Chennai Court November 1916 Judgments
Kunhalloor Puthia Veetil Rayarappa Atioti Vs. Vathukoilath Parkum Punn ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1916
Reported in: (1917)32MLJ110
1. The decision of the Full Bench of four Judges in 1891 in Kerala Varmah Valia Raja v. Ondan Ramunni I.L.R. (1891) M. 218, proceeded upon the footing that the intention of the legislature was that contracts made before the date mentioned should stand unaffected by the Act, in other words that Sections 5 and 6 (corresponding to Sections 4 and 5 of the earlier Act) did not apply to cases governed by such contracts. This was expressly decided in Viru Mammad v. Krishnan I.L.R. (1897) M. 218. If this contention was not in accordance with the intention of the legislature it would hardly have refrained from putting the matter right when repealing and re-enacting the Act with modifications in 1899. In 1908 it was again held by a Full Bench in Randupurayil Kunhisore v. Neroth Kunhi Kannan I.L.R. (1908) M. 1 that Section 19 (formerly 7) did not affect the validity of contracts made prior to the 1st of January 1886 whether the improvements were made before or after the coming into force of the A...
Tag this Judgment!Nataraja Naicken Vs. Ayyasawmi Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1916
Reported in: (1917)32MLJ354
1. The 1st defendant, the younger brother of the 2nd defendant with 3 other persons executed a pro-note to a third person. The major portion of the debt was borrowed by the 1st defendant. This borrowing is found by the court of First Instance, and by Mr. Justice Coutts Trotter, to have been made on behalf of and for the benefit of the joint family of the two defendants. We accept this conclusion. On this pro-note, the four executants were sued: after decree the 1st defendant arranged with the plaintiff's assignor that the decree should be satisfied by the latter; and as consideration therefor, executed Ex. A the plaint note. The note was endorsed to one Vaithia-natha Aiyar who in turn endorsed it over to the plaintiff. Plaintiff seeks to make the 2nd defendant liable on the ground that the debt was borrowed for family purposes. A number of contentions were raised before us by Mr. Gopalaswami Mudaliar : we shall deal with the minor ones first. There is no authority for the proposition t...
Tag this Judgment!Kunhalloor Puthia Veettil Rayarappa Atioti Vs. Vathukoilath Parkum Pun ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1916
Reported in: 39Ind.Cas.741
ORDER OF REFERENCE TO A FULL BENCH1. The question for determination in this case is whether the compensation for improvements is to he paid for at the rates stipulated for in the demises of 1876 or in accordance with the provisions of the Malabar Compensation for Tenants' improvements Act. In the Full Bench ruling reported as Randupurayil Kunhisore v. Neroth Kunhi Kannan 1 Cas. Ind. Cas. 207 it was held that in the case of a contract made prior to 1st January 1885, the rate of compensation is governed by the terms of the contract. In a subsequent case reported as Koshikot Pudiya v. Chundayal Madattul 6 Ind. Cas. 887 ; (1910) M.W.N. 402 Benson and Krishnaswami Aiyar, JJ., expressed an opinion (obiter) that if a contract as to the rate of compensation is unfavourable to the tenant, even though it has been entered into before 1st January 1886, he is entitled to claim compensation under Section 5 of the Act at the rates prescribed in Sections 9--18 and remarked that this opinion was not op...
Tag this Judgment!Puthisseri Maniyannoor Puthamvittil Narayana Nair Vs. Thozukkat Pullan ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-1916
Reported in: (1917)32MLJ489
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit was brought for redemption of a registered usufructuary mortgage for Rs. 250 dated 13th June 1905 executed by the representative of the five thavazhies which had branched out from1 a single tarwad called Pudusheri Maniyannoor tarwad. The defendants three to eight are members (along with the plaintiff) of one of these five thavazhies. The plaintiff has not made the members of the other four thavazhies parties to this suit though it is conceded that the mortgage of 1905 was executed on behalf of all the live thavazhies. Now the plaintiff is the karnavan of his own thavazhi only which consists of eight members there being about 31 members in the other four thavazhies. As far as I could gather from the plaint, the plain. tiff ignores the other four thavazhies and sues for redemption as the karnavan of his own thavazhi alone.2. One question raised in the suit was whether the plaintiff's thavazhi and the four connected thavazhies ...
Tag this Judgment!Balide Kamayya and ors. Vs. Pragada Papayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-1916
Reported in: (1917)32MLJ477
ORDER1. We agree with the learned Judges who made the reference that it is open to an Appellate Court in proper cases when reversing the decree of the lower Court to give the plaintiff leave to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit....
Tag this Judgment!Mahamad Meeran Bibi and anr. Vs. Sheik Mahamad Rowther and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-1916
Reported in: 37Ind.Cas.879
1. The parties in this case are Muhammadans, that is, Labbais of Trichinopoly District, and in defence of a suit for partition, defendants set up the plea that they were governed by Hindu Law 'in the matter of inheritance to the estate of a deceased person', and issue I was framed on that plea. Both the lower Courts have found that the plea is false and that the parties are governed by Muhammadan Law. In second appeal the learned Vakil for appellants seeks to re-open the question as being a question of law and not merely a question of fact. It is argued that the question at issue is whether the decision of the lower Courts is not against some usage having the force of law within the meaning of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Reliance is placed on the decision in Kakarla Abbayya v. Ra a Venkata Papayya Rao 29 M.s 24, where it was held that an issue as to the existence or non-existence of a usage having the force of law could be decided in second appeal upon the evidence. In ...
Tag this Judgment!Pankajammal Vs. Secretary of State for India by the Collector of North ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1916
Reported in: (1917)32MLJ237
1. The question in this case is whether the daughter of a Thathachari belonging to the Thandri family is disqualified from performing a festival in the Conjeevaram Temple by reason of the fact, that she has been married into another family. The marriage may give her a different gotram but it is not right to say that she ceases to belong to the family of her father on that account. She and her sons would be the heirs to her father's property. The right to perform a festival is a secular privilege, and has no connection with the right to Theertham and other honours. The learned Judge in the Court below seems to have thought that the claim to perform the festival carried with it the right to Theerthams and to the other honours belonging to the Thathachari family. In this Court this portion of the judgment was not sought to be supported. It was argued that the right to perform a festival conferred as office, and that such an office could be held only by a male member of the Thathachariar's...
Tag this Judgment!V. Navaneetha Krishna thevar Vs. Ramasami Pandia Thalavar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1916
Reported in: (1917)33MLJ277
Wallis, C.J.1. Appeal No. 380 of 1914 is an appeal from the judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Tinnevelly in Original Suit No. 30 of 1911 a suit brought by Eamasami Pandia Thalavar claiming to be the nearest reversioner of the last Zamindar of Uttumalai to declare that certain alienations made by the Court of Wards during their management of the estate on behalf of the widow of the late Zamindar, Eanee Meenakshi Sundara Nachiar, now an incapacitated proprietor under Madras Act I of 1902, are not binding on the estate. Under that Act, as amended, suits by and against a ward are to be in the name of the ward but the conduct of the suit is with the manager appointed by the Court of Wards acting as guardian ad litem. Defendants Nos. 2 to 22 are alienees and persons claiming under them. Defendant No. 23 denies the plaintiff's pedigree and claims to be the next reversioner, and has brought a similar suit (Original Suit No. 26 of 1912) to declare the alienations of the properties mentioned ...
Tag this Judgment!Divi Punniah Vs. Gorantla Kotamma and Six ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1916
Reported in: (1917)ILR40Mad939
1. The dispute in this Second Appeal is regarding the right to a tope site. The tope was, in the words of the plaint, 'transferred from charitable inams by Government and assessed to jirayati' or shortly 'resumed', patta being granted to first defendant. The lower Appellate Court gave plaintiff a decree for a half share of the land on partition on the ground that she represented the interest of one of the two trustees of the tope before its resumption, defendant representing the other. The lower appellate court applied Gunnaiyan v. Kamakchi Ayyar I.L.R. (1803) Mad. 339 and Pingala Lakshmipathi v. Bommireddipalli Chalamayya I.L.R. (1907) Mad. 434 dealing with, the case on principles applicable to cases of enfanchisement of personal or service inams.2. Those principles in our opinion afford no guidance in cases of resumption of charitable inams. In cases of enfranchisement there is a change, not in the ownership of the land, but in the tenure on which it is held. In cases of resumption t...
Tag this Judgment!Muthaya Pillai and ors. Vs. Tinnevelly South India Bank, Ltd., Through ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1916
Reported in: 37Ind.Cas.230
1. The evidence is ample to show that the money was borrowed for the purpose of a trade which was an ancestral one and carried on under a direction in the father's Will. It was argued as a matter of law that the appellants would not be liable except to the extent of their shares in the assets of the business, and in support of that proposition a ruling of this Court in Sanka Krishnamurthi v. Bank of Burma 14 Ind. Cas. 389 : (1911) 1 M.W.N. 385 was cited : but that case does not bear out the contention of the learned Pleader. It is clear from the judgment of the learned Chief Justice in that case that so far as the Hindu Law is concerned, which is the law governing the parties in this suit, he accepted the rulings in Ram lal Thakursidas v. Lakhmichand 1 B.H.C.R. App. 5 and Raghunathji Taraehand v. Bank of Bombay 11 Bom. L.R. 255, as correctly laying down the law on the subject. Those decisions held in clear terms that in the case of an ancestral business, all the members of the family i...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »