Chennai Court April 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.
Maddala Madhayarayudu Vs. Tanikalla Subbamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1916
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.124
1. The property in dispute belonged to one Addanki Naganna. He first mortgaged it to the father of defendants Nos. 3 and 4 and subsequently to the plaintiff. The father of defendants Nos. 3 and 4 brought a suit on his mortgage against Naganna, the mortgagor (Suit No. 486 of 1897). Plaintiff was not a party to ttiat-suit. During the pendency of the suit Naganna died. The suit was continued against one Saryanarayanamurthy, the divided brother's son of the deceased Naganna. The 1st defendant is the daughter of Naganna. But she was not made a party to the suit after her father's death. A decree was obtained by the father of defendants Nos. 3 and 4 against Suryanarayanamurthy, and in execution of that decree, the equity of redemption in the property was purchased by the father of defendants; Nos. 3 and 4. The 7th defendant's deceased father purchased it from, the, father of defendents Nos. 3 and 4 and has been in possession. The case for the plaintiff is that the decree obtained in the prev...
The Secretary of State for India in Council Represented by the Collect ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1916
Reported in: (1916)31MLJ120
1. It was sought to be argued before us that the finding as to the publication of the proclamation is not warranted by the evidence. We see no force in this contention.2. In the view taken by the Pull Bench, the further question arises whether the attachment by the Government takes away the right of the 3rd plaintiff to claim a share in the property. The property is found to have been ancestral. It is also found that at the time of the attachment, namely July 1898, the second plaintiff was in the womb. The 3rd plaintiff was born some years after. On these facts the point for decision is whether the Government obtained an absolute right to the share of the 1st plaintiff as on the date of the attachment so as to deprive the 3rd plaintiff of his share on partition. The answer to this question is not free from difficulty. It is well-settled that an attachment by a Civil Court in execution of a decree does not confer a lien on the attaching creditor. Is the attachment under the Code of Crim...
Kotam Reddi Seetamma Vs. Vannelakanti Krishnaswami Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-1916
Reported in: (1916)31MLJ240
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The defendant is the appellant, the plaintiffs having obtained a decree in the lower courts for the specific performance of an alleged contract made by the defendant in favour of the plaintiffs to grant a lease of the plaint lands for a term of 12 years.2. I do not think that the plaint relies upon any oral agreement to give a lease of the plaint lands, independent of the 'letter' (agreeing to give such a lease) which was executed by the defend-ant. The written statement while admitting the genuineness of the letter, expressly states that the letter is legally ineffective for want of registration.3. Ordinarily, when the terms of a contract preceded by pro-posals, negotiations, conditional acceptances, counter proposals and so on, are reduced finally to the form of a document, signed by one or both of the parties, the strong presumption is, not that there are two independent contracts, (the first an oral contract and the second, the written contract), but that the w...
Laxmipathaya Vs. Ramachendra
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-1916
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.421; (1916)31MLJ311
1. The plaintiff as Moktesor of a temple sues to eject the 1st defendant. Among other pleas the defendant contended that he is a mulgeni tenant and is not liable to be ejected. He also denied that his defence was not barred by res judicata. To understand this last contention, it is necessary to state that the present plaintiff sued the present 1st defendant and others on a previous occasion to recover possession: The District Munsif and the District Judge held that the 1st defendant was only a chalgeni tenant and must surrender possession (O.S. No. 77 of 1903 and A.S. No. 274 of 1905). In Second Appeal (S.A. No. 155 of 1906), the High Court held that the notice determining the tenancy was insufficient and refused to decree possession. Hence the plea of res judicata.2. The District Munsif in the present case has come to the conclusion that the 1st defendant was only a chalgeni tenant and gave a decree to the plaintiff. On appeal both on the merits and on the plea of res judicata, the Di...
Moturi Seshayya and ors. Vs. Sri Rajah Venkatadri Appa Row Bahadur, Ze ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-1916
Reported in: (1916)31MLJ219
1. These appeals arise from suits between a land-lord and his tenants and the material issue in them is as to the rate of rent. There has been a previous adjudication in 1895 between the same parties by a court which, it is conceded, had jurisdiction, which expressly decided the issue as to the rate of rent. The adjudication is pleaded by the landlord as res judicata and he claims that a finding in the present suit on the issue as to the rate of rent should be entered in accordance with the previous adjudication; but it so happens that there was a still earlier adjudication in 1893 on the same issue between the same parties by a competent court, in which a different finding was arrived at. This was not pleaded in the later suits. The tenents plead that there being two conflicting judgments neither of them could be pleaded as res judicata and the court in the present suit was bound to try the issue and come to a conclusion on the evidence which may be placed before it. We think that, on...
Maruthai Goundan and anr. Vs. Dasappa Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-1916
Reported in: 36Ind.Cas.393; (1916)31MLJ375
Bakewell, J.1. The question in this case is whether a sale-deed and an agreement executed on the same day constitute a mortgage by conditional sale. The sale-deed is not only an absolute conveyance of the proparty but contains recitals which show an intention to extinguish a prior mortgage between the same parties and to discharge the vendors' obligations to other parties and a statement that the sale price is the ' proper current market value' of the land.2. These provisions are inconsistent with an intention that the transfer was for the purpose of srcuring the payment of money advanced by way of loan (Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Section 58(a) ). 3. The agreement for reconveyance states that the appellants' father had purchased the property for Rs. 1,500 and provides that ' if you or your Oollittar or your heirs should pay the afore-said amount at the beginning of the cultivation season of any year within four years from this day, I shall re-convey the lands to you by means of a ...
V. Rangasami Naidu and anr. Vs. Sundarajulu Naidu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-1916
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.52; (1916)31MLJ472
Srinivasa Aiyangar, J.1. This action was brought for a declaration that certain immoveable properties attached by the 1st defendant, in execution of a decree obtained against the second (a brother of the plaintiff) did not belong to him, but to the plaintiff. The plaintiff's case is and that is found to be true by both the Courts below, that his two elder brothers the 2nd and 3rd defendants in the action were separated by his father Krishnaswami Naidu, that thereafter the plaintiff and his father continued to be members of a joint Hindu family, that one of the suit properties belonged to them as ancestral property and the other was acquired by them and became joint family property and that neither of his two brothers had any interest in them. Originally the 1st defendant the holder of the decree against the 2nd defendant was alone made a party to the action. There was an appeal by him to the District Court, Coimbatore and the then District Judge directed the brothers of the plaintiff t...
Kotamreddi Seetamma Vs. Vannelakanti Krishnaswamy Row and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-1916
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.18
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The defendant is the appellant, the plaintiffs; having obtained a decree in the lower Courts for the specific performance of an alleged contract made by the defendant in favour of the plaintiffs to grant a lease of the plaint lands for a term of 12 years.2. I do not think that the plaint relies upon any oral agreement to give a lease of-the plaint lands, independent of the 'letter' (agreeing to give such a lease) which was executed by the defendant. The written statement, while admitting the genuineness of the letter, expressly states that the letter is legally ineffective for want 'of registration..3. Ordinarily, when the terms of a contract preceded by proposals, negotiations, conditional acceptances, counter-proposals, and so on, are reduced finally to the form of a document signed by one or both of the parties, the strong presumption is, not that there are two independent contracts (the first, an oral contract and the second, the written contract), but that the...
Dinvahi Lakshmipati and anr. Vs. Pingal1 Narasimham and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-1916
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.898
1. It was held in Gunnaiyan v. Kamakchi Ayyar 26 M. 339 that an inam, granted for service became the hereditary property of the grantee and that the conditions restraining alienation applied only as between him and the Crown. Consequently, if the property in suit before its enfranchisement was trespassed upon by a stranger, the latter would acquire a title to it by prescription under Section 28 of the Limitation Act, as against the person entitled to its possession.2. Mr. Nagabushnam, relying upon Bhaiji Thakur v. Jharula Das 24 Ind. Cas. 501 : 27 M.L.J. 100 : (1914) M.W.N. 636 : 16 Bom. L.R. 845, contended that as the property appertained to the office, adverse holding of it would not give a right to it as against the office-holder entitled to possession. The answer to this contention is that the inam, although it was originally granted for service, was not attached to the office in the sense in which lands granted for performing a religious service in a temple are attached to the ser...
Moturi Seshayya and ors. Vs. Sree Rajah Venkatadri Appa Row Bahadur, Z ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-1916
Reported in: 36Ind.Cas.289
1. These appeals arise from suits between a landlord and his tenants and the material issue in them is as to the rate of rent. There has been a previous adjudication in 1895 between the same parties by a Court which, it is conceded, had jurisdiction, which expressly decided the issue as to the rate of rent. The adjudication is pleaded by the landlord as res judicata, and he claims that a finding in the present suit on the issue as to the rate of rent should be entered in accordance with the previous adjudication; but it so happens that there was a still earlier adjudication in 1893 on the same issue between the same parties by a competent Court, in which a different finding was arrived at. This was not pleaded in the later suits. The tenants plead that there being two conflicting judgments, neither of them could be pleaded as res judicata and the Court in the present suit was bound to, try the issue and come to a conclusion on the evidence which may be placed before it. We think that, ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »