Chennai Court January 1916 Judgments
theethan Kandi's Son Chami Vs. Ana Pattar's Son Ana Pattar and Ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-26-1916
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.661
1. In this case the plaintiff sued for the payment of the value of certain paddy which, he said, he advanced to the defendants for a consideration which had failed. At the trial he sought to prove what, that consideration was by giving secondary evidence of an unstamped document, which is not allowed by law. The plaintiff was therefore, in this position: he proved that he handed the paddy to the defendants, but he could not prove the terms on which he handed it. Mr. Ananthakrishna Aiyar says, that being so, his position is hopeless; and he cannot give any evidence of the circumstances in which he gave the paddy because the moment he attempts to do it, he would offend against the rule of evidence which prohibits oral evidence of an unstamped document. But it is competent to the plaintiff to go thus far; he can prove the handing over of the paddy and state that he got nothing in return. 1 think that is enough to throw upon the defendants the burden, which they have not discharged, showin...
Tag this Judgment!Kattalai Michael Pillai and ors. Vs. Right Reverend J.M. Barthe, S.J. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1916
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.557; (1916)30MLJ423
Napier, J.1. This an appeal from an appellate decree of the District Court of Tinnevelly dismissing a suit brought by five Roman Catholic Vellalas as representatives of the Pillais and Mudalis of Vaddakankulam against the Roman Catholic Bishop of Trichinopoly, the Parish Priest of Vaddankankulam and certain Shanan Roman Catholics the last being sued as representatives of the Nadars, asking for certain reliefs in connection with the Holy Family Church situate in the above village. The reliefs may be grouped as follows:1. A mandatory injunction to re-erect walls between what are called the two Churches in the above Church, the cause of action being the obstructing of the plaintiffs' right, the obtaining an order under Section 144 of Code of Criminal Procedure, and the demolition of the walls, all in November 1910.2. A declaration that the ownership of the alleged Southern Church is vested only in the so-called high caste Christians of the plaintiffs' vagaira.3. A declaration of the right...
Tag this Judgment!Muthu Kumarasami Odayar Vs. Subramania Iyer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1916
Reported in: (1916)31MLJ87
Abdur Rahim, J.1. The plaintiffs in the suit in which these two appeals have arisen sought a declaration that certain alienations made by the 1st defendant, the widow of one Aiyavier, were not binding upon them. Appeal No. 155 of 1914 is preferred by the 3rd defendant and relates to items 14 to 24 while appeal No. 176 of 1914 is preferred by the plaintiffs with reference to items 1 and 2 and 3 to 11. The second defendant purchased items 14 to 24 from the first defendant. The second defendant's husband is a cousin of Aiyavier and he has been examined in the suit as the plaintiff's 4th witness. The sale to the second defendant was on the 6th February 1904 and the sale by the second defendant to the third defendant was on the 17th February 1909.. The sale to the second defendant was for Rs. 300 and that to the third defendant of the same property was for Rs. 1,000. The question raised with regard to these items is whether there was necessity for the sale on the 6th February '04 and whethe...
Tag this Judgment!Ponniatha Kathoot Parameswaram Munpu and ors. Vs. Moothedath Mallisser ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1916
Reported in: (1916)31MLJ279
1. We agree with Mr. Justice Bakewell in Varadayya Chetti v. Munisami Chetty (1911) 10 M.L.T. 514. We think (a) that a suit brought under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure is a representative suit and (b) that the Court has power to add other worshippers as parties not because they are the legal representatives of the two persons who instituted the suit with the Advocate-General's sanction but because they had become parties to the representative suit as soon as it was brought on behalf of all the worshippers and the Court has power under Order 1, Rule 10 Clause (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure to add persons as additional parties ' whose presence may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon the questions involved in the suit.'2. With respect, we do not agree with the decisions of the Allahabad High Court (see the recent decision in Chhaible Ram v. Durga Prasad I.L.R. (1914) . 296, which hold that the suit under Section 92 of the...
Tag this Judgment!Ponniatha Kathoot Parameswaran Munpee and Four ors. Vs. Moothedath Mal ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1916
Reported in: (1917)ILR40Mad110
1. We agree with Mr. Justice BAKEWELL'S decision in Varadayya Chetty v. Munusami Chetty (1911) 10 M.L.T. 514 We think (a) that a suit brought under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure is a representative suit and (6) that the Court has power to add other worshippers as parties not because they are the legal representatives of the two persons who instituted the suit with the Advocate-General's sanction but because they had become parties to the representative suit as soon as it was brought on. behalf of all the worshippers and the Court has power under Order I, Rule 10, Clause (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, to add persons as additional parties 'whose presence may be necessary, in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon the questions involved in the suit.'2. With respect, we do not agree with the decisions of the Allahabad High Court see the recent decision in Chhabile Ram v. Durga Prasad I.L.R. (1915) All. 296, which holds that the suit under S...
Tag this Judgment!Ramaswami Aiyar and ors. Vs. Abdul Aziz Saib and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1916
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.993
1. We think that we ought to follow the considered decision in Sultan Sahib Marakayar v. Chidambaram Chettiar 1 Ind. Cas. 998; 19 M.L.J. 224, which held that an application for possession by a decree-holder-purchaser is not an application to execute the decree. Article 182 of the Limitation Act, therefore, cannot apply and the question of the saving of limitation by steps taken in aid of execution does not arise in respect of such applications. Further, Article 180 of the new Limitation Act expressly applies to such an application and no other Article could, therefore, be applied.2. Applying Article 180 the present application, made 6 years after the Court-auction-sale had become absolute, was rightly dismissed by the lower Court as barred.3. The appeal is dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Kasaraveni Ramaswami and ors. Vs. Sri Raja Bommadevara Venkata Narasim ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1916
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.1000
Abdur Rahim, J.1. The judgment of this Court of which a review is sought was passed on the 26th July 1911, and the ground on which the review is asked for is that there has been a subsequent decision of the Privy Council which shows that the judgment of this Court is wrong. The decision of the Privy Council referred to was passed on the 19th June 1914 in another analogous case. A preliminary objection is taken by Mr. Rangachariar, who appears to oppose the application for review, that the application is out of time and must be dismissed on that ground. The application for review was filed on the 23rd January 1915. Now supposing that the subsequent decision of the Privy Council laying down the law differently is a good ground for review, even then the enormous delay in this case has to be duly accounted for. The Legislature allows ninety days from the date of the decree or order. Even after the judgment of the Privy Council was delivered on the 19th June 1914, the applicant did not file...
Tag this Judgment!Ponniathakathoot Parameswarem Munpu and ors. Vs. Moothedath Mallseri I ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1916
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.384
1. We agree with Mr. Justice Bakewell's decision in Varadayya Chetty v. Munusami Chetty 13 Ind. Cas. 232. we think (a) that a suit brought under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure is a representative suit and (b) that the Court has power to add other worshippers as parties, not because they are the legal representatives of the two persons who instituted the suit with the Advocate-General's sanction, but because they had become parties to the representative suit as soon as it was brought on behalf of all the worshippers and the Court has power under Order I, rule, 10, Clause (2), of the Code of Civil Procedure to add persons as additional parties whose presence may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon the questions involved in the suit.'2. With respect, we do not agree with the decisions of the Allahabad High Court [see the recent decision of Chhabila Ram v. Durga Prasad 28 Ind. Cas. 681 which hold that the suit under Section 92 ...
Tag this Judgment!Sani Kommu Veligondareddi and ors. Vs. Andra Narayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1916
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.436
Coutts Trotter, J.1. The contention put forward by the appellant is that Article 44 of the Limitation Act applies to this case. The purported sale was not registered as required by law and no title passed under it. The plaintiff is entitled to bring his action for trespass in ejectment as against the trespasser. In these circumstances Article 44 does not apply and the lower Courts have rightly held that the suit is not barred. The appeal is dismissed with costs.Seshagiri Aiyar, J.2. I agree. Article 44 of the Limitation Act would apply only if the sale is enforceable, that is, a sale which if not set aside would give a right to the property. If there is no sale to be set aside, the Article has no application....
Tag this Judgment!Muthukumarasamy Odayar Vs. Subramania Iyer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1916
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.687
Abdur Rahim, J.1. The plaintiffs in the suit in which these two appeals have arisen sought a declaration that certain alienations made by the 1st defendant, the widow of one Aiyavier, were not binding upon them. Appeal No. 155 of 1914 is preferred by the 3rd defendant and relates to items Nos. 14 to 24, while Appeal No. 176 of 1914 is preferred by the plaintiffs with reference to items Nos. 1 and 2 and 3 to 11. The 2nd defendant purchased items Nos. 14 to 24 from the 1st defendant. The 2nd defendant's husband is a cousin of Aiyavier and he has been examined in the suit as the plaintiffs' 4th witness. The sale to the 2nd defendant was on the 6th February 1904 and the gale by 1he 2nd defendant to the 3rd defendant was on the 17th February 1909. The sale to the 2nd defendant was for Rs. 300 and that to the 3rd defendant of the same property was for Rs. 1,000. The question raised with regard to these items is, whether there was necessity for the sale on the 6th February 1904 and whether th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »