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.
Mahomed Silar Sahib and Co. by Mahomed Silar Sahib Vs. Nabi Khan Sahib ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-1916
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.157; (1916)31MLJ93
Oldfield, J.1. Reason has not been shown for dissent from the statement of the law by Bashyam Iyengar, J. in Periasami v. Krishna Ayyan I.L.R. (1901) M. 431 that 'a payment out of Court to one only of several joint decree-holders cannot bind the others,' unless he was also constituted by them an agent for the purpose; and, as explained by the learned Judge with reference to the case before him, the mere fact that one of the joint decree-holders is the managing member of the family consisting of the joint decree-holders will not empower him to give a discharge of the decreedebt without the concurrence of the remaining members It has not been shown how any relevant distinction can be drawn between the position of a manager and that of a member of a partnership in this respect. The conclusion must therefore be against the validity of the payment to two out of the three partners pleaded by the Judgment-debtor in this case.2. As the payment pleaded would not in any event be valid, it is use...
Subbiah Chetty Alias Subramaniam Chetty and ors. Vs. Kuppammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-1916
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.104; (1916)31MLJ437
1. We see no reason to differ from the Court below in the conclusion it has arrived at that there was no good ground for adjourning the case.2. On the merits Mr. G. Krishnaswami Iyer raised practically a new point. His contention is that so long as the date fixed for the payment of the principal money has not arrived, it is not open to the mortgagee to sue for interest alone. He relies on the provision for enhanced interest as pointing to the inference that interest also became payable on the date that the principal fell due. As we read the document, it is clear that there was a distinct contract to pay interest every month and a further stipulation that that monthly interest should be at a higher rate, in case the payment of interest was not regular. Thus there was ' a contract to the contrary ' and consequently Section 67 of the transfer of Property Act does not affect the question. The decision in Kannu v. Natesa I.L.R. (1891) M. 477 proceeded on the construction which the learned J...
In Re: Kolandaivelu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-1916
Reported in: (1917)ILR40Mad1030
1. We are of opinion that the decisions in Madras High Court, Appellate Side Proceedings, 21st March 1871 (1871) 6 M.H.C.R Appx. xx and Queen-Empress v. Yohan I.L.R. (1894) Mad. 391 which were accepted in Queen-Empress v. Paul I.L.R. (1897) Mad. 12 were rightly decided. In our opinion the Act was intended to apply to the marriages of all Christians in India, including marriages where only one of the parties is a Christian. Section 4 expressly says that:any marriage between persons, one or both of whom is or are a Christian or Christians, shall be solemnized in accordance with the provisions of the next following section and any such marriage solemnized otherwise than in accordance with such provisions shall be void.and Section 68 merely provides a penalty for solemnizing or professing to solemnize such a marriage contrary to the provisions of the Act. Offences under the section may vary very widely in gravity, and it has been considered necessary, as in England, to provide a very heavy...
D.L. Sooryaprakasalingam Garu Vs. Shaw Trikamlal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-1916
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.625
1. The case for the plaintiff is that the 1st defendant entered into a contract with him on the 8th of April 1909 to supply 151 bales of cotton twist of a particular quality manufactured by the Raipur Mills within 75 days of the contract, that the 1st defendant was one of the partners of a firm of brokers in Ahmedabad of which the 2nd and 3rd defendants are the remaining members and that as the defendants failed to perform the contract as agreed upon, the plaintiff is entitled to damages from them.2. The defendants raised various contentions. The 1st defendant denied the suit contract in toto. All the defendants demurred to the jurisdiction of the Court and contended that the 1st defendant was a minor at the time of the contract, that he was not a partner, that he had no authority to bind the other partners. The most important defence is thus stated: The yarn mentioned in the plaint cannot be had at Ahmedabad and so it was impossible to perform the contract and, therefore, the contract...
Poomalai Udayan and ors. Vs. Karuppa Servai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-1916
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.921
1. The sale-deed in question related to a sale of an interest less than Rs. 100 in value, and its registration was therefore optional (Registration Act, Sections 17 and 18). Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, provides that a transfer of land of a value less than Rs. 100 may be made either by a registered instrument or by delivery; accordingly an unregistered instrument unaccompanied by delivery will not operate as a transfer; but no provision of law has been cited which prohibits such a document from being admitted in evidence of the contract of sale. Section 49 of the Registration Act deals only with documents required by Section 17 to be registered. We think that the present case differs from that of Muthukaruppan Samhan v. Muthu Samban 25 Ind. Cas. 772 : (1914) M.W.N. 768, that there is clear evidence and a finding that there was an oral sale and a transfer of the property or delivery of possession, and the document was merely in corroboration thereof.2. The second ap...
Manikkam Pillai Vs. Thanikachalam Pillai (Dead) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-1916
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.945
1. The lands of both the plaintiff and defendant temples were formerly in the possession of the same trustee, but on his death in 1894, new trustees of the defendant temple were appointed. No trustees of the plaintiff temple were appointed until 1900, but it is found that the son-in-law of the former trustee continued to manage the lands and did poojah, in the temples and he was also the servant of the trustees of the defendant temple and that the latter exercised certain acts of ownership in respect of the lands and appropriated the rent. Since, however, there were no properly constituted trustees of the plaintiff temple, there was no person with knowledge of the acts of the defendants or capable of taking proceedings necessary for the protection of the suit property and, therefore, possession was not adverse until the appointment of trustees in 1900. [See Jagadindra Nath Roy v. Hemanta Kumari Debi 7 Bom. L.R. 765 and Peria Aiya Ambalam v. Shunmugasundaram 22 Ind. Cas. 615 : 26 M.L.J....
Kathan Muthirian and ors. Vs. Sivabaghiathammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-1916
Reported in: 36Ind.Cas.782
1. One Kathan Muthirian had two sons, Subramanian and Maruthamuthu. The father acquired considerable properties by his own exertions. He made a Will (Exhibit A) on the 16th July 1893, by which he gave his two sons the A and B schedule properties absolutely. He set apart the C and D schedule properties for performing certain services in the Jambukeswarar temple. He directed that each of his sons should in alternate years contribute Rs. 250 for the performance of these services and that the surplus income should be enjoyed by them absolutely. Subramania had a son, Ponnusami, by his first wife. His widow is the plaintiff in this case. The defendants are Subramania's sons by his second wife, Ponnusami was addicted to bad habits, and consequently the father entered into a partition with him. It is a matter to be decided whether this partition was by any deed, or whether it was oral, or whether it was effected by a deed of release executed by Ponnusami to his father. On the 30th July 1904, P...
Nara Reddiar Vs. Doraiswami Reddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-14-1916
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.301; (1916)31MLJ96
Seshagiri Aiyar, J.1. The argument in this Revision Petition is that as the promissory note recites that cash was received for the execution of the note, it is not open to the plaintiff to prove that the consideration was different from what was recited in the document. Reliance was placed for this purpose upon a decision of this Court reported in Adityam Aiyar v. Ramakrishna Aiyar I.L.R. (1913) M. 511 s. c. 25 M.L.J. 602. All that was decided in that case was that by oral evidence, it is not open to the parties to add to the amount of the consideration mentioned in a document. The question as to whether the actual nature of the consideration that passed between the parties can be proved by oral evidence was not considered in the case. It is settled law that the recital in a document as regards consideration having been paid in a particular way can be proved to have been falsely made. It is enough to mention in this connection the decision of the Judicial Committee reported in Lal Acha...
Tallaparagada Subba Row and anr. Vs. Gopisetti Narayanaswami Naidu Gar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-14-1916
Reported in: (1916)31MLJ339
Ayling, J.1. I have had the advantage of perusing the judgment which my learned brother is about to deliver; and I agree with him in holding that persons possessed of an interest in land of the nature indicated in Ex. A cannot be regarded as 'ryots' entitled to the benefit of Section 13 Clause (1) of the Madras Estates Land Act and that on this ground the suit must fail.2. I also agree that appellants are entitled to refund of excess court fee claimed by them.Napier, J.3. This was a suit under Section 55 of the Estates Land Act brought against the Receiver of the Nidadavole Estate by the two plaintiffs who were the successful bidders at an auction lease for the enjoyment of Purushottapalli Lanka for the faslis 1317 to 1319. The District Judge has upheld the decision of the Deputy Collector dismissing the suit, the reason given by the District Judge being that the term Izaradar in Section 6 Sub-section 6 of the Estates Land Act includes a person holding under a lease of this nature and ...
Pamulapati Venkatakrishniah (Minor Represented by Mother and Next Frie ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-14-1916
Reported in: (1917)ILR40Mad698
Napier, J.1. I adhere to the opinion expressed by me in Jaganadha Sahu v. Rama Sahu (1914) 17 M.L.T. 80 on the same words as are in this document. I have no doubt that there is in this endorsement an acknowledgment. I cannot accept the argument, that Section 20 of the Limitation Act IX of 1908 prevents the operation of Section 19. It is argued that this is a special provision limiting the application of Section 19 and taking part-payments out of Section 19. I cannot treat these sections as being one general and the other special. Section 19 only operates as against the person making the acknowledgment, while Section 20 makes the part-payment good in favour of any suit on that liability. The second difference is that an acknowledgment need not be addressed to the person entitled; while under Section 20, the payment is, of course, not a payment unless made to the person entitled. It is clear, therefore, that Section 20 has a wider operation and that would account for the Legislature requ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »