Chennai Court January 1916 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.
Ravur Munisami Naidu and ors. Vs. Pandala Muthial Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1916
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.79
1. Following Abdul Kadir Rowther v. Krishna Malamal Nair 23 Ind. Cas. 533 : (1914) M.W.N. 563 : 26 M.L.J. 433, we hold that the application for adjournment dated 25th October 1910 (which application was evidently for obtaining encumbrance certificate and filing draft proclamation) was a step-in-aid of execution and the present petition of 9th October 1913 is, therefore, not barred.2. We set aside the order of the District Judge and direct him to dispose of the execution petition according to law. Costs will abide the result....
Durgamma Vs. Lingappa and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1916
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.77
1. Dr. Swaminadhan for the appellant has argued the case mainly on the right of the mother to the custody of her minor son as guardian under the ordinary Hindu Law. But on an application under the Guardians and Wards Act, VIII of 1890, for the appointment by the Court of a guardian of the person of a minor, the only question under Section 7(1) of the Act is whether it is for the welfare of the minor that an order should be made by the Court appointing a guardian of the minor's person under the Act.2. We are not satisfied that the District Judge's view that it is not shown that at present it is for the welfare of the minor to pass such orders under the Act, is erroneous.3. We dismiss the appeal but without costs....
Sultan Ahmad Ali Rajah Avergal of Cannanore Vs. Arakkal Adi Rajah Cher ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1916
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.106
1. Though the properties belonging to the lunatic in common with his brothers and sisters cannot wholly belong to the lunatic's estate, and though the guardian of the lunatic cannot claim the right to manage those properties on behalf of the sub-tarwad of the lunatic on the ground that the lunatic, if of sound mind, would have had such right, the lunatic has some beneficial interest in those properties as a member of the sub-tarwad and hence they cannot be wholly excluded from consideration in deciding what the estate of the lunatic is.2. The District Judge's order will be modified by appointing the appellant as guardian of the estate of the lunatic (section 71 of the Indian Lunacy Act, IV of 1912) without mentioning in the order what properties are to be included or excluded.3. There will be no order as to costs....
S.R.M.S. Narayanan Chettyar Vs. R.M.P.R. Vellayappa Chettyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1916
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.347
Abdur Rahim, J.1. The two questions argued before us in this appeal are, that there was no privity of contract between Panchaksharam and the defendant and, therefore, the suit by the plaintiff, who is the assignee of the money sought to be recovered which was given to Panchaksharam by her grandfather, was not maintainable; and that the suit was barred by limitation.(sic) before the date of the assignment and that demand cannot, therefore, in any way affect the present claim of the plaintiff.4. I would, therefore, dismiss the appeal with costs.Seshagiri Aiyar, J.5. I agree. As I read the evidence, it seems to me that the transaction was one of a completed gift from the grandfather to the granddaughter. Instead of allowing the granddaughter to make a deposit herself, the grandfather deposited the money with the defendant. Under these circumstances, having regard to the fact that subsequently the defendant regarded the money as being due to the granddaughter, Panchaksharam, I feel no doub...
Subbaroyar Vs. Kottaya Goundan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1916
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.737
1. Having regard to Section 54, paragraph 2, of the Transfer of Property-Act and Section 55, Sub-section (4), Clause (a), we are disposed to agree with the argument advanced with much ability by the appellant's learned Vakil that the respondent was not entitled to possession or mesne profits as such before the date of the execution of the registered conveyance in his favour. He is, however, entitled to sue for compensation for the breach of the contract to convey, in addition to suing for the execution of the conveyance, such compensation naturally being the value of the mesne profits which the plaintiff could have obtained between the date when the breach of contract took place and the date when the conveyance is actually executed.2. The plaintiff did pray for that additional relief of compensation in the former suit of 1910 (though he inaccurately called the relief as one for mesne profits) and under Order XXIII of the Civil Procedure Code, he withdrew his prayer for that relief with...
Narayanaswamy Naidu Minor by His Mother and Next Friend Sayamma Vs. Ma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1916
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.83
1. The decree sought to be executed was passed against Rajai Gangamamba personally and there is nothing in the decree to indicate that she was sued as representing the mahal estate for a debt alleged to be due by that estate. The decision in Manika Vasaka Desikar v. Balagopalakrishna Chetty 16 M.L.J. 415 and other decisions cited by Mr. C.S. Venkatachariar are, therefore, not in point.2. That Gangamamba's right in the mahal was not an absolute right, that it was not higher than a life-estate (if it amounted to even so much) and that the estate was not inherited by the 1st respondent as Gangamamba's heir seem not to have been disputed in the lower Court.3. The District Judge was, therefore, right in refusing execution after Gangamamba's death against lands belonging to the said estate and against moneys which evidently accrued due to that estate after Gangamamba's death.4. We, therefore, dismiss this Appeal and the connected Appeal against Order No. 10 of 1915 with costs....
Pellur Mastenreddi and ors. Vs. Kunamreddi Malakonda Reddi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1916
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.695
1. The learned District Judge has carefully and fully considered the whole evidence.2. The case has also been elaborately argued before us. We agree with the District Judge that the Exhibits B, M and D executed by the 1st defendant in favour of Ramalakshmammal are genuine documents supported by proper consideration. The validity of the debts evidenced by Exhibit E, J, K, and L is not seriously questioned by the appellants. The disputed sale-deed, Exhibit A, is supported by the 1st respondent's promise to pay up the debts due under the valid documents B, D, E, J, K and L. There is no question in this case of vendee conspiring with the vendor to convert land into cash in order that the vendor's creditors might be put to delay and placed in difficulties in getting at the said cash for the satisfaction of their claims.3. The sale to the respondent is, therefore, not invalid against the appellants see Hakim Lal v. Mooshahar Sahu 34 C.S 9 99 though one of the motives operating in the mind of...
Subramanian Chettiar Vs. Kadiresen Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1916
Reported in: (1916)30MLJ245
Napier, J.1. The question raised in this second appeal and in the connected Second Appeal No. 738 of 1913 is, whether certain sums claimed by the plaintiff in each case from the defendant firm are 'money deposited' within the meaning of Article 60 of the present Limitation Act. The Lower Appellate Court has held that they are, but we are asked to hold that there is no evidence to support that finding. The Second Appeal No. 737 of 1913 is to recover Rs. 817-1-9 alleged to be due to the plaintiff as balance of principal and interest due in respect of two sums deposited by him. The first amount was Rs. 550 given to the defendants on October 17, 1905, prior to his entering their service as an assistant, which he did on March 3, 1906. The second sum was Rs. 526-12-0, which represents half the salary of the defendant for the whole three years of his service, and credited by him to himself on joining the service. No cash was taken out or returned by the plaintiff but it is proved that, accord...
Chengalvala Gurraju Vs. Madapathy Venkateswara Row Pantulu Garu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1916
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.9; (1916)30MLJ379
1. The defendant is the appellant. The respondent filed Suits Nos. 466 of 1909 and 276 of 1910 against, the appellant to enforce acceptance of pattas for faslis 1318 and 1319. They were dismissed by the Sub-Collector on the 19th December 1910 on the ground of want of jurisdiction but they were remand ed for disposal by the District Court on the 28th November 1911.2. The Sub-Collector on remand passed a decree in both suits on the 26th March 1912. The suits were tried together and one judgment covered both the suits. Appeals were filed to the District Court on the 17th January 1912.3. While proceedings were pending before the Sub-Collector the respondent (who is the landlord) filed S.S. No. 412 of 1911 to enforce acceptance of the patta tendered for fasli 1320. The Sub-Collector on the 23rd May 1912 passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff on the ground that the decision in S.S. No. 276 of 1910 passed on the 26th March 1912 rendered the contentions raised in the suit res judicata. No ...
Subrahmanian Chettiar Vs. Kadiresan Chettiar and Five ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1916
Reported in: (1916)ILR39Mad1081
Napier, J.1. The question raised in this Second Appeal and in the connected Second Appeal No. 738 of 1913, is whether certain sums claimed by the plaintiff in each case from the defendant firm are 'money deposited' within the meaning of Article 60 of the present, Limitation Act. The lower Appellate Court has held that they are, but we are asked to hold that there is no evidence to support that finding. The Second Appeal No. 737 of 1913 is to recover Rs. 817-1-9 alleged to be due to the plaintiff as balance of principal and interest due in respect of two sums deposited by him. The first amount was Rs. 550 given to the defendants on October 17, 1905, prior to his entering their service as an assistant, which he did on March 3, 1906. The second sum was Rs. 562-12-0, which represents half the salary of the defendant for the whole three years of his service and credited by him to himself on joining the service. No cash was taken out or returned by the plaintiff but it is proved that accordi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »