Chennai Court September 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.
Suppayya Pattar Alias Suppayya Iyer Vs. Dawood Haji Ahmad Sait and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad1025(2); 32Ind.Cas.763
1. We are satisfied that the agent Ibrahim had no authority to borrow money for making remittances to his principal. The only ground on which the plaintiff could succeed is that, as decided in the English and Indian cases quoted by the appellant's learned Vakil, viz., Reid v. Rigby (1894) 2 Q.B.D. 40, Bannatyne v. MacIver (1906) 1 K.B. 103, Reversion Fund and Insurance Company Limited v. Maison Cosway Limited (1913) 1 K.B. 364, Marsh v. Keating (1834) 1 Bing 198; 1 Scott. 5, Heramba Chandra Pal Chowdhury v. Kasi Nath 1 C.L.J. 199 and Ghasiram v. Raja Mohan Bikram Sha 6 C.L.J. 639, where the principal has been benefited by the money borrowed by the unauthorised agent from the plaintiff, either by the principal having received the money directly or by its having been spent in meeting his legal liabilities, the principal is equitably bound to return to plaintiff the said money to the extent that he has derived benefit therefrom. Before dealing with this question of law in detail and befor...
Sankaravelu Pillai Minor by His Adoptive Mother and Next Friend, Karup ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad536; 31Ind.Cas.260
Tyabji, J.1. Two main questions arise for decision in this appeal, in which the rights of the parties under Exhibit II have to be determined.2. The first question is whether Exhibit II required registration, or whether it can be adduced in evidence and can affect immoveable property notwithstanding that it has not been registered. This question depends primarily upon the effect of Sections 17 and 49 of the Indian Registration Act. Section 17 provides in the first instance that the documents mentioned thereinafter shall be registered if the property to which they relate is situate in certain districts. Then certain classes of documents are mentioned which are all such as operate to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish any right, title or interest in immoveabte property; and include gifts and leases. Then the second sub-section of Section 17 excepts twelve kinds of documents which need not be registered, though it might otherwise have been considered that Clauses (6) and (e) of S...
Moideen Saiba and ors. Vs. Gopala Kudwa and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad964; 31Ind.Cas.454
1. The principal appellants are tenants under a mulgeni lease obtained from the predecessors-in-title of the respondents, and the question that falls to be decided is whether there has been such a forfeiture of the lease as is referred to in the Transfer of Property Act, Section 111(g).2. The forfeiture is claimed by reason of a breach of a covenant in the lease, which may be translated in the following terms: 'If I fail to conduct myself accordingly, I shall at once give up the raid land to you and I shall have no objection to your giving it away to others.' It is argued in the first instance that this covenant must be read as referring to a breach only of the covenant to pay rent. We are unable to accept this construction of the lease. Reading the clause with the rest of the lease, we are of opinion that it was meant to come into operation on the tenants failing to act in accordance with any of the covenants contained in the lease.3. The covenant which the tenants are alleged to have...
S.V.A.R. Vellayam Chetty and ors. Vs. K.L.S.T. Kulandaveluappa Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1915
Reported in: 31Ind.Cas.783
Coutts-Trotter, J.1. This was an action brought by a Chetty agent carrying on business on behalf of his principal in Lower 'Burma for something which may be described as commission. The circumstance' in which this agent was appointed is in a document, dated 20th January 1907, which is what I understand to be an ordinary form of agreement between a Chetty agent and principal. He was to go to a place called Letpatam and transact business as the agent of his firm in that place for a period of three years for a fixed salary of Rs. 8,000. He was to remain there and transact business for a period of three years and hand over the balance of capital and profits left in his hands to his successor. These were the terms of the document. It would appear that in fact the principal's business in that place had been faring very ill for a few years previously, apparently because of the incapacity of the preceding agent, and it may very well be that the principal's mind was (as he swore) that he doubte...
M. Ramachandra Rao Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council Rep ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-1915
Reported in: (1916)ILR39Mad808
Ayling, J.1. We are not satisfied that the suit is covered by Section 42 of the Specific Belief Act; but it does not follow that it is not maintainable: vide, Robert Fisher v. The Secretary of State for India in Council (1899) 22 Mad. 220 and Ramakrishna Patter v. Narayana Patter : (1914)27MLJ634 . We can see no reason for holding that the present suit does not lie.2. The order in question is passed by the Deputy Collector in charge of the Cocanada Sub-division and debars plaintiff from practising in any of the village courts of that division. Under Section 24 of the Madras Village Courts Act any person holding j. a vakalatnama from a party may appear and plead in a village court and there is no provision in the Act for debarring any one from this privilege.3. Mr. K.S. Krishnaswami Ayyangar who appears for the Government Pleader is unable to support the legality of the order. Whatever general powers of supervision can be inferred from the power of appointment, suspension and removal of...
G. Narayanaswami Naidu Garu, Receiver of Nidadavole and Medur Estates ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-1915
Reported in: (1916)ILR39Mad873
Phillips, J.1. The appellant brought a suit for recovery of the suit lands and for rent against a tenant and valued his suit for purposes of jurisdiction according to the market value of the land in accordance with the provisions of Section 14 of the Madras Civil Courts Act (III of 1873) and Section 7(v)(d) of the Court Fees Act (VII of 1870). He accordingly presented the plaint before the Subordinate Judge, but it was returned for presentation before the District Munsif on the ground that if valued under the provisions of Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act, the value of the suit would be below Rs. 2,500 and the question has now come up in Letters Patent Appeal as to which provision of law should be applied in valuing the suit for purposes of jurisdiction.2. The Court Fees Act was amended by Act VI of 1905 and a new category of suits was added to Section 7 of the Court Fees Act as Clause (xi)(cc), i.e., for the recovery of immoveable property from a tenant. Undoubtedly the present su...
G. Narayanaswami Naidu Garu, Receiver of Nidadavole and Madur Estates ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad942; 31Ind.Cas.104
Phillips, J.1. The appellant brought a suit for recovery of the suit lands and for rent against a tenant and valued his suit for purposes of jurisdiction according to the market value of the land in accordance with the provisions of Section 14 of the Madras Civil Courts Act (III of 1873) and Section 7V(d) of the Court Fees Act (VII of 1870). He accordingly presented the plaint before the Subordinate Judge, but it was returned for presentation before the District Munsif on the ground that, if valued under the provisions of Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act, the value of the suit would be below Rs. 2500, and the Question has now come up in Letters Patent Appeal as to which provision of law should be applied in valuing the suit for purposes of jurisdiction.2. The Court Fees Act was amended by Act VI of 1905 and a new category of suits was added to Section 7 of the Court Fees Act as Clause XI(cc), i.e., for the recovery of immoveable property from a tenant. Undoubtedly the present suit ...
Muchirazu Ramachandra Row Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Coun ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad1061; 31Ind.Cas.310
1. We are not satisfied that the suit is covered by Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, but it does not follow that it is not maintainable. Vide Robert Fischer v. Secretary of State for India in Council 3 C.W.N. 161 and Ramahrishna Pattar v. Narayana Patter 26 Ind. Cas. 883. We can see no reason for holding that the present suit does not lie.2. The order in question is passed by the Deputy Collector in charge of the Cocanada Sub-Division, and debars plaintiff from practising in any, of the village Courts of that Division. Under Section 24 of the Madras Village Courts Act, any person holding a vakalatnamah from a party may appear and plead in a Village Court; and there is no provision in the Act for debarring any one from this privilege.3. Mr. K.S. Krishnasawami Aiyangar, who appears for the Government Pleader, is unable to support the legality of the order. Whatever general powers of supervision can be inferred from the power of appointment, suspension and removal of Village Munsifs...
Gudala Suriah Vs. Jamal Bee Bee and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad1065(2); 31Ind.Cas.340
ORDER1. After perusing the District Munsif's report and hearing the petitioner's learned Vakil's arguments, we must find that the petitioner has totally failed to prove that he was not served with notice as third respondent in Second Appeal No. 2592 of 1912.2. This petition to set aside the ex parte decree passed against him in the second appeal is, therefore, dismissed with costs.3. The District Munsif's report shows that there are good grounds to prosecute the petitioner for the perjury committed (according to the District Munsif's report) in his (the petitioner's) evidence given at the enquiry before the District Munsif, he having denied the signature purporting to be his in the notice issued to him as 3rd respondent from this Court and that denial has been disbelieved by the District Munsif and not accepted by us, though our opinions are, of course, not binding upon the Magistrate who would try the criminal case. Under Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code, we give sanction fo...
Guzzu Payidayya Vs. Venkadaru Venkata Reddi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-1915
Reported in: 31Ind.Cas.913a
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The Subordinate Judge says that the plaintiff has got 'only sub-partners'. The plaintiff in his evidence says that they are his lopayakari sharers.' This may mean only that he has got assistants who get a share of the profits, or it may mean that they are dormant partners who can make claims against or under him.2. As regards dormant partners, Lindley says at page 333 of his book 'But a dormant partner never need be joined as a co-plaintiff in an action on a contract entered into with the firm or with one of its members.' See also Kishen Parshad v. Har Narain Singh 9 Ind. Cas. 739 : 33 A.P 272 : 15 C.W.N. 321 : 38 I.A. 45.3. I think, therefore, that the non-joinder of the plaintiff's immerged (which seems to be the literal meaning of lopayakuri) sharers is not fatal to the suit.4. The contention that Exhibit A is a negotiable instrument and t hence the 1st defendant is not bound by the 2nd defendant's signature therein, was not set up in the lower Court nor is it s...