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.
Subramanian Chettiar Vs. Kadiresan Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1916
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.965
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 17th, 1905, prior to his entering their service as an assistant which he did on March 3rd, 1906. The second sum was Rs. 526-12-0, which represents half the salary of the plaintiff 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 accor...
Venkitammal Vs. Alangat Raman Nair and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1916
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.931
1. The learned District Judge dealt with the case without reference to Karyan Kandy Patupurail Cheria Chirikandan v. Aylliath Kushitath Krishnan Nambiar 16 Ind. Cas. 391 : 12 M.L.T. 600. That decision shows, what is not recognised in the judgment under appeal, that a karnavan has not an uncontrolled discretion in the renewal of kanoms or grant of melcharths prior to the expiration of the term of the former, but must justify his grants by family necessity or advantage, The learned District Judge's misapprehension of the law appears to have influenced his consideration of this part of the case. We must, therefore, call on him to submit a finding in the light of the foregoing on the issues:(1) Was there adequate necessity for the grant of Exhibit B, so as to make it binding on the tarwad?'(2) 'Did plaintiff take it with the bona fide belief that there was such necessity?2. The findings should be submitted within two months after the re-opening of the District Court after the summer recess...
Bolla Brahmadu Alias Bapanna Vs. Ruddaraju Venkataraju and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1916
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.71
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The 6th defendant (judgment-debtor) is the appellant. This appeal has arisen out of an order passed by the Subordinate Judge allowing the 1st respondent who obtained transfer of the decree (the transfer-deed being dated 4th February 1910) from the decree-holder, to execute the decree on an application made by the 1st respondent under Order XXI, Rule 16, of the Code of Civil Procedure. A preliminary objection is taken by Mr. Narasimha Rao for the 1st respondent that as the execution application was dismissed seven days after the passing of the order appealed against on the ground that default was made by his client, the transferee-decree-holder, in taking further steps (that is, filing of the drafts of sale proclamation, etc., as directed by the order appealed against), the appellant has no cause of action to support an appeal against the order of the 19th November 1913, recognising the 1st respondent as transferee-decree-holder and allowing him to take the usual st...
Nochulliyil Euzhuvan theethi's Son thethalan Vs. the Eralpad Rajah Sty ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-1916
Reported in: (1917)ILR40Mad1111
John Wallis, C.J.1. The question raised in this appeal is whether mortgagees with possession from lessees are liable to the lessor for rent. The Subordinate Judge has held that they are liable on the ground that privity of estate exists between them. In this, I think, he is clearly wrong. 'Privity of estate' is a technical term of English Law, and it is clear that under that law no such privity arises unless the whole of the lessee's interest is assigned over. Where a subsidiary interest is carved out of the lessee's interest no fresh privity arises. For instance there is no privity of estate between a lessor and a sub-lessee. Where the lessee mortgages his whole leasehold interest privity arises in English Law, because there the mortgage is by conveyance with a right to a reconveyance, and therefore the whole interest of the lessee is assigned to his mortgagee; but, as this is not considered a desirable state of things, conveyancers prevent such privity of estate from arising by makin...
The Secretary of State for India in Council Vs. Illikkal Assan and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-14-1916
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.755
1. The appeal must be allowed having regard to the opinion of the Full Bench that there was no cause of action based on the notice dated September 1910.2. The decree of the lower Court will be reversed and that of the District Munsif restored with costs in this and in the lower Appellate Court.3. The memorandum of objections is dismissed....
Punuga Subbian Vs. Nukalapati Rami Reddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-1916
Reported in: (1916)30MLJ331
1. Mr. Krishnasami Aiyar argues that no cause of action is disclosed in the plaint. This case has been before the Courts during the last six years and yet this point was not raised hitherto; on that account we examined the pleadings carefully; it appears to us that prima facie the contention of the appellant is well founded. This appeal relates only to items 672A and 674B. The facts stated in the plaint are, that the plaintiff obtained' a mortgage in respect of these items and other 'properties from certain persons who may be described as the Vavilla1 people. He brought a suit (Original Suit No. 108 of 1896) against the mortgagors. The right of the Vavilla people to mortgage the property was disputed by the 12th defendant who claimed title from certain persons who may be 'called the Sarasvati people. The 12th defendant conveyed his rights to one Nalluri Samiah. Nalluri Samiah was made the 19th defendant. Issues 14 and 15 raised the question as to whether the property belonged to the Va...
The Raja of CochIn (Represented by the Diwan Mr. J.W. Bhore, I.C.S.) V ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-1916
Reported in: (1917)ILR40Mad601
John Wallis, C.J.1. In considering whether a kanomdar had a right to cut and carry away trees planted by himself the Full Bench in Vasudevan Nambudripad v. Valia Chathu Achan I.L.R. (1901) Mad. 47 held that, whether the case was treated as governed by the Transfer of Property Act or not, the kanomdar had such a right in the absence of a contract or custom to the contrary and that Madras Act I of 1900 did not deprive him of it by requiring him to keep the trees upon the holding and have compensation assessed upon them. The case contains no reference to Section 19, and there was no occasion for the learned Judges to consider whether a contract not to cut and remove trees without the landlord's permission and to pay a fee when such permission was granted was invalid under that Section as taking away or limiting the tenants' right to make improvements. That section was no doubt intended to secure the tenants' right to make improvements as well as to claim compensation for them, and strikes...
Punugu Subbiah Vs. Nukalapati Rami Reddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-1916
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.326
1. Mr. Krishnaswami Aiyar argues that no cause of action is disclosed in the plaint. This case has been before the Courts during the last six years and yet this point was not raised hitherto; on that account we examined the pleadings carefully; it appears to us that prima facie the contention of the appellant is well founded. This appeal relates only to items 672A and 674B. The facts stated in the plaint are, that the plaintiff obtained a mortgage in respect of these items and other properties from certain persons who may be described as the Vavilla people. He brought a suit (Original Suit No. 108 of 1806) against the mortgagors. The right of the Vavilla people to mortgage the property was disputed by the 12th defendant, who claimed title from certain persons who may be called the Sarasvati people. The 12th defendant conveyed his rights to one Nalluri Samiah. Nalluri Samiah was made the 19th defendant. Issues 14 and 15 raised the question as to whether the property belonged to the Vavi...
Vuppala Bapanna and ors. Vs. Pabbisetti Bheemalingam and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-1916
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.986
1. Two points are taken by the appellants. One is that no suit would lie on a pro-note against any one but the makers and that, therefore, the 3rd defendant as manager could not acknowledge a liability which he could not create. The second in that there had been a division by Exhibit I before the acknowledgment and so the acknowledgment was not by an authorised agent within the meaning of section 20 of the Indian Limitation Act. We express do opinion on the first point as we think the appellants are entitled to succeed on the second point. The decision of the Full Bench in Soundararajam v. Arunachalam Chetty 33 Ind. Cas. 858 (1916) M. W. N. 31 lays down that fullest effect must be given to the judgment of the Privy Council in Suraj Narain v. Iqbal Narain 18 Ind. Cas. 30 It is there laid down that a definite and unambiguous indication of intention to separate amounts to separation. Now Exhibit I is such a definite indication not by one bat by all, and the lower Appellate Court is in err...
Tanguturi Subbarayudu Vs. Yerramsethi Seshasani
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1916
Reported in: (1916)30MLJ366
1. The question for determination in this appeal is whether the Lower Courts were right in holding that the respondent was entitled to restitution under Section 144 of the Civil Procedure Code.2. One Kamisetti Ghatta as president of a certain fund obtained a money decree against' the respondent and two others in O.S. No. 985 of 1897 in the District Munsif's Court, Gooty, on 12-2-1898. One Narayana Rao styling himself president of the fund transferred the decree to the appellant.3. The objection raised by the judgment-debtors to the transferee's right to execute the-decree was overruled and the transfer was recognised by the Court on 12-7-04. The appellant received Rs. 315-14-4 from the respondent (1st defendant in the suit) in execution on 12-8-04.4. Prior to the payment of the decree amount the respondent and another had instituted a suit O.S. No. 479 of 1914 in the Gooty Munsif's. Court against the appellant and the transferor for a declaration that the transfer of the decree in O'S....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »