Chennai Court November 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.
Manepalli Mangamma and ors. Vs. Manepalli Sathiraju
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-1916
Reported in: (1916)31MLJ816
Oldfield, J.1. The question in this case is whether the assignee of a promissory note can sue in the Court having jurisdiction where his assignment was made. The learned Judge has decided in the affirmative applying Read v. Brown (1888) 22 Q.B.D. 128.2. If the matter was res Integra, I should be inclined to dissent from his decision, because its consequence in India would be inconvenient in the extreme and I should be unwilling to adopt an interpretation of Section 20(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure, which would authorise evasions of the restrictions imposed by the section by means of an easy device. But the general definition of cause of action contained in Read v. Brown (1888) 22 Q.B.D. 128 has been accepted in numerous cases in this 'country, Arunachellam Chetty v. Meyyappa Chetty I.L.R. (1897) Mad. 91 : 8 M.L.J. 28, Ittappan v. Manavikrama I.L.R. (1897) Mah. 153: 8 M.L.J. 92, Dobson and Barlow Ltd. v. The Bengal Spinning and Weaving Company I.L.R. (1896) Bom. 126, Murti v. Bhola ...
H. Sitaramaya Vs. M. Ramappaya (Deceased) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-1916
Reported in: 39Ind.Cas.160
Srinivasa Aiyangar, J.1. This is an application by the plaintiff to revise the order of the Subordinate Judge of Mangalore, whereby he ordered that certain persons should be added as parties defendants to a suit for partition instituted by the plaintiff against his undivided father and brother and certain other persons who, he states, are in possession of or claim title to family properties. The persons now ordered to be made parties are the brother's sons of the father and an assignee of their share. The assignee had previous to the institution of the present suit himself sued for partition of the properties which belonged in common to the plaintiff's branch and his uncle's branch and had obtained a preliminary decree for partition. To that suit the present plaintiff, his father and brother were parties and in that suit there has been a decision as to what the family properties belonging in common to both the branches are, and a direction to divide those properties into two shares, on...
Somasundaram Pillai and anr. Vs. Chokkalingam Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1916
Reported in: (1917)ILR40Mad780
Seshagiri Ayyar, J.1. We are unable to agree with the Subordinate Judge that the application is barred as res judicata. The previous application was for the restitution of a sum of money recovered in execution in consequence of the decree having been reversed on appeal. The present application is for interest on the money for the period during which the counter-petitioner had the use of it.2. We do not think that the principle of constructive res judicata, whether Section 11, explanation IV, or Order II, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is invoked in its aid, should be applied to execution proceedings as a matter of course. As we said recently in Sundaram Chetti v. Varadayyar Appeal Against Appellate Order No. 57 of 1916 unless the decision of the question subsequently sought to be agitated, was either expressly given or must be deemed to have been necessarily implied in the previous decision, the principle of res judkata should not be applied to execution proceedings: see Lakshm...
Mahomed Ghouse Rahman Sahib (of T.A. Rahman and Sons) Vs. Nathu Vellab ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1916
Reported in: (1917)ILR40Mad835
Sadasiva Ayyar, J.1. I agree with my learned brother that this petition should be dismissed. I am clear that Section 185 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not enable a High Court to make an order transferring a case pending on the file of a Criminal Court whether within or outside its jurisdiction to the file of another Criminal Court whether such other Criminal Court be within its own jurisdiction or without its jurisdiction. Section 185, in my opinion, has absolutely nothing to do with transfer or with a High Court's power of transfer. The power to transfer vested in the High Court, so far as the Criminal Procedure Code is concerned, is dealt with and was intended by the Legislature to be dealt with solely by Section 526 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. That section gives fall powers to a High Court to transfer cases pending in a Court 'subordinate thereto' to any other 'such' Court, that is, any other Court subordinate to it or even to itself. It seems to me [with the greates...
Kullappa Goundan Vs. Abdul Rahim Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1916
Reported in: (1917)ILR40Mad824
1. This is a petition filed under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code and Section 15 of the Charter Act to revise the order of the District Munsif of Tiruppattur, dated the 24th April 1915, wherein he hold that the property in dispute fell under Section 7, Clause (v)(b) of the Court Fees Act (Act VII of 1870) and that the suit was rightly valued and was within the pecuniary limits of his jurisdiction. The plaintiff claiming to be the purchaser of the properties mentioned in the plaint for Rs. 7,000 sued for a declaration of title, for an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his enjoyment of the plaint properties and for possession of the properties if the Court was of opinion that the plaintiff was not in possession. The plaintiff valued the suit at Rs. 1,000 the details of the valuation being Rs. 5 for injunction asked for, Rs. 364-11-0 for possession, Rs. 115 value of three wells, Rs. 500 value of coconut trees and Rs. 2 value of plantain trees. The defendants ob...
Mahomed Ghouse Rahman Sahib Vs. Nathu Vallabhji
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1916
Reported in: 37Ind.Cas.516
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. I agree with my learned brother that this petition should be dismissed. I am clear that Section 185 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not enable a High Court to make an order transferring a case pending on the file of a Criminal Court, whether within or outside its jurisdiction, to the file of another Criminal Court, whether such other Criminal Court, be within its own jurisdiction or without its jurisdiction. Section 185, in my opinion, has absolutely nothing to do with transfer or with a High Court's power of transfer. The power to transfer vested in the High Court, so far as the Criminal Procedure Code is concerned, is dealt with and was intended by the Legislature to be dealt with solely by Section 526 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. That Section gives full powers to a High Court to transfer cases pending in a Court subordinate thereto' to any other such' Court (that is any other Court subordinate' to it or even to itself). It seems to me [with the grea...
Kuppusamy Aiyar (Dead) and anr. Vs. A.L. V. R. P. S. Veerappa Chettiar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1916
Reported in: 37Ind.Cas.875
1. This appeal is from a suit instituted in forma pauperis by the appellant for the taking of accounts against the defendant, to whom he used to send agricultural produce on the understanding that he was to sell the produce and pay over the sale proceeds to the appellant after deducting whatever moneys the respondent advanced to the appellant. The Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit holding, upon the allegations in the plaint, that it was barred by limitation.2. The agency, according to the statement in the plaint, began sometime in 1901 and there were no dealings after 1906. This is made clear from the different paragraphs of the plaint, for instance, paragraphs 5, 9 and 12. The last paragraph, i. e., No. 12 mentions that the cause of action for the suit arose from 1901 to 1906 on the dates on which the appellant executed the promissory notes. The promissory notes referred to therein were notes executed by the appellant for the moneys advanced to him. One of these has been printed an...
Sindigi Lingappa Alias Sidda Lingappa, Minor by Guardian and Brother S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-1916
Reported in: (1917)32MLJ47
1. This is an appeal from the judgment of the District Judge of Bellary declaring the alleged adoption of the second defendant by the 1st defendant invalid. The husband of the 1st defendant who died on the 15th September 1910 executed a will Ex. A in which he said 'I have kept my moveable and immoveable properties under her (meaning his mother's) control. In future also they should be only under her control. My wife Basamma is now a young girl of 15 years of age. She should be under the control and guardianship of my mother Rudramma. I have given permission to the said Basamma to receive in adoption for me either Gavappa or Lingappa, minor sons of my junior paternal uncle Sindigi Rudrappa, whomsoever (of them) may be chosen by mother.' He died afterwards and there were disputes between the minor widow and her mother-in-law Rudramma and a petition was put in the District Court to remove Rudramma from the guardianship and appoint someone else. An Order to that effect was made on the 4th ...
P. Krishnaswami Pillai Vs. Doraisami Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-1916
Reported in: 36Ind.Cas.1003
Srinivasa Aiyangar, J.1. In this case the Full Bench of the Small Cause Court Madras gave permission to the plaintiff who had obtained a decree in a trial before a single Judge to withdraw the suit to enable him to add his claim to a suit previously instituted by him in the District Munsif's Court Poonamallee to avoid the bar of Order II, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The objection to the maintainability of the suit under this particular provision of law appears to have been taken before the Full Bench though a plea of is pendens was raised before the Trial Judge.2. The defendant applies in revision to this Court to discharge the order on two grounds (1) That the Full Bench was exercising appellate jurisdiction and was not competent to allow the withdrawal of the suit (2) The permission to withdraw can only be given to enable the plaintiff to bring a fresh suit and not to add the claim to a previously instituted suit.3. On the first point Lodd Govindass v. Rukmani Bhai 21 Ind....
Adikesavan Naidu and ors. Vs. M.V. Gurunatha Chetti and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-1916
Reported in: (1917)32MLJ180
Abdur Rahim, J.1. The question referred to us is whether a manager of a joint Hindu family who has agreed to sell immoveable property belonging to himself and the minor members of the family is personally liable for damages for failure to perform the contract when it is found that, it is net binding on the minors. The facts briefly speaking upon which the question arises seem to be that the vendor the managing member of the family represented that circumstances existed which entitled him to sell the property and the intending purchaser, relying upon that representation, agreed to purchase the property. It is, however, found that the sale did not bind the minors' shares as there was no necessity for the sale though both the contracting parties believed that there was and acted in good faith. That, as I understand it, is the result of the findings of the learned Judges who have referred the question to the Full Bench.2. There is no question but that Section 73 of the Contract Act applies...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »