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.
Thangavelu Mudaliar Vs. Mahomed Ibrahim Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1916
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.759
1. The purchaser in execution of a money-decree passed in one suit (which might be called suit X) between decree-holder A and judgment-debtor B is not the representative of the judgment-debtor B in suit Y when he prefers a claim petition when the properties are or have been attached in execution of the money-decree passed in suit Y between decree-holder A and the judgment-debtor B, though the judgment-debtors are the same in both suits. He (the purchaser) cannot, therefore, take advantage of the provisions of Section 47. Civil Procedure Code, and claim a right to prefer an appeal and a second appeal against the decision in the claim petition in the Y suit. [See observations in Nadamuni Narayana lyengar v. Veerabhadra Pillai 8 Ind. Cas. 429 as to under what particular circumstances a Court auction-purchaser can be treated as representative of the decree-holder or judgment-debtor and as to what proceedings can be considered as falling under Section 47, Civil Procedure Code, though a Cour...
Mian Saib Levvai Vs. Gopalier and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1916
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.558
1. Without going into the question whether the decision in Paupayya v. Narasannah 2 M.L 216 is correct or not, the only point directly decided in that case was that the principal whose agent obtained a decree in his own name cannot be treated as the decree-holder and cannot make such an assignment of the decree as will entitle the assignee to execute the decree.2. We think that Ghulzari Lal v. Daya Ram 9 A. 46 was rightly decided and the recognition of a transferee from an unrecognized transferee seems seldom to have been objected to in practice see Kothandapani Naidu v. Kuppusawmi Naicker 23 Ind. Cas. 951 where no objection such as prevailed with the District Court in this case seems to have been taken.3. We set aside the District Judge's decision and remand the case for disposal by the District Court of Appeal Suit No. 385 of 1914 on its file after considering the other questions (such as limitation, benami, etc.,) raised in that appeal.4. Costs will abide....
Kodali Bapayya Vs. Kodali Akamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1916
Reported in: 36Ind.Cas.255
John Wallis, C.J.1. This case raises the question whether a reversioner, who has allowed his right of suit to declare an alleged adoption invalid to become barred under Article 118 of the Limitation Act, is entitled, when subsequently the alleged adopted son in conjunction with a widow of the last male owner executes a mortgage of the estate, to sue the mortgagor and mortgagee for a declaration that the mortgage is not binding on the reversioner. The right to sue for a merely declaratory decree is now regulated by Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, which allows of such a suit by any one entitled to any legal character or to any right as to any property against any one denying or interested to deny such legal character or right of property in cases where consequential relief is not obtainable, and leaves it in the discretion of the Court whether the decree should be passed or not. The section must be construed liberally and illustrations (e) and (f) show that it includes suits by th...
Soundarajan, Minor by Next Friend Krishna Pillai Alias Krishnaswami Pi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1916
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.794; (1916)30MLJ592
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment of Ayling, J. who dismissed Second Appeal No. 1191 of 1914 filed by the plaintiff in a suit brought by him for recovery of 2/3rd share in certain properties, the remaining 1/3rd share having already been recovered by the plaintiff's elder brother in suit No. 241 of 1906.2. The facts are a little complicated but the material ones might be shortly stated thus:(a)The plaintiff's father sold away all his then remaining properties to one Sawmi Aiyangar for Rs. 4,000/- under a sale-deed dated February 1885.(b) Sawmi Aiyangar brought O.S. No. 221 of 1887 for possession of the properties so sold. Razinamah decree was passed that on payment of a certain amount within a certain date, Sawmi Aiyangar should give up his claims over the lands. But if the plaintiff's father failed to make the payment Sawmi Aiyangar was to get possession of the properties through the Court, his purchase being upheld. Plaintiff's father failed to...
Puzhakkal Thirupurath Veluthakkal Chirudevi daughters and Ors. Vs. Puz ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1916
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.818; (1916)31MLJ879
Seshagiri Aiyar, J.1. I have listened with interest to the resume of the case law regarding the liability of tarwad property to partition given by Mr. Anantakrishna Iyer. From 1814 onwards, it has been regarded as accepted law in this High Court that, unless all the members of a tarwad consent, there can be no partition of the tarwad property. The decisions to which Mr. Anantakrishna Aiyar drew attention, namely those which give rights to the Anandravans of a tarwad to question alienations made by the Karnavan are not decisions which help the disruption of a tarwad; but are rather decisions which tend to preserve the property of the tarwad. These rights have been recognized by Courts of Law in Anandravans for the express purpose of enabling them to see that the tarwad property is not wasted or damaged or alienated to their prejudice. I do not think that those cases are a halfway house to the contention that it is open to any member of a tarwad to sue for a partition of the family prope...
Sivakolundu Pillai Vs. Ganapathi Iyyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1916
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.302
1. A contention is raised by the learned Vakil for the appellant that the decree was not transferred for execution to the Trichinopoly Sub-Judge and hence he had no jurisdiction to pass an order for the sale of the property which he had attached on the strength of a precept from the Court which passed the decree, namely, the Kumbakonam Sub-Court. This contention 'was not raised in the lower Court or in the memorandum of appeal to this Court, and we must presume that all necessary steps had been taken to invest the Trichinopoly Sub-Court with jurisdiction to sell the property, especially as we find a reference in the execution petition to an application of January 1915 made to the Kumbakonam Subordinate Court to transmit records to the Trichincpoly Subordinate Court.2. It is further contended that simultaneous execution of the same decree cannot take place in two Courts and that the decision of the Privy Council in Saroda Prosaud Mullick v. Luchmeeput Sing Doogur 14 M.I.A. 529 allowed o...
Sri Rajah Sethrucherla Rama Chaddra Raju Bahadur Garu and ors. Vs. Sri ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1916
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.411
1. This is an appeal from the decree of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Vizagapatam, in a suit by the mortgagee to enforce his security. The facts which raise the questions for determination in this appeal are not in dispute. Exhibit A and B are two mortgages executed on the 4th January 1906 and 4th July 1911 by the defendants to the plaintiff to secure the principal sum of rupees five lakhs and one lakh twenty thousand respectively; they may, however, be taken as one mortgage inasmuch as the terms or the one were incorporated in the other. The mortgagors agreed to pay the principal amount on the 4th of January 1916 and to pay interest in the meantime year by year on the 4th of January each year. If the interest or the principal was not paid on the due dates, the mortgagee was entitled to take possession of the mortgaged properties and out of the net profits, to pay himself the interest due, and appropriate the balance, if any, to the principal. There is a stipulation in Exhibit B on th...
Valluri Narasimha Rao Pantulu Garu Vs. the Secretary of State for Indi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1916
Reported in: 36Ind.Cas.219
1. This appeal arises in a suit instituted by the plaintiff, who is the appellant before us, in order co have it declared that certain lands now in possession of the kamams are not resumable by the Government. His case is, that they are darimila inams, or inams granted subsequent to the Permanent Settlement and, therefore, the Government has no fight to resume them. The learned District Judge found against the appellant, merely on the ground that because the zemindari in which the inam is situated was resumed after the Permanent Settlement and re-granted in 1836 to the predecessor-in-title of the present zemindar of Yelamanchili, The state of things to be taken into account is that of 1836 and not of 1802 Upon the evidence, there seems to be very little doubt that the inam in question cannot be traced to 1802. The earliest date to which it can be traced is 1819, that is, subsequent to the Permanent Settlement. The Government have not produced the papers and accounts relating to 1802, a...
The Secretary of State for India in Council Vs. Rajah of Venkatagiri
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1916
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.266
John Wallis, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a decree of the District Judge of Nellore declaring that the defendant, the Secretary of State for India in Council, is not entitled to resume or assess to public revenue inams or lakhiraj lands, other than village service inams enfranchised under Madras Act II of 1994, within the Venkatagiri Zemindari, or to any reversionary right in such inams, and restraining the defendant and his officers from holding any investigation into such inams and dealing with them under the Inam Rules or resuming and assessing them to public revenue. The main questions in the, case were, whether these inams were included in the grant to the plaintiff's predecessor by the sannad Exhibit C, dated 24th August 1802, whether, if so, the grant was invalid as opposed to the provisions of Regulation XXV of l802, and lastly, whether in any case the question was not res judicata in favour of the plaintiff. The circumstances which led up to the grant of the sannad Exhibit C ...
Gudimolla Rangamma and anr. Vs. Panchangam Narasimhacharyulu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-1916
Reported in: (1916)31MLJ26
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The defendants 1 and 2 are the appellants. The 1st plaintiff brought the suit for recovery of possession of the plaint sites (A) and (B) for himself and for the other Agraharamdars of the village (defendants 3 to 13) on the following allegations:--(a) That the Agraharamdars gave the suit sites for temporary residence to one Tulasi Lakshmanacharyulu and (b) that the defendants 1 and 2 are in wrongful possession after the death of Tulasi Lakshmanacharyulu.2. As I said the reliefs prayed for are for ejecting the defendants 1 and 2 from the suit sites and for delivery of possession of the said suit sites jointly to the plaintiff and to the defendants 3 to 13.3. One of the defences raised by the defendants 1 and 2 was that the present suit is barred as res judicata by reason of the decision in a prior suit brought by another Agraharamdar Venkatacharanacharyulu (O.S. No. 78 of 1910 of the Gudivada District Munsif' s Court). The present 1st plaintiff was the 4th defendant...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »