Chennai Court March 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.
Malaimel Thiruvenkatachariar and anr. Vs. Pari Seshadri Iyengar and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1916
Reported in: (1916)30MLJ559
John Wallis, Kt., C.J.1. In this case the plaintiff sues to recover property in possession of defendants 4 and 5. Defendants 1 to 3 first contracted on the 12th July 1911 to sell the property to the defendants 4 and 5, then on the 11th September 1911 sold it by registered sale deed to the plaintiff who had notice of the previous contract and subsequently on the 17th October 1911 executed a registered sale deed in favour of defendants 4 and 5 and put them in possession, alter which the plaintiff instituted the present suit O.S. 23 of 1912 for possession. The Lower Appellate Court has decided that, as the defendants 4 and 5 have not obtained a registered sale deed they are not entitled to possession citing the Pull Bench decision, in Kurri Veerareddi v. Kurri Bapireddi I.L.R. (1904) M. 330. That however was a suit by the plaintiff to recover possession from the defendant who had not obtained a registered sale deed but only a contract to sell. Here the plaintiff has obtained a transfer by...
Ranga Row and anr. Vs. Ramathilakama
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1916
Reported in: 45Ind.Cas.435
1. This is a suit for a declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to an easement of light and air and for an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering, in certain respects, with the enjoyment by the plaintiff of her house and window. The facts as found by the learned Judge (and we see no reason to differ from his conclusions) are as follows: The plaintiff's house adjoins the defendants' house to the north and in the plaintiff's southern wall there is a window, which, has been in existence for nearly 30 years. The defendants have recently re-built the portion of their house opposite to this window, with the result that the eaves of the roof are now above the level of the plaintiff's window sill and the shutters of the plaintiff's window which open outwards cannot now be shut and opened as usual, because the defendants' roof obstructs their movement. The defendants have also constructed a channel to catch the rain water from their roof, which runs on the same level as the p...
Nachiappa Chetty Minor by His Guardian N.V.E. Chinna Nachiappa Chetty ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1916
Reported in: 36Ind.Cas.794
Srinivasa Aiyangar, J.1. I confess that my mind was wavering in the course of the argument in this case. Bat I have come to the conclusion that an opportunity should be given to the lower Court to re-consider its decision. The facts are somewhat peculiar. The application made to the lower Court by the present petitioner who is the 4th defendant was for a review of the judgment in a suit filed by the plaintiff, who had been defeated in a claim enquiry in which it was held that the minor 4th defendant's predecessor-in-title was entitled to sell certain properties in execution of a decree The minor was represented in the suit by a Court clerk who was appointed as guardian. It is found that there is no proof of any negligence On his part, but it is pointed out that before he was appointed as guardian no notice went to the natural' guardian of the minor or the person with whom he was living, namely Nachiappa chetty. No doubt Nachiappa Chetty himself was originally proposed as guardian and t...
B. Raja Rajeswara Sethupati Avergal Alias Muthu Ramalinga Skthupati Av ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1916
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.500
1. The first defendant, who is the principal respondent before us in this appeal, entered into a contract with the original owner of the house in dispute in 1909 for the purchase of the house. It appears that he had already advanced to the owner certain sums of money amounting to Rs. 3,650. The price of the house was fixed at Rs. 10,000. On the 25th November 1911, he borrowed Rs. 6,500 from the 4th plaintiff and executed a promissory note to the 1st and 2nd plaintiffs and also a varthamanam or agreement. The amount of the promissory note was payable on demand and carried interest at the rate of 9 per cent. In the varthamanam which was executed on the same date as the promissory note, it was stipulated that the amount of the promissory note was to be paid by the end of March 1912 and that in default of such payment, the 1st defendant was to execute a conveyance of the house in question by the 10th April of the same year for a sum of Rs. 6,500, the amount borrowed under the promissory no...
Veerakkal Vs. Thirumakkal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1916
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.596
Coutts Trotter, J.1. By a document described as a deed of settlement and dated 8th of March 1904, one Mathakkal, who was a Hindu widow in possession of her husband's property and entitled to a life-estate in it, purported to hand over certain properties in two shares, one share to her daughter Attakkal and her son, and the second share to her younger daughter Veerakkal and her children. And the document goes on in these words: You. shall, therefore, enjoy in future the respective properties got by you by various rights' relating to the lands 'separately and with power to alienate the same by gift, sale, etc...I shall relinquish the patta in my name and have the same transferred to your names. Till my death individuals Nos. 1 and 2 (that is, the daughters) shall pay'-certain provisions for her maintenance are specified. It is contended for the respondents-and that construction has found favour with the lower Court-that this document was, and must be taken to be, an out and out gift of t...
Subramanian Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1916
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.1008
Coutts Trotter, J.1. In this case the prisoner was committed to the Court of Session of North Arcot on a charge of house-breaking by night and he was further committed, on a charge framed against him by the Magistrate, of previous convictions under Section 75 of the Penal Code. When the matter, came before the Assistant Sessions Judge, for some reason best known to himself, he chose to omit the charge under Section 75, altogether. The prisoner was tried and convicted of an attempted house-breaking. Why he was not convicted on the evidence of house-breaking is not clear to me; but let that pass. After conviction the learned Assistant Sessions Judge proceeded to put to the prisoner in the dock the previous convictions which he might have, but had not, inserted in the charge under Section 75, and the prsoner admitted them. Thereupon he passed on him a sentence which was a legal sentence under sections 457 and 511 without proof of the previous convictions, so that in fact it was unnecessar...
In Re: Nennur Rami Reddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1916
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.655
1. In this judgment we are dealing with the case of the 2nd appellant Nennur Sami Reddi who has been convicted of abetting the murder by his brother, 1st appellant, of the deceased Cheni Reddi.2. The case against this appellant is dealt with in paragraph 17 of the judgment of the Sessions Judge, who has convicted him of abetment, both by conspiracy and aiding (clauses 2 and 3 of Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code). A knowledge on the part of the appellant that his brother intended to commit the murder is, of course, essential to both: and after a careful consideration of the evidence, we doubt if this can be said to be established. The relationship of the two accused, the present appellant's own grievance against Rayalcheruvu Venkat Reddi and the fact that he (appellant) was sitting within a few yards of the spot where the murder was committed undoubtedly rouse suspicion of his complicity: but no weapon was found on him, and no overt act is alleged tending even remotely to facilitate...
Maharajapuram A. Subramania Aiyar and ors. Vs. Pallasana Gramoni and a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-1916
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.859; (1916)30MLJ615
Napier, J.1. This is an appeal from a Judgment of the District Judge of Malabar in which he has allowed a decree-debt against an assignor to be set-off against the claim by an assignee of the mortgage in k mortgage suit. It is admitted that the set-off is not one that is covered by Order 8 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure. But it is argued that it is a set-off of an equitable nature and that the Civil Procedure Code not being exhaustive as to rights of set-off it is permissible. There is authority for that proposition in a case reported in Subramaniya Chettiar v. Muthuswami Aiyangar (1907) 17 M.L.J. 481. With the greatest deference to the learned Judges I doubt whether it is advisable to introduce under the name of equity cases which appear to be rather ones of hardship on the facts. The doctrine that there is a right of equitable set-off is well founded, but has always been confined to unascertained sums arising out of the same transaction. To give the words 'equitable set-off' a...
Gopammal Vs. V. Srinivasa Aiyangar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-1916
Reported in: (1916)30MLJ508
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The first respondent in the Lower Court is the appellant before Rs. She is the widowed mother of a minor boy. On the application of the minor's father's 1st cousin, one V. Srinivasa Aiyangar has been appointed as guardian of the minor's property, superseding her in the interests of the minor, so far as the guardianship of his properties is concerned.2. The order appointing Srinivasa Aiyangar as guardian was passed on the 19th day of January 1914, under Section 7 of the Guardians and Wards Act. Section 84 of the Act provides that 'where a guardian of the property of a ward has been appointed...he shall, (a) if so required by the Court, give a bond...to the Judge of the Court...engaging duly to account for what he may receive in respect of the property of the ward.' It seems to me clear that it is only after the appointment that the person appointed can be required under the Act to give security under Section 34(a). If he contumaciously fails to give security, Sectio...
Maharajapuram A. Subramania Ayyar and Two ors. Vs. Pallasana Gramam S. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-1916
Reported in: (1917)ILR40Mad683
Napier, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the District Judge of Malabar in which he has allowed a decree-debt against an assignor to be set off against the claim by an assignee of the mortgage in a mortgage suit. It is admitted that the set-off is not one that is covered by Order VIII, Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure. But it is argued that it is a set-off of an equitable nature and that the Civil Procedure Code not being exhaustive as to rights of set-off, it is permissible. There is authority for that proposition in Subramanian Chettiar v. Muthuswami Aiyangar (1907) 17 M.L.J. 481. With the greatest deference to the learned Judges, I doubt whether it is advisable to introduce under the name of equity cases which appear to be rather one of hardship on the facts. The doctrine that there is a right of equitable set-off is well founded, but has always been confined to unascertained sums arising out of the same transaction. To give the words, 'equitable set-off' a wider meanin...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »