Chennai Court October 1916 Judgments
Putta Kannayya Chetti and ors. Vs. Rudrabhatla Venkata Narasayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-1916
Reported in: (1917)32MLJ221
ORDER1. Our answer to the question referred to us is that where a suit for accounts is instituted in a District Munsiff's Court the plaintiff valuing the subject-matter of the suit at an amount within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Munsiff and a decree is passed for more than Rs. 5,000 the appeal from that decree lies to the District Court and not to the High Court. The question is fully discussed in the Order of Reference and it is not necessary to add anything. We overrule the decision in Ayyalu Naidu v. Ramasami Raja (C.M.A. 131 of 1915), which follows Ijjatulla Bhuyan v. Chandra Mohan Banerjee I.L.R. (1907) Cal. 958, and Chathanath Madhavi v. Chathanath Kunhunni Menon (1893) 4 M.L.J. 43.2. We may mention that the case in Muttammal v. Chinnana Goundan I.L.R. (1881) M. 220, which has been referred to at the bar does not affect the present question....
Tag this Judgment!Valia Konikkal Edathil Cheria Pangi Achan Vs. Valia Konikkal Edathil U ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-30-1916
Reported in: (1917)32MLJ323
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. These three connected appeals have arisen out of a suit brought by 4 junior members of a sub-tarwad or tavazhi. (The other plaintiffs 5 to 16 are minors whose next friend is the first plaintiff and they have been added merely to swell the numerical figure of the plaintiffs on the record). The plaint concludes for the following main reliefs :- (a) for a declaration that on account of the actual mis-management of the defendants 1 and 2 and of their acts in contravention of the provisions of the family karars (Exhibit B dated 30th June 1894), the defendants 1 and 2 are unfit to be tavazhi managers; for removal of the defendants 1 and 2 from management and for the appointment of the 1st plaintiff as manager; (b) for directions to the defendants 1 and 2 to render accounts from the date of Exhibit B (1894); to pay to the plaintiffs 1 and 2 the moneys of the tavazhi in the hands of the defendants 1 and 2 and for a return of all the documents relating to the tavazhi and (c...
Tag this Judgment!C. Parthasarathy Chetty Vs. Yelchoori Narayana Chetty and ors. and K.S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-30-1916
Reported in: 37Ind.Cas.401
1. The first defendant in the suit mortgaged certain immoveable properties to one Venkatappa Chetty. The mortgagor (1st defendant) sued for redemption in Original Suit No. 14 of 1909. It was held in that suit that Venkatappa advanced only about Rs. 800 although the deed of mortgage stated that a larger sum was lent. The learned City Judge held in that case that only Rs. 800 was advanced and directed redemption on the payment of that sum. The first defendant paid the decree amount into Court and claimed the return of the title-deeds. Meanwhile Venkatappa appealed to the High Court against the decree. Before handing over the title-deeds, the City Judge ordered that security for a sum of Rs. 1,300 should be furnished. Thereupon the second defendant paid into Court the said sum as security, and the first defendant was given the title-deeds. In the High Court, it was held that the mortgagee, Venkatappa Chetty, was entitled to a further sum of about Rs. 2,000 more. On this decree being passe...
Tag this Judgment!R. Sundararama Sastri Vs. M. Anantha Krishna Niadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1916
Reported in: 38Ind.Cas.695
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. I have, in 'my judgment reported as Ramanathan Chettiar v. Saminatha Aiyar 14 Ind. Cas. 520 pointed out, how some temple committees wish to reduce the temple trustees under their superintendence to the position of subordinate clerks doing work under the head clerk of the committee office, and this, case furnishes a striking example of such attempts. There is very good ground for the complaint made by the defendant at the end of the letter (Exhibit GG) which he wrote to the committee that his time was being uselessly taken up with answering the letters of the committee based on frivolous petitions sent against him to the committee, the most prominent member of which took up an attitude of violent antagonism against the defendant very soon after the date of the defendant's appointment. That attitude began when the defendant, instead of renewing the festival purohitship of that committee member's (P.W. Nos. 8's) protege, put tip the privilege of acting as festival pur...
Tag this Judgment!Sabjan Sahib Vs. M. Abdul Azeez Sahib and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1916
Reported in: 42Ind.Cas.684
Abdur Rahim, J.1. One Chailabhai Ibrahim Sahib, who used to do business as Commission Agent in tanning and exporting hides, died on the 26th February 1909 at the age of 70 or thereabouts. He left as his heirs his widow Khaja Bi, one daughter Jaitun Bi and several sons and daughters of his brother. We have to deal with the appeals in the various suits which were instituted in connection with the deceased's estate. The first in order of time was Civil Suit No. 324 of 1909 in which Appeal No. 54 of 1914 has arisen. The suit was to obtain a declaration that the plaintiff was a partner in the firm of Chailabhai Ibrahim Sahib, Sabjan Sahib and Co., that the firm was dissolved by the death of Chailabhai Ibrahim Sahib, for accounts and other reliefs. The parties to this suit were Sabjan Sahib, the plaintiff, one M. Abdul Azeez Sahib, the 1st defendant, and eight other defendants, the heirs and legal representatives of Ibrahim Sahib. The appellant Sabjan Sahib is found to have been a partner in...
Tag this Judgment!T. Muthuswami Ayyar Vs. Kalyani Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1916
Reported in: (1917)ILR40Mad818
1. This suit was brought to have an alienation made by a Hindu female declared to be void. The plaintiff's grandfather, Muthaiyar, by whom he was adopted as a son, demised by a settlement deed of the year 1889 certain properties of the value of Rs. 8,500 in favour of Kalyani Ammal, his daughter by his second wife, in order that she:should enjoy them during her lifetime and that after her they should be enjoyed with all rights by her sons and daughters who may be alive.2. The plaint alleges that out of the said properties Kalyani Ammal, who is first defendant, had in 1907 alienated certain immoveable property without necessity by a deed of exchange in favour of the third defendant.3. The first defendant has a daughter, second defendant, who was born in 1899. As she was unborn at the date of the execution of the settlement deed, the main question to be decided was whether, the disposition in her favour was valid. The District Munsif held that it was valid under Hindu Law. An appeal was p...
Tag this Judgment!P.V. Allapichai Vs. Kuppai Pichai Rowther and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1916
Reported in: 39Ind.Cas.429; (1917)32MLJ449
Oldfield, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of the District Judge of Ramnad, rejecting an application under Section 22, Provincial Insolvency Act, to revise the order of the Official Receiver of his district, dismissing the appellant's application to be adjudicated insolvent.2. The preliminary objection has been taken that such an order is not appealable. The objection is supported on the ground that the Official Receiver is a Court subordinate to the District Court and that the decision of the latter in appeal from him is final under Section 46(1). The questions are, whether the Official Receiver is a Court and whether an application under Section 22 against his decision is an appeal. If they are answered in the affirmative, it would, in my opinion, follow that he is a Court subordinate to the District Court. I deal with each question, as far as possible, separately, although they must be dealt with to some extent on common grounds.3. As regards the first, it is greatly against...
Tag this Judgment!Chinna Rajamanarru Vs. Lingamallu Radhakrishnayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1916
Reported in: (1917)32MLJ400
ORDER1. This is an application for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council. It was admitted that the value of the subject-matter was below ten thousand rupees in the suit and in the appeal to this Court. Mr. Krishnaswami Aiyar made a faint suggestion that as at the time of the presentation of the petition, the decree amount with subsequent interest thereon aggregated to ten thousand Rupees, his client was entitled to appeal. This contention is clearly untenable.2. The real question is whether the decree of this Court indirectly involved a claim or question respecting property over ten thousand rupees in value.3. The suit was instituted for a legacy under the will of a testator. One of the questions related to the source from which the legacy was payable. If may be conceded that the reasons for our conclusion about the source would be applicable to other legacies payable under the will, and tint the amounts covered by all the legacies would exceed ten thousand rupees in value. It is, ...
Tag this Judgment!O. Wuthrik Vs. David
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1916
Reported in: (1916)31MLJ860
Srinivasa Aiyangar, J.1. This is a suit to recover rent. The plea is that the lease was granted by and the covenant to pay rent entered into with an alien enemy and the covenant was therefore void and unenforceable. The trial Judge accepted the plea and dismissed the suit and this application is to revise the decree. To make the plea intelligible it is only necessary to state the following facts. The land leased is in South Canara in British Territory and belongs to the Basel Evangelical Mission. The lease was granted by a Mr. Buhus, a German, the then secular Agent of the Mission on October 2, 1914 after war was declared, to the defendant, a British subject. The suit to recover rent was instituted by the present secular Agent of the Mission one Mr, Wuthrik. Enemy character was not attributed to the Basel Mission, at any rate no point was raised about it in the Lower Court and there are no materials on record to determine the nationality of the Mission. We know nothing about its consti...
Tag this Judgment!Konduvetty Thakkiyakkal Shaik Aptab Shaha Valiya Thangal Vs. Moyan and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1916
Reported in: 39Ind.Cas.371
1. It is argued first that the District Munsif's order impleading 2nd plaintiff as legal representative of deceased 1st plaintiff was final and that the lower Appellate Court had no right to remand an issue on the point or to dismiss the suit in consequence of its own decision on it. There is, no doubt, an order of the District Munsif, dated 12th August 1913, on 2nd plaintiff's petition, impleading him as legal representative of 1st plaintiff. But firstly, we cannot accept this order as a decision under Order XXII, Rule 5, the provisions of which the District Munsif apparently overlooked. For in the same order 5th defendant, a rival claimant to 1st plaintiff's succession, was brought on the record without any attempt being made to adjudicate on his and 2nd plaintiff's claims; and at an earlier stage in the disposal of the petition the District Munsif had placed on record that an issue as to 2nd plaintiff's right might be raised in the trial of the suit. And secondly, the Code provides ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »