343 the language was 'to follow the event.' The learned Judges held that the Court below h...
Tiruvenkatachariar Vs. Thangayiammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-1915
Reported in: (1916)ILR39Mad479
Seshagiri Ayyar, J.1. The Official Receiver of Tanjore, in whom the property belonging to the insolvent vested under an adjudication order, issued a proclamation for the sale of the properties in dispute. In it he stated that the properties would be sold subject to two mortgages subsisting in favour of certain secured creditors. The sale was fixed for the 21st March 1914. On that day the Official Receiver noted in the sale-proclamation 'intending bidders present say that the properties would fetch a better price if they are sold free of mortgage.... Under these circumstances in modification of the terms of the sale-proclamation, I propose to sell now the properties free of encumbrance.' The properties were purchased by the, appellant for Rs. 22,000. This was on the 22nd March. On the 9fch of April an application was made to the District Court by the respondent, who is also one of the creditors of the insolvent, for setting aside the sale on the ground that the variation in the sale-pro...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »