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.
Ramu Shettithi and ors. Vs. Maniappu Shettithi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-1916
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.520
1. The Subordinate Judge is right as regards the disallowance of the relief claimed against the person of the 24th defendant.2. As regards the disallowance of item 6 of the Samanebetta lands, the District Munsif was right in his view that his predecessor, who decided the suit itself originally, could not have intended to reserve for execution proceedings the substantial question of mixed law and fact whether a land which belonged to the Samanebetta house had, by adverse possession, ceased to be owned by the plaintiffs. All that was intended to be left for execution proceedings was the question of the ascertainment of those lands through measurement and boundaries and the quantity of mesne profits on such lands.3. The Subordinate Judge was also in error in not accepting the District Munsif's finding as to the mesne profits, as we find nothing illegal in the mode of calculation adopted by the District Munsif.4. This appeal (Appeal against Appellate Order No. 6 of 1914) is allowed on the ...
In Re: Lingaraja Misro
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-1916
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.319
ORDERCoutts-Trotter, J.1. Orders under this Section (Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) should not, in my opinion, be lightly disturbed. They are made for the purpose of keeping the peace pending the parties' legitimate appeal to the proper civil tribunal. In this case the Magistrate who made the order undoubtedly in paragraph 5 of his order, makes reference to other proceedings before himself' which, no doubt, he had better not have concerned states that each party adduced oral evidence in support of their case, and I must assume, until the contrary is shown, that that oral evidence contained evidence on behalf of the counter petitioners that they were in possession of the lands in dispute. I, therefore, dismiss this petition....
Ramaswami Naicker Vs. Subbarayulu Naicker
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1916
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.567
1. This is a revision petition against the order of a Sub-Collector exercising jurisdiction in a suit brought under the Estates Land Act. The preliminary objection is taken that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain such a revision petition. The preliminary objection is based on the contention that as Section 205 of the Madras Estates Land Act gives jurisdiction to the District Collector and to the Board of Revenue to revise non-appealable orders of Revenue Courts passed in proceedings taken under the Act, the Legislature intended that the High Court should not have any such revisional powers, especially as the exercise of revisional powers. By two independent authorities would, lead to inconvenient conflict of jurisdictions.2. Reliance is further placed on the decisions in Velli Periya Mira Ravuthan v. Moidin Padsha Ravuthan 9 M. 332 and Venkatanarasimha Naidu v. Suranna 17 M.K 298 passed in cases arising under the repealed Rent Recovery Act, VIII of 1865.3. The above two cases,...
Vataka Chathilingath Thavazhi Karnavan and Manager Sankaran Nair Vs. R ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1916
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.984a
Scott, C.J.1. We take it that the conclusion of the learned Judge of this Court, from whose decision this Letters Patent Appeal has been filed, is that on the true construction of Exhibit I, what was professed to be conveyed was a title whose existence was contingent on the pleasure of the jenimi. If so, the interest which the seller 'professed' to transfer was not larger than what he actually possessed and hence the covenant mentioned in Clause (2) of Section 55 of the Transfer of Property Act was not broken and the learned Judge rightly (if we may say so with respect) distinguished the cases Subbaraya Reddiar v. Rajagopala Reddiar 23 Ind. Cas. 570; (1914) M.W.N. 376 and Arunachala Aiyar v. Ramasami Aiyar 25 Ind. Cas 6; 1 L.W. 849.2. We dismiss the appeal with costs....
Arjuna Reddi and anr. Vs. Venkatachala Asari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1916
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.611; (1917)32MLJ525
Napier, J.1. This is a suit by the plaintiffs seeking to be allowed to redeem a mortgage executed by them (the 1st plaintiff and his deceased brother) in favour of the defendant on payment of the mortgage money. The defendant set up that there is no equity of redemption left in the plaintiffs, by reason of the fact that he had in a suit brought by him against the mortgagors not arising out of the mortgage obtained a money decree against the mortgagors in execution of which he had himself purchased the equity of redemption. It is admitted that this sale of the equity of redemption was in contravention of Section 99 of the Transfer of Property Act, which provides that whatever may be the cause of action in a suit by the mortgagee against the mortgagor, the equity of redemption cannot be sold without a suit having been instituted under Section 67.2. The only question is whether the equity of redemption having been sold in the previous suit in contravention of the section and the mortgagor...
Ramaswamy Chetty and ors., by their Authorised Agent Aiyaswami Pillai ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1916
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.338
Abdur Rahem, J.1. The appeal before us is by the representatives of the 8th defendant who holds a mortgage derived from the 2nd and 9th defendants, dated the 6th January 1908. His mortgage covers item No. 11 and 31 other items of property. The learned Vakil who appears for the representatives of the 8th defendant contends, and that is the only question raised before us excepting some other point as to the form of the decree, that he is entitled, under Section 81 of the Transfer of Property Act, to have the securities marshalled so that the plaintiff may be compelled to realize his debts from properties other than item No. 11. The 2nd defendant was a purchaser of the property, item No. 11, from the 1st defendant who owned all these properties, her purchase being on the 6th November 1916, that is, subsequent to the plaintiff's mortgage.2. A Full Bench decision of this Court reported as Appayya v. Rangayya 31 M.s 419 has held that Section 81 of the Transfer of Property Act gives no right ...
Lingam Krishna Bhupatt Devu Garu Vs. Jogani Venkataswamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-04-1916
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.235
1. We do not think that an order under Order XXI, Rule 93, of the Code of Civil Procedure in favour of a third party purchaser is a question between the parties to the suit relating to the execution, discharge, or satisfaction of the decree, as that order by itself has no legal effect on the rights and liabilities as between the decree-holder and the judgment-debtor.2. The preliminary objection that no appeal lies must, therefore, he upheld.3. We are asked to treat the appeal as a revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and we use our discretion under the circumstances in the appellant's favour in accordance with his request.4. It is clear that the appellant (judgment-debtor) did not get any notice to show cause why he (the judgment-debtor) should not be held liable to pay the poundage fees to the purchaser at the cancelled sale. The order passed against him was, therefore, passed through the Court's acting illegally and with material irregularity in the exe...
The Secretary of State for India in Council Represented by the Collect ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-1916
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.168; (1916)31MLJ84
1. We think the question must be answered in the affirmative. Mr. Narasimha Aiyangar has called our. attention to two decisions of the Privy Council under Bengal Regulation XI of 1796 which apparently were not brought to the notice of the learned Judges who decided the cases mentioned in the reference. Under Regulation XI of 1796 Section 4 the Magistrate was to order the attachment of any land or other real property held by the absentee and under Section 6 on failure of the absentee to attend within six months after the attachment the lands were to be at the disposal of the Governor-General in Council. It was held by the Privy Council in Mussumat Goldb Koonwur v. The Collector of Benares and Raja Oodit Narain Singh (1847) 4 M.I.A. 246 under the Regulation in a case from Benares governed by the Mitakshara Law that the undivided interest of the defaulting member of the joint family passed to the alienee from Government and in Juggomohun Bukshee v. Boy Mothooranath Chowdry (1867) 11 M.I.A...
The Secretary of State for India in Council (Represented by the Collec ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-1916
Reported in: (1916)ILR39Mad831
John Wallis, C.J. 1. We think the question must be answered in the affirmative. Mr. Narasimha Ayyangar has called our attention to two decisions of the Privy Council under Bengal Regulation XI of 1796 which apparently were not brought to the notice of the learned Judges who decided the cases mentioned in the reference. Under Regulation XI of 1796, Section 4, the Magistrate was to order the attachment of any land or other real property held by the absentee, and under Section 6 on failure of the absentee to attend within six months after the attachment the lands were to be at the disposal of the Governor General in Council. It was held by the Privy Council in Mussumat Golab Koonwur v. The Collector of Benares and Baja Oodit Narain Sing (1847) 4 M.I.A. 246 under the Regulation in a case from Benares governed by the Mitakshara law that the undivided interest of the defaulting member of the joint family passed to the alienee from Government and in Juggomohun Bukshee v. Roy Mothooranath Chow...
Rahiman Beebi and ors. Vs. Khatoon Bee and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-1916
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.569
1. The plaintiff sues her husband (the 1st defendant) and her husband's mother and sisters and brothers for recovery of a certain property, alleging that it was transferred to her by the 1st defendant in part payment of her mahr. The alleged transfer is by Exhibit A.2. It is admitted before us that Exhibit A was executed by the 1st defendant, and that mahr was due from him when he executed it. The real contest in this Court is on the question whether it was the 1st defendant or his father who was entitled to the property, at the time when Exhibit A was executed.3. The property was purchased on 27th March 1903 by the father of the 1st defendant, in the name of the 1st defendant (Exhibit I). On 9th July 1909 it was mortgaged by the two jointly for Rs. 300 (Exhibit II). On 22nd June 1910 Exhibit A was executed by the 1st defendant purporting to transfer the property to the plaintiff. On 1st September 1910, the 1st defendant executed a deed [Exhibit Id (a)] purporting to cancel Exhibit A, ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »