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.
Vannisami thevar and anr. Counter-petitioner and Newly Added Party Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1916
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.996
1. Mr. Rajah Aiyar's argument is that the application alone under Order XXI, Rule 89, of the Code of Civil Procedure need be made within 30 days as required by Article 166 of the Limitation Act but the deposit might be made either within the 30 days mentioned in Order XXI, Rule 92, Clause (2), of the Code of Civil Procedure, or within such further time as the Court might choose to give in virtue of its alleged inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. In the first place, it is clear from the decision in Karunakara Menon v. Krishna Menon 27 Ind. Cas. 952: 2 L.W.196 that the 'provision in Order XXI, Rule 89, is in the nature of an indulgence to the judgment-debtors' and that 'Courts are bound to see that the provisions of law in this respect are very strictly conformed to.' That the deposit within 30 days is much more important than the application to set aside has been held in some cases see Mariappa Annam v. Hari Hara Iyer 22 Ind. Cas. 291 and that even an ora...
The Official Receiver of Trichinopoly Vs. S.A. Somasundaram Chettiar a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1916
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.602; (1916)30MLJ415
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The question in this case is whether the trustees under Exs. II and III are purchasers for valuable consideration. In Narayan Coomari Debi v. Shajani Kanta Chatterjee I.L.R. (1894) C. 14, it was held that a contract to pay remuneration to a person appointed as an executor was a contract for valuable consideration proceeding from the person appointed as an executor. The learned Judges say at page 18 'The plaintiff who was not legally bound to accept the office of executor,...applied for probate as executor, and having obtained probate, he performed duties of the executor.' 'There was thus, we think, a clear consideration for the alleged contract. (See Indian Contract Act, Section 2(d), Addison on Contracts, page 2, 9th Edition, and Pollock on Contracts, 5th Edition, page 176).' A responsibility therefore taken by a person to whom properties are transferred in consideration of his taking such onerous work seems to me to fall within the expression 'valuable considerat...
Rama Rao and anr. Vs. Kuthiya Koundan Alias Marappa Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1916
Reported in: (1916)30MLJ514
1. The suit is by the plaintiffs as reversioners to recover possession. The last male owner was Venkataramana Aiyar who died some forty years ago. His widow Tulasi Ammal died in September 1908. The plaintiffs claim to be the sister's sons of Venkataramana Aiyar.2. The defendants are alienees from Tulasi Ammal. They denied the plaintiffs' relationship to the last male owner and pleaded that one Ranga Aiyar was the nearer heir, being a Diyadi. They also claimed that some of the properties were Tulasi Animal's self-acquisition and that as regards the others their alienation was for justifiable purposes.3. The District Munsif held that there were no nearer heirs than the plaintiffs whom he found to be the sister's sons of the deceased male owner, and that most of the alienations were not binding on them. He gave a decree for the major portion of the properties in the suit.4. On appeal, the Subordinate Judge, without determining whether the plaintiffs were heirs, was of opinion that the pla...
Kondapi Seshayya and ors. Vs. Grandhi Venkata Subbayya Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1916
Reported in: (1916)31MLJ234
Abdur Rahim, J.1. The suit in which this appeal has arisen was instituted by the plaintiffs to establish their rights to half the number of casuarina trees now standing on a certain piece of land leased by the 1st plaintiff to the defendant's father and also for damages which are estimated at Rs. 12,000 and for an injunction restraining the defendant from cutting the trees standing on the land. The first plaintiff owned about 270 acres of land described as Khandriga and he leased 135 acres, that is, one-half, to one Ammayya Chetti. Out of the other half, he leased about 131 acres to the defendant's father. One of the questions we have to consider is what is the proper construction of the document Ex. I which is described as a lease for growing casuarina trees. It is stated in that document that the quantity of land mentioned in it was leased for planting casuarina trees for 10 years from the date of its execution, that is, until 19th September 1913. It is then provided, 'you should the...
Charapattada Siddhalinga Swamulu Vs. Sondur Ramachandracharlu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1916
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.646; (1916)31MLJ857
1. The only question in this suit which calls for our consideration is that embodied in the 6th issue whether the suit is barred by limitation.2. Article 124 and 144 of Schedule I of the Limitation Act and that it is therefore within time. This view is not supported in argument before us and we have no hesitation in dissenting from it. The plaint starts with the assertion that the plaintiffs are the members of the Kudligi Taluq Devastanam Committee appointed under Act XX of 1863 : and they pray (1) for a declaration that the suit temple is subject to the control of the committee (2) for an injunction directing defendant to produce for their (plaintiffs') inspection all the temple properties and accounts.3. It cannot be said that this is a suit 'for possession of a hereditary office'. The office of a member of a Devastanam Committee under Act XX of 1863 is not hereditary. Nor do Plaintiffs seek to obtain possession of it. On the contrary they allege possession of it: and ask for a decla...
Rama Row and anr. Vs. Kuttiya Goundan Alias Marappa Goundan Et Al
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1916
Reported in: (1917)ILR40Mad654
Seshagiri Ayyar, J.1. The suit is by the plaintiffs as reversioners to recover possession. The last male owner was Venkataramana Ayyar, who died some forty years ago. His widow Tulasi Ammal died in September 1908. The plaintiffs claim to be the sister's sons of Venkataramana Ayyar.2. The defendants are alienees from Tulasi Ammal. They denied the plaintiffs' relationship to the last male owner and pleaded that one Rangaiyer was the nearer heir, being a dayadi. They also claimed that some of the properties were Tulasi Ammal's self-acquisition and that as regards the others, their alienation was for justifiable purposes.3. The District Munsif held that there were no nearer heirs than the plaintiffs whom he found to be the sister's sons of the deceased male owner and that most of the alienations were not binding on them. He gave a decree for the major portion of the properties in the suit.4. On appeal, the Subordinate Judge, without determining whether the plaintiffs were heirs, was of opi...
Rama Row and anr. Vs. Kuttiya Gounden and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1916
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.294
1. The suit is by the plaintiff* as reversioners to recover possession. The last male owner was Venkataramana Aiyar who died some forty years ago. His widow Tulasi Ammal died in September 1908. The plaintiffs claim to be the sister's sons of Venkataramana Aiyar.2. The defendants are alienees 'from Tulasi Ammal. They denied the plaintiffs' relationship to the last male owner and pleaded that one Ranga Aiyar was the nearer heir, being a dayadi. They also claimed that some of the properties were Tulasi Animal's self-acquisition and that as regards the others their alienation was for justifiable purposes.3. The District Munsif held that there were no nearer heirs than the plaintiffs whom he found to be the sister's sons of the deceased male owner, and that most of the alienations were not binding on them. He gave a decree for the major portion of the properties in this suit.4. On appeal, the Subordinate Judge, without determining whether the plaintiffs were heirs, was of opinion that the p...
Kotigari Rangiah Chetti Vs. Chintalapalli Narasayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1916
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.388
1. In Letters Patent Appeal No. 36 of 1910, the appellant was given a decree for Rs. 665-2-3 with interest Rs. 467--8 and costs Rs. 138-4-0, in all Rs. 1,270-8-11, against both the defendants 'jointly and severally.' Under the same decree the plaintiff had to pay 2nd defendant Rs. 1,003-11-5 for costs and 1st defendant Rs. 412-6-1 for costs.2. The appellant who had obtained a transfer of the decree applied in Execution Petition No. 55 of 1914 to the District Court, North Arcot, to execute the decree against the 1st defendant. In the execution petition he claimed Rs. 665-2-3 and interest thereon and deducted the costs which plaintiff had to pay 1st defendant under the decree, the net amount of the claim being Rs. 859-2-10. The District Judge dismissed the execution application, holding that the appellant was not entitled to execute the decree against either of the defendants, on the ground that the amount which the decree-holder had to pay to the respective defendants exceeded the amoun...
P.A.L.A. Annamalai Chetty Vs. R.M.A.M. Ramasami Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1916
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.67
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. Though this appeal is described in the memorandum of the appeal grounds as an appeal against the decree and judgment passed by the Temporary Subordinate Judge, the learned Vakil for the appellant has requested us to treat it as an appeal against only the order passed by the lower Court directing the arbitrator's award to be Sled under Schedule II, paragraph 21 Clause (I), Civil procedure Code corresponding to old Section 526).2. Schedule II, paragraph 21, Clause (1), is as follows;--'Where the Court is satisfied that the matter has been referred to arbitration, and that an award has been made thereon, and where no ground such as is mentioned or referred to in paragraph 14 or paragraph 15 is proved, the Court shall order the award to be filed and shall proceed to pronounce judgment according to the award.'3. Mr. C.S. Venkatachariar for the appellant first argued that other grounds than those mentioned in paragraphs 14 and 15 might also be advanced against the filing...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›