Chennai Court August 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.
Kumarappan Chettiar Vs. Narayanan Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1915
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.455
Spencer, J.1. The plaintiff is a puisne mortgagee under a hypothecation bond and he sued for sale of the mortgaged property. The 1st defendant is the son and legal representative of the mortgagor. The remaining defendants were impleaded as claiming an interest in the property by reason of a prior mortgage to defendants Nos. 2 to 5, a sub-mortgage by them to 6th defendant, a suit brought by 6th defendant followed by a decree and a sale of the mortgaged property in Court auction, and lastly a private sale by 6th defendant to defendants Nos. 7 and 8.2. Both the lower Courts held that the plaintiff's mortgage was without consideration and dismissed his suit. The questions that arise in second appeal are (1) whether it was open to any of the contesting defendants to raise the question of consideration, (2) whether, when the execution of the mortgage instrument is proved and it contains a recital that consideration passed, the onus of proving want of consideration does not lie on the persons...
Y.S. Venkata Subbiah Chetty Vs. A. Subba Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1915
Reported in: 31Ind.Cas.152
1. This was an action brought by a merchant in Cuddapah, called Venkata Subbiah Chetty, against two persons, who may for brevity be called the 'Naidus,' the South Indian Export Company and Heinrich Brandt. The facts giving rise to the action are as follows:The Naidus were the owners of some mica mines in Nellore. On the 17th of February 1906, they entered into an agreement, Exhibit I, with the South Indian Export Company regarding the working of the mines and disposal of the produce. The general nature of the agreement was that the Company should receive the produce of the mines and sell it, should receive a commission on the gross amounts realized by sale and certain specified disbursements incurred in connection therewith. They were further to give the owners a standing advance of Rs. 55,000, and were to receive on that sum and on any further sums they might advance, interest at 6 per cent. (Clause 5). It was provided by Clause 11 that the Company should first, pay the commission, in...
Kunhammad Kutti Vs. Panchara Alleema and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1915
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.746; (1916)30MLJ203
1. Following the case of Veluthemana v. Pathuma 17 Ind. Cas. 131 we hold that neither Section 15 nor Section (3) of the Improvements Act allows a re-valuation of improvements, unless there have been additional improvements effected after the first valuation or there has been a change in the condition of the improvements.2. Section 20 referred to by the District Judge has no relevancy.3. The District Judge's order is set aside and that of the Munsif restored with costs of the defendants in this and the lower Appellate Court....
Varadaraja Mudali Vs. Murugesam Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad728(2); 30Ind.Cas.707; (1916)30MLJ460
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The judgment-debtor is the appellant. His learned Vakil Mr. T.R. Venkatarama Sastriar has raised two contentions in his arguments before us, those two contentions being:(a) that the application in execution made by the decree-holder dated 4th March 1908 was barred by limitation and,(b) that the relief prayed for in that application could not be granted to the decree-holder, the matter being res judicata against the decree-holder by reason of a prior execution petition dated 13th September 1905 praying for the same relief having been dismissed on the ground that by Section 99 of the Transfer of Property Act the decree-holder could not brin to sale the attached property subject to the decree-holder's own mortgage in execution of the money-decree, though that decree was obtained-on a cause of action other than the mortgage document. (Some other contentions suggested before us need not be noticed as they have not been raised in the grounds mentioned in the memorandum o...
In Re: S. Rangayya and Three ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1915
Reported in: (1916)ILR39Mad604
Tyabji, J 1. The first point involved in this revision case is whether the desire of the parties to compound the offence of causing grievous hurt punishable under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code can affect our decision. The point arises in a case where two brothers brought a charge and countercharge against each other for causing grievous hurt and rioting and each of them was sentenced by the Joint Magistrate to one month's rigorous imprisonment. From these sentences they could not appeal but they have applied in revision and are now desirous of compounding.2. The composition of offences is dealt with in Section 345 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Sub-section (1) specifies the offences which may be compounded without leave of Court by the injured person. It contains no reference to the stage at which the proceedings may be.3. Sub-section (2) provides that the offence of causing grievous hurt may, with the permission of the Court before which any prosecution for such offence is pen...
Rukmani Ammal and anr. Vs. the Advocate-general of Madras and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad924; 31Ind.Cas.908
1. In this case Mr. Namberumal Chetty, the counter-petitioner, was appointed Receiver on the 19th of November 1913. On the 14th December, the widows against whom the suit was continued as the legal representatives of their deceased husband adopted a boy. The Receiver was appointed guardian of the minor boy by the widows. Thereupon this application was made to the District Court to cancel Mr. Namberumal Chettiar's appointment as Receiver. The District Judge ordered his removal on the sole ground that his position as guardian is likely to impair his discharge of duties as Receiver. He has not considered the allegations contained in the affidavits filed before him. We do not think that the mere fact that the Receiver is the guardian of the boy whom the defendants have adopted, is sufficient ground for his. removal from his appointment. Mr. Kerr says that a next friend of a minor should not be appointed as Receiver and in 24 Halsbury's Laws of England, the same statement is made. On referr...
Peesapati Sitaramanujachari and anr. Vs. Kanduri Vellamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad462; 30Ind.Cas.822
Srinivasa Aiyangar, J.1. The question for decision in this appeal is whether the suit temple is a private temple or a public temple. The temple was built in 1830 by one Singarachary, the paternal uncle of the defendant's husband, in the village of Bhyripuram. The temple was dedicated to Sri Venkateswaraswami. The defendant and her predecessors are styled dharmakartas of the temple (Exhibits I, III and IV).2. A fixed stone idol was installed in the temple and also copper idol to be taken out in processions. Archakas or priests were appointed to make the puja or worship as also reciters of Veda, and Tamil probandhams and other servants usually employed in public temples. In fact the puja and other services in the temple in no way differ from those in a public temple. It is admitted that the general public, ever since the construction of the temple and the consecration of the idols, have been worshipping in the temple. It is said that they do so with the permission of the dharmakarta for ...
Navanna Vena Rama Chetty Vs. A.L.A.R.R.M. Arunachalam Chettiar and anr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1915
Reported in: 31Ind.Cas.98
1. The 1st defendant is the appellant. The plaintiffs who are the landlords of the plaint land brought this suit for the following reliefs:(a) that the permanent damage to the plaint land area of 1/4th kurukkam, inflicted by the defendants by their having erected two walls on the site and placed two stone pillars thereon, be removed at the defendants' expense;(b) that the defendants may be made to pay the plaintiffs their costs.2. The plaint 1/4th kurukkam area is in one corner of a big tone land measuring a little over 12 kurukkams in extent in the village of Kalakkudi. The plaintiffs' complaint is that as the 12 and odd kurukkams were granted as tope lands on tope cowle (that is for cultivation of fruit trees), the defendants had no right to convert any portion of the lands into a building site and the defendants by enclosing 1/4th kurukkam by walls, by raising its level and by fixing stone pillars have made that portion unfit for horticulture. The suit was brought in the Revenue Cou...
N.V. Rama Chetty Vs. A.L.A.R.R.M. Arunachalam Chettiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1915
Reported in: (1916)ILR39Mad673
Sadasiva Ayyar, J.1. The first defendant is the appellant. The plaintiffs who are the landlords of the plaint land brought this suit for the following reliefs:(a) that the permanent damage to the plaint land area of 1/4 kurukkam inflicted by the defendants by their having ereoted two walls on the site and placed two stone pillars thereon be removed at the defendants' expense,(b) that the defendants may be made to pay the plaintiffs their costs.2. The plaint 1/4 kurukkam area is in one corner of a big tope land measuring a little over 12 kuruhhams in extent in the village of Kalakkudi. The plaintiffs' complaint is that as the 12 and odd kurukkams were granted as tope lands on tope cowle (that is for cultivation of fruit trees) the defendants had no right to convert any portion of the lands into a building site and the defendants by enclosing 1/4 kurukkam by walls, by raising its level and by fixing stone pillars, have made that portion unfit for Horticulture. The suit was brought in the...
Elamarty Bangarayudu and ors. Vs. Mangipoody Perayya Sastry
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad747; 30Ind.Cas.927a
1. We agree with the lower Courts in their conclusion that the appellants have not shown any title by virtue of the alleged gift by Antanna in favour of his grandsons Subbarayudu and Venkayya, on the strength of which plaintiff's claim can be resisted. We also think that no question arises of a partial alienation, because the grandsons had no power to alienate the property during the life-time of their mother. The only question that remains relates to the effect of the compromise in Original Suit No. 348 of 1886.2. Before we can decide this second appeal we must call for a finding from the District Judge upon the questions raised in paragraph 10 of the written statement of defendants Nos. 5 to 9 and paragraph 11 of the 4th defendant's written statement which we think are covered by the 3rd issue but have not been considered by the lower Courts.3. In Original Suit No. 348 of 1886 there was a compromise of the suit brought by the purchasers under Exhibit I, who are the predecessors-in-ti...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »