Chennai Court February 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.
R. Raghavachari Vs. M.A. Pakkiri Mahomed Rowther and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1916
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.760; (1916)30MLJ497
Moore, J.1. This is an appeal by 2nd respondent in the Lower Court against an order of the Subordinate Judge of Negapatam passed in execution. The circumstances which have given rise to the appeal are these : - The South Indian Export Company, Limited, obtained a mortgage decree in O.S. No, 38 of 1903 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Kumbakonam. The 1st respondent preferred an appeal and under the decree of the High Court dated 8th April 1910, his share in the properties was exonerated. While the appeal was pending certain properties were brought to sale in execution on the 8th October 1909 and the present appellant purchased in his own name for Rs. 525, some nanja lands in Peyur which are referred to in the evidence as the Theevali lands. The appeal relates to these properties which were, it appears, subject to a prior mortgage of about Rs. 5,000, in favour of a third party, the South Indian Export Company holding a subsequent mortgage over those and other properti...
A.V. Bashyam Reddi Vs. Somasundaram Chetti and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1916
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.897
1. The order of the District Judge dated 21st October 1915, so far as it stays an execution sale going on in another Court, was clearly passed without jurisdiction. Section 47 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1907, or Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1903, cannot be properly invoked in support of that order.2. The discretion given under Section 13, Clause (2), of the Provincial Insolvency Act to the Insolvency Court to appoint an ad interim Receiver should, ordinarily, be exercised only in cases where the property of alleged absconding insolvent has to be preserved from destruction or disappearance, and not in order to vest in an ad interim Receiver the properties attached by other Courts in execution.3. The District Judge again acted irregularly in vacating his first order without notice to the appellant and we are unable to see that the appellant practised any deception on the learned District Judge (as stated in the second order) when the appellant obtained the first ord...
Rangappa Naicker and ors. Vs. Appala Raja and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1916
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.503
1. Two portions of the argument addressed to us call for notice.2. Firstly, the learned Subordinate Judge has dealt with plaintiffs' right to put up the disputed dam as a matter of limitation, relying on Krishna Aiyar v. Secretary of State for India 4 Ind. Cas. 1070 71and other cases to the effect that proof of twelve years' enjoyment will transfer the harden of proof to the defendant. But those are cases of limitation, not of prescription; and the latter is in question here with reference to an easement or customary right. There is no question of a plea of lost grant. The lower Appellate Court, therefore, had to find for sixty years' enjoyment if plaintiffs were to succeed. We must now call on it to submit a finding on the question, whether enjoyment of the alleged right to erect a dam has been established for that period.3. Next, the District Munsif found that the removal of the dam caused no material diminution in the supply of plaintiffs' lands. This finding was disputed by plainti...
Palavalasa Appalaswamy and anr. Vs. Sri Dantaluri Narayana Gajapathira ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1916
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.446
1. The suit is upon a compromise filed in a former suit, which has not been registered. The decree in that suit has not been produced, but it clearly appears from the judgment that the compromise was not embodied in the decree, but merely remained among the records of the Court.2. The compromise is in effect an agreement for the exchange of lands, and the parties contemplated that it would be carried into effect by a decree of the Court, but this was not done, and the agreement still remains to be effectuated by a document of transfer of the property.3. The compromise being an agreement did not require registration and it is not necessary to consider the conflicting decisions as to registration of records of the Court, such as those in Raoula Parti Chellamanna v. llama Row 12 Ind. Cas. 317 : (1911) 2 M.W.N. 265 and Natesan Chetti v. Vengu Nachiar 3 Ind. Cas. 701. The suit has been framed upon title and not for specific performance, and we set aside the decrees in both Courts and give l...
M. Rangachariar and ors. Vs. Souri Battachariar and
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1916
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.561
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The decree-holders are the appellants. They obtained a decree enjoining the defendants Nos. 4, 5 and 6 (some of the judgment-debtors) by an injunction from taking the thirtham after the daily pujas and on other specified occasions before giving that holy water to the thirthakars (the plaintiffs and defendants Nos. 7 to 23) and also directing these judgment-debtors to confer on the plaintiffs the mariyadas' specified in the plaint schedule, one of those mariyadas being that garlands should be thrown on the necks of the decree-holders after they are given the thirtham. The present Execution Petition No. 33 of 1913' was presented against the defendants Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6, but in these appeals the 4th and 5th defendants alone are respectively the respondents.2. The relief prayed in the execution petition against them is that they might be imprisoned and their property might be attached under Rule 32 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure in order to enforce two...
Sreekakulam Ramiah Setti Vs. Kapulooru Chinniah and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1916
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.623
Srinivasa Aiyangar, J.1. The plaintiff sues to recover a sum of money which he paid to the 2nd defendant as part payment of the price of jewels sold by the 1st defendant to him. The 2nd defendant is the agent of the 1st defendant. Previous to this suit the 1st defendant had filed a suit against the plaintiff for the price of the very same jewels, and in that suit a decree was passed for the whole value of the jewels without giving credit to the plaintiff for the sum which is now found to have been paid by him in part payment of the price of those jewels. I do not think that the plaintiff is entitled to claim in a separate suit the amount which he paid and I hold that the previous decision bars the present suit. The case of Akilandam Pillai v. Chinnaswami Moopan 13 Ind. Cas. 649 : 11 M.L.T. 201 is different on its facts from the present case. I, therefore, think that the claim as against the 1st defendant fails.2. It is also found that the 2nd defendant to whom the plaintiff paid the mo...
Sir S. Subramania Aiyar and anr. Vs. Sri Mahant Prayag Dossjee Varu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1916
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.677
1. The suit was instituted by the appellants before us, two Hindu gentlemen interested in the temple of Tirupatti, under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code, for the removal of the defendant from the office of vicharanakartha of the temple, for the appointment of a new trustee, for accounts, and for certain other reliefs.2. The learned Judge who tried the suit dismissed it finding on the main points against the plaintiffs. In the appeal three points were taken before us, of which the most important relates to the action of the defendant in leaving a certain sum, over two lakhs of rupees, in deposit with Messrs. Arbuthnot & Co., a banking firm of Madras, with the consequence that all but a very small amount was lost. It is claimed by the appellants that in leaving this, amount in fixed deposit with Messrs. Arbuthnot & Co. the defendant acted contrary to the direction of the High Court contained in paragraphs Nos. 6 and 7 of the decree passed by this Court on 10th February 1905 It is ...
Sreeman Maha Mandaleswara Katari Salawa Maharaja Oomada Rajah Maharaja ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1916
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.893
1. In this suit (No. 25 of 1900), which was instituted by the Rajah of Karvetnagar for the recovery of 4 villages, Kolathur, Melapudi, Kelapudi and Pemmanallur, Sir Subramania Aiyar, Benson and Bashyam Ayyangar, JJ., for the purpose of disposing of the appeal preferred to the High Court from the decree of the Subordinate Judge of North Arcot, directed the lower Court on the 15th December 1903 to determine the following issues:1. What are the amounts, if any, still duo to the defendants Nos. 2 to 6 on their respective simple or usufructuary mortgages?2. Whether all or any of the defendants Nos. 2 to 6 are bonafide mortgagees for value without notice (vide, definition in Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act) of the plaintiff's title? and3. What sums, if any, are payable by the plaintiff to defendants Nos. 1 to 6 respectively before recovering possession of the plaint villages?2. The results of the enquiry were submitted in due course, but as the findings calculated the sums due by t...
Mr. V.G. Anantarama Aiyar (Receiver) Vs. Yussufji Oomer Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1916
Reported in: 36Ind.Cas.903; (1916)31MLJ133
1. This appeal and the connected appeals Nos. 323 and 325 of 1914 are appeals against the orders of the District Judge of South Malabar dismissing petitions under Section 36 of the Provincial Insolvency Act presented by the Receiver asking the Court to annul certain mortgages which were executed by one Abdul Kadir Sahib in favour of the respondent. The facts are somewhat complicated. Abdur Kadir Sahib who was trader in Calicut was adjudged an insolvent by the District Court of South Malabar on 17-8-1910 on an application made by his creditors. On 13-7-1910 the insolvent had executed a simple mortgage Ex. C for Rs. 6,119-3-0 in favour of the Respondent Oomer Sahib in respect of certain properties in Calicut. Oomer Sahib's brother had married the insolvent's sister. The document recites that it was executed in pursuance of the award made by two arbitrators in June 1910.2. Mr. Rosario contends that the learned District Judge ought to have held that under Section 36 of the Provincial Insol...
L.S. Krishna Iyer Vs. Muringa Malayil Kunnath Gopalan Nair and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1916
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.982
1. The question in this case is whether the respondents hold certain laud on a permanent tenure, and the case has been argued with reference to the terms Of a particular document, Exhibit II. This document is a grant to the children of a certain man and contains the words as before you shall, in future also, hold' the properties described in the schedule 'on anubhavam right on a rent of 159 paras of paddy worth Rs. 56-12-7. After deducting therefrom the 9 paras of paddy fixed as the anubhavam, the purappad rent is. 450 paras of paddy.' The document then declares the manner in which this net rent of 150 paras is to be applied.2. The word anubhavam has been held to confer a permanent tenure when - used with reference to a grant of land [Theyyan Nair v. Zamorin of Calicut 27 M.k 202, and we think that that decision governs the present case. The subsequent reference to a portion of rent as anubhavam may be explained by construing that part of the document as referring to a fixed allowance ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »