Chennai Court October 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.
Gatiganti Subbarayudu and ors. Vs. Arumilli Surayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-1916
Reported in: 37Ind.Cas.914
Oldfield, J.1. The plaintiff sued, alleging in his plaint that he had been obstructed by defendants in taking possession of property purchased by him in a Court sale held under a mortgage-decree, which he and others had obtained against the 6th and 7th defendants. He asked for possession and removal of the obstruction. The plaint averred that the sale by the 6th and 7th defendants to the 1st defendant and the re-sale by the 1st defendant could not affect the plaintiff. Issues were framed in 1911, and ever two years later, though before trial, the plaintiff, apparently with reference to the decision in Kutti Chettiar v. Subramania Chettiar 4 Ind. Cas. 1077 which had been published in 1909, applied for leave to amend by substituting an averment that the sales to and by the 1st defendant were valid and a prayer for a direction to 1st to 5th defendants to redeem and for possession in case they failed to do so. The District Munsif refused leave to amend, apparently treated the original atta...
Marudanayagam Pillai Vs. Munusamy Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-1916
Reported in: 37Ind.Cas.776
1. We think that under the circumstances, this is a case in which the plaintiff's conduct practically amounted to a waiver by acquiescence of performance of the contract to sell. Admittedly there was an oral understanding that the sale-deed should be executed by April 30th, 1908. On May 1st the plaintiff wrote that the Sale-price was ready and asked 1st defendant to come to Dharapuram where plaintiff lived, execute the sale-deed and receive the money. On May 7th, 1st defendant having come to Dharapuram gave notice to the plaintiff that he had been waiting from April 17th to 21st and from May 5tb to 7th and that he would give him time till the 10th to conclude the sale. The plaintiff received this notice on the 8th but did nothing towards performing his part of the contract. On the 3th, the 1st defendant intimated to the plaintiff that the contract had been put an end to Nearly three years afterwards, viz., on April 29fch, 1911, the plaintiff instituted this suit to enforce specific per...
Gandla Nadiabba and anr. Vs. Margasahaya Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-1916
Reported in: (1917)32MLJ78
ORDERKrishnan, J.1. This is a reference by the Acting Sessions Judge of North Arcot which raises the question whether under Section 250 of the Code of Criminal Procedure a Magistrate can when discharging the accused order compensation to be paid to him by the person who gave information to the village Magistrate as the result of which the prosecution was launched. The facts as stated in the order of reference are that one Margasahaya Chetty made a written complaint Exhibit B to his village Magistrate charging the accused with the offence of robbery, that he, the Magistrate, sent up his usual reports to the police and to the 2nd Class Magistrate, and that the accused were thereupon prosecuted by the police, but the Sub-Divisional Magistrate who tried them discharged them under Section 253 of the Code of Criminal Procedure finding the charge against them to be false and vexatious and directed Margasahaya Chetty to pay a compensation of twenty-five rupees to each of the accused, The refer...
Soorthingjee Sakalchand Vs. Mahomed Nasurudeen and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-1916
Reported in: (1917)32MLJ146
1. This is an appeal from the judgment of Mr. Justice Bakewell dismissing the plaintiff's suit which was instituted with the object of recovering certain quantity of glass bangles from the defendants. The 1st defendant was an agent of an Austrian Firm and in his capacity as such agent entered into a contract with the plaintiff for the supply of glass bangles. The contract was entered into some time in April and May 1914 and the plaintiff accepted two drafts for the price of the goods on 22nd July of that year. War was declared with Austria on the 12th August and the steamer 'Steinturm' in which the goods were shipped arrived in Ceylon on the 15th of August that is three days after the declaration of the war. It is sufficiently clear that the cargo which was at first detained by the Government was subsequently released and the formal order of release so far as these goods were concerned was passed on the 26th August 1916. The Bills of Lading were in the possession of the National Bank o...
In Re: Medai Dhalavoy Tirumala-yappa Mudeliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-1916
Reported in: 37Ind.Cas.524
Krishnan, J.1. This is an order under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which is sought to be revised. It is admitted that a revision does not lie except on the ground of jurisdiction, but it is argued that as the petitioner in the lower Court was not in actual possession this Section does not apply.2. It is, however, clear that a dispute as to the right to collect rents is a dispute concerning tangible immoveable property or land. See Abhayessari Debi v. Shidhessdri Debi 8 Ind. Dec. 339. and also Sarbananda Basu Mozumdar v. Pran Sanhar Roy Chowdhuri 7 Ind. Dec. 935.3. It is next urged that the breach of the peace apprehended was one between the petitioner's tenants and the counter-petitioners and not between the latter and the petitioner. To take action under Section 145 it is sufficient if the Magistrate is satisfied that there is a dispute concerning land which is likely to lead to a breach of the peace. The apprehended breach need not be actually between the rival clai...
Margasahaya Chetty Vs. Gandala Nadiabba and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-1916
Reported in: 36Ind.Cas.843
ORDERKrishnan, J.1. This is a reference by the Acting Sessions Judge of North Arcot, which raises the question whether, under Section 250 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Magistrate can, when discharging the accused, order compensation to be paid to him by the person who gave information to the Village Magistrate, as the result of which the prosecution was launched. The facts, as stated in the order of reference, are that one Margasahaya Chetty made a written complaint, Exhibit B, to his Village Magistrate charging the accused with the offence of robbery, that he, the Magistrate, sent up his usual reports to the Police and to the 2nd class Magistrate, and that the accused were thereupon prosecuted by the Police, but the Sub-Divisional Magistrate who tried them discharged them under Section 253 of the Code of Criminal Procedure finding the charge against them to be false and vexatious and directed Margasahaya Chetty to pay a compensation of twenty-five rupees to each of the accused. T...
Poosarla Chinnasway Vs. Kattamoori Venkatarama Krishnayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-1916
Reported in: 37Ind.Cas.778
1. The plaintiff, who is a sub-mortgagee of the 1st defendant's mortgage-interests in the property of 2nd and 3rd defendants, has been given a personal decree against the 1st defendant's legal representative, but he appeals on the ground that the lower Courts have refused his claim to enforce his security against the mortgaged property. The original mortgage was redeemed before plaintiff instituted this suit.2. Plaintiff neither alleged nor proved that the mortgagors had notice of his submortgage before the redemption took place. His Vakil now argues that the lower Appellate Court should not have found against the fact of notice without an issue on the point, but we cannot allow this objection to be raised when the plaintiff himself was responsible for this defect, if any.3. We have no hesitation in confirming the view taken by the lower Courts on the point of law that a sub-mortgage is extinguished by the payment of the mortgage-debt by the mortgagor, if he had no notice or knowledge ...
K. Murugappa Chetty Vs. P. Vyapuri Chetti and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-1916
Reported in: (1917)32MLJ536
Seshagiri Aiyar, J.1. The case is by no means free from difficulty. If the parties had been allowed to adduce all the evidence, the points arising for decision would have been more easily solved, but that has not been done.2. I accept Mr. Venkata Subba Row's statement that the learned Judge heard evidence only on the question of limitation, and that the case was stopped after that. Mr. Marthandam Pillai said that he was not in a position to contradict the statement. The nature of the questions put to the solitary witness examined in the case, the state of the records and the judgment of the learned Judge support the statement made by the learned Vakil at the bar.3. Now as to the facts. A firm known by the name of Salamangalam Murugappa Chetty. A. Venkataperumal Chetty & Co., carrying on business in Madras, acted as commission agents for the sale of the goods consigned by the defendants between September 1909 and May 1911. The Madras firm advanced money on the goods from time to time, f...
Gullapalli Venkataramayya Vs. Koonaparaju Venkatraju and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-1916
Reported in: (1916)31MLJ877
1. The Receiver of Nidadavole Estate obtained a decree for money against defendants 1 to 3. The properties in suit were attached in execution and were purchased by the plain. tiff. He obtained a certificate of sale, but when he applied to be put in possession, he was resisted by the 4th defendant who claimed to have purchased the property at a private sale from defendants 1 to 3. The present suit is to recover possession.2. The contention of the 4th defendant among other pleas, is that the plaintiff is a benamidar for the Receiver and that consequently he is not entitled to sue in ejectment. The Subordinate Judge found that the 'plaintiff was a benamidar. In a careful judgment, after reviewing the authorities, he came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was not entitled to sue.3. We think he is right. Mr. Nagabhushanam who appeared for the appellant conceded that in an ordinary suit in ejectment, a benamidar cannot recover possession. He argued, however, than a suit necessitated by re...
K. Sattiraju Vs. P. Venkataswami and Two ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-1916
Reported in: (1917)ILR40Mad925
Sadasiva Ayyar, J.1. The second defendant is the appellant in this case. The plaintiff brought the suit for possession of the plaint lands as lessee from the first defendant who, the plaintiff alleges, was the adopted son of one Subbarayadu who died in 1907, having, by his registered will, executed shortly before his death, given authority to his widow, Viyyammal, about eleven years old at that time, to make an adoption, if and when she chose. The first defendant is still a minor and the lease relied upon by the plaintiff was executed by his alleged adoptive mother's father acting as guardian of the first defendant and is dated July 1912. Viyyammal attained majority in February 1914 about one and a half years after this suit was brought. The first defendant's adoption is said to have taken place in May 1907, very soon after her husband's death. One of the defences raised in the case is that the first defendant was not validly adopted to Subbarayadu by Viyyammal and that therefore the p...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »