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.
Raja Kumara Venkata Perumal, Raju Bahadur Varu and Vs. Uddagiri Papa N ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-1916
Reported in: 41Ind.Cas.208
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The question common to all these appeals is, whether the Karvetnagar Estate is inalienable by virtue of its tenure or by a custom under which the zemindar for the time being is prohibited from alienating any portion of the estate, except for purposes for which the manager of a joint Hindu family (not the father) is entitled as such manager to make valid alienations of the joint family property. On this question, I might at once say that I agree with the judgment to be pronounced by my learned brother, As it was, however argued with great strenuousness and persistence by Mr. Govindaraghava Aiyar for the appellant, I deem it appropriate to express my views on this point in my own words. As regards inalienability by virtue of the tenure, as soon as the military tenure under which the properties were held was put an end to, about 120 years ago, that is, when the British Government granted the lands to the zemindar under a quite different tenure with express powers of a...
Kovvidi Sattiraju Vs. Patamsetti Venkataswami and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-1916
Reported in: 40Ind.Cas.518; (1917)32MLJ119
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The 2nd defendant is the appellant in this case. The plaintiff brought the suit for possession of the plaint lands as lessee from the 1st 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 11 years old at that time, to make an adoption, if, and when, she chooses. The 1st defendant is still a minor and the lease relied upon by the plaintiff was by his alleged adoptive mother's father acting as guardian of the 1st defendant and is dated July 1912. Viyyammal attained majority in February 1914, about If years after this suit was brought. The 1st defend-ant'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 1st defendant was not validly adopted to Subbarayadu by Viyyammal and that, there fore, the plaintiff cannot maintain the su...
Sree Rajah Bommadevara Venkata Narasimha Naidu Bahadur Zemindar Garu V ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-1916
Reported in: (1917)32MLJ63
Napier, J.1. These are series of appeals by the Plaintiff zamindar in suits brought by him against tenants to recover a cess known as Ghattuthumulu. It is not properly a cess at all as only Government and Statutory bodies can levy cesses, but is a charge claimed by him in respect of pre-anicut irrigation facilities which are no longer in existence. As pointed out by this District Judge, the High Court held that this charge is recoverable, but he has dismissed the suits on the ground that the principle of res judicata prevents the recovery. He has divided the appeals before him into five batches, the 1st four being those in which notice had gone to the respondent and the 5th batch containing appeals in which no notice had gone but were dealt with by him under Order XLI, Rule 11. It will be convenient to treat these latter with the 1st four as the appeals are before us. Out of the whole number, however, some are not yet before us and they will be indicated in the classification. Followin...
T. Namberumal Chetty Vs. M.P. Narasimhachari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-1916
Reported in: (1916)31MLJ698
Coutts Trotter, J.1. When this case first came on for hearing the defendant was represented by Mr. M.K. Ramaswami Iyer, Attorney-at-law and the plaintiff by Mr. Venkatasubba Row, Vakil. Mr. M.K. Ramaswami Iyer applied for an adjournment and on this being opposed, he claimed the right, as an attorney-at-law, to conduct his client's case in the suit and to have a right of audience. Mr. Venkatasubba Row opposed this and maintained that an attorney-at-law has no right of audience in the trial of a suit on the Original Side. To this, Mr. M, K. Ramaswami Iyer replied that he was prepared to show not only that he himself as an attorney-at-law had a right of audience but that Mr. Venkatasubba Rao, a Vakil, had none. I was informed that the question was one which had arisen in this Court before ; but as the parties informed me that it was desired to make this a test case to go before the ultimate tribunal and as I was quite ignorant of what had been said or decided when it was discussed before,...
inti Tarini and anr. Vs. Komolo Bisoti and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-1916
Reported in: 37Ind.Cas.763
Srinivasa Aiyangar, J.1. An application was made to the lower Court by a purchaser in a Court auction, whose purchase has been held to be bad in a separate suit on the ground that the judgment-debtor had no saleable interest, and who has been deprived of the property of which he was placed in possession in the Court sale. No application was made under Order XXI, Rule 91, to set aside the sale. But still it is claimed that inasmuch as the sale took place while the old Act was in force, the present petitioner is entitled to take advantage of the procedure prescribed in Section 315 and claim a refund of the purchase-money by way of execution under the last clause of Section 315.' Whether this case will be governed by the decision in Mqhideen Ibrahim v. Mqhamed Meera Levvai (1), it is not necessary to consider: for, in that case both the sale and the setting aside of the sale by separate proceedings had taken place while the old Code was in force and the right to recover back the purchase-...
Devineni Pattayya and ors. Vs. Chelasani Bhadrayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-1916
Reported in: 37Ind.Cas.918
1. We are unable to agree with the opinion of the learned Judge that the suit in question was cognizable in a Civil Court. Essentially the suit was one to recover the emoluments of a carpenter's and blacksmith's service inam and thus the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is taken away by Section 21, Madras Act III of 1895. We are of opinion that in all cases where it is necessary for the plaintiff to allege for the maintenance of his suit that the land in suit is an emolument of a service inam., the jurisdiction will remain with the Collector under Section 13 of the Act. This is the principle laid down in the Full Bench decision in Kesiram Narasimhulu v. Narasimhulu Patnaidu16 M. L.J. 514. In suits where the plaintiff seeks to recover on the ground of a bare trespass and no question of title is involved, as in Gavara Rami Naidu v. Doddi Rami Naidu (2), or on the ground that the land is his private property, as in Gavara Ramanna v. Adabala Rattayya 5 Ind. Cas. 157 : 20 M. L.J. 91. the sui...
Shanmuga Chetty (Minor by His Next Friend Meenakshi Ammal) Vs. C.K. Na ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-04-1916
Reported in: (1917)ILR40Mad743
1. We think that it is clear that Shanmuga Chetty who is described in the plaint as a minor had in fact attained majority four days or so before the plaint was filed. His grandmother apparently made a bona fide mistake that Shanmugam was still a minor when she filed the suit on his behalf as his next friend. The learned District Judge was asked for leave to amend the plaint by striking off the description of Shanmugam, the plaintiff, as a minor suing through his next friend and for other consequential amendments. The learned Judge following the ruling in Sheorania v. Bharat Singh I.L.R. (1898) All. 90 has dismissed the suit. We think however that the decision in Taqui Jam v. Obaidulla I.L.R. (1894) Calc. 866 lays down the law correctly. That was also a similar case and the learned Judges of the Calcutta High Court held that the proper procedure to adopt in a case of this nature, was to return the plaint so that it might be presented after making the necessary amendments. Rule 10 of Ord...
Shanmuga Chetty, Minor, by His Next-friend Meenakshi Ammal Vs. C. K. N ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-04-1916
Reported in: 41Ind.Cas.510
1. We think that it is clear that Shanmuga Chetty who is described in the plaint as a minor had, in fact, attained majority four days or so before the plaint was filed. His grandmother apparently made a bona fide mistake that Shanmuga was still a minor when she filed the suit on his behalf as his next friend. The learned District Judge was asked for leave to amend the plaint by striking off the description of Shanmuga the plaintiff as minor suing through his next friend and for other consequential amendments. The learned Judge following the ruling in Sheorania v. Bharat Singh 20 A.k 90 : 9 Ind. Dec. 417. has dismissed the suit. We think, however, that the decision in Taqui Jan v. Obaidulla 10 Ind. Dec. 1209. lays down the law correctly. That was also a similar case and the learned Judges of the Calcutta High Court held that the proper procedure to adopt in a case of this nature was to return the plaint so that it may be presented after making the necessary amendments. Rule 10 of Order ...
Mujuluri Sivaramayya Vs. Singumahanti Bhujanga Rao and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-04-1916
Reported in: 37Ind.Cas.773
Oldfield, J.1. One Veeraraghava Bow having been adjudicated insolvent, his property vested in the Official Receiver of Godavari District. Veeraraghava Row bad on 24th May 1908 executed in favour of his father, the respondent, a promissory note and an agreement, Exhibit E, the latter providing that, in case the former were not discharged within a year, it should be discharged by the conveyance of certain property. On 6th October 1913 respondent moved the lower Court to grant leave to the Receiver to execute a release deed to him in respect of this property, as it had been treated as vesting with the insolvent's other property in consequence of the order of adjudication. The lower Court dealt with this petition first in circumstances referred to in this Court's order of remand in Appeal against Order No. 155 of 1914. On re-hearing it, it passed the order, against which 10th creditor, who alleges that he holds a mortgage over the property subsequent to Exhibit E, appeals.2. The main objec...
Athan Kutti and Ors. Vs. Kuttanat Illoth Narayan Nambudri's wife Matai ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-03-1916
Reported in: (1917)32MLJ317
Ayling, J.1. The main question for determination in this appeal is whether the plaintiffs' right of redemption is affected by the provision in Exhibit III, or by defendant's; subsequent possession of the mortgaged property after the date prescribed for discharge of that document.2. The facts are simple. On 14-11-74 by Exhibit A 1st plaintiff's father effected a mortgage with possession (kanom) of the plaint properties to defendant's ancestress Kunhachumma for 36 years for Bs. 3000. On 12-8-75 he executed another document Ex. III, which is in effect a simple mortgage on the same lands for Rs. 400. It was therein provided that if the latter amount with interest thereon was not discharged by 13-8-76 the mortgagor had no objection to the mortgagee's holding and enjoying the property as jenmam. It is admitted that the latter phrase means in absolute ownership and that the object of the clause is to terminate plaintiffs' right of redemption of both mortgages, Exhibit A and Exhibit III.3. Bot...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »