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.
Muthu Reddi Alias Duraiswamy Reddi Vs. Velu Asari and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-14-1916
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.591
Seshagiri Aiyar, J.1. The point for decision is whether it is open to the maker of a promissory note payable on demand to plead, against a holder in due course, that he paid the money to the payee before the endorsement. The learned Vakils who appeared on either side argued the question ably before me. The note in question is dated the 12th August 1912 and is for Rs. 200. Certain payments made towards it are endorsed on it. It is alleged by the defendants that some other payments made by them were, by mistake, not entered on the back of the note. The endorsement to the plaintiff was. on the 26th of August 1914. The defence to the suit was that the note was fully discharged before the endorsement and that the assignment was fraudulent. The Subordinate Judge framed no issue on the second plea. He held that on the date of the endorsement, nothing was due on the note and dismissed the plaintiff's suit against the makers.2. I am unable to agree with the Subordinate Judge. Mr. Natesa Sastria...
Selambayi Vs. Sangu Pandithan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-14-1916
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.147
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. Following Ahmad Sahib Shutari v. Magnesite Syndicate, Ltd. 29 Ind. Cas. 60 : 28 M.L.J. 598 : 2 L.W. 460 : 17 M.L.T. 387 I would hold that even if the plaintiff is not the sole owner of the plaint property, she is entitled to maintain her suit for an injunction against intending trespassers without joining her alleged co-owner or co-owners as parties, especially if she has been in sole actual possession, as found by the District Munsif, and was in such sole actual possession when the trespass was threatened and when the suit was brought. Mr. Thirunarayanachariar for the defendants drew our attention to certain authorities laying down that one of several co-parceners who inherited the plaint property as co-heir cannot maintain what is known as a 'real' action in English Law even against trespassers without joining his co-owners. In the first place, the present action for injunction is not a 'real' action. In the second place, I am not prepared to bring unnecessary di...
T. Kr. Ct. Chidambaram Chetty and ors. and K.A. Ct. Chidambaram Chetty ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-14-1916
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.543
Oldfield, J.1. These appeals all raise the same question. Original Suit No. 293 of 1912 for dissolution of partnership and an account was brought against the 1st to 7th defendants as partners and against the 8th to 10th defendants on the allegation that they were either partners or sub-partners and that in the latter event 'after dissolving suit partnership firm accounts should be taken in the manner binding them also'. The preliminary decree passed decided that they were sub-partners and so far no objection has been taken to it. It went on, however, to direct [vide paragraphs (c)and(d)] that (1) plaintiffs, a father and his minor sons, and 1st to 7th defendants, the partners, should file accounts, and apply for the appointment of a Commissioner and an account of the assets and liabilities of the firm should be taken and (2) an account should be taken as between 1st plaintiff and 8th to 10th defendants for ascertaining the amount due from the latter to the former. In Appeal No. 197 of ...
Pamulapati Venkatakrishniah Being Minor by Mother and Next Friend Mang ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-14-1916
Reported in: 36Ind.Cas.240
Napier, J.1. I adhere to the opinion expressed by me in the case reported as Jaganadha Sahu v. Rama Sahu 27 Ind. Cas. 747 : 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 woul...
Tallapragada Subba Row and anr. Vs. Gopisetti Narayanaswami Naidu Garu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-14-1916
Reported in: 36Ind.Cas.727
William 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 Exhibit A cannot be regarded as 'ryots' entitled to the benefit of Section 6, 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 ijaradar in Section 6, Sub-section C, of the Estates Land Act includes a person holding under a lease of...
Nellavadivu Ammal Vs. Subramaniya Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-13-1916
Reported in: (1916)31MLJ269
Oldfield, J.1. The first question is whether the appeal to the Lower Appellate Court should have been dismissed as out of time. It was undoubtedly first filed with proper stamp after the period allowed by the Limitation Act had expired. But appellant, having failed on 31-12-1914 in his application for leave to appeal as a pauper, on 4-1-1915 obtained three weeks' time for payment of court-fee and paid it within that period. The delay from 31-12-14 to 4-1-15 may be disregarded, because the court was closed on the days in question and the failure during them must be regarded as condoned by the subsequent order. The question is whether that order was legitimate.2. I think that it was and with reference to more direct considerations than those afforded by Section 5, Limitation Act on which the Lower Appellate Court has to some extent relied. It has further followed the reasoning of Farran C.J. in Bai Ful v. Desai Manorbhai I.L.R. (1897) B. 880 to the effect that the decision on the appella...
Nallavadiva Ammal Vs. Subramania Pillai and Eight ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-13-1916
Reported in: (1917)ILR40Mad687
Oldfield, J.1. The first question is whether the appeal to the Lower Appellate Court should have been dismissed as out of time. It was undoubtedly first filed with a proper stamp after the period allowed by the Limitation Act had expired. But appellant having failed on 31st December 1914 in his application for leave to appeal as a pauper, on 4th January 1915 obtained three weeks' time for payment of court-fee and paid. it within that period. The delay from 31st December 1914 to 4th January 1915 may be disregarded, because the Court was closed on the days in question and the failure during them must be regarded as condoned by the subsequent order. The question is whether that order was legitimate.2. I think that it was, and with reference to more direct considerations than those afforded by Section 5, Limitation Act, the Lower Appellate Court has to some extent relied (sic) the reasoning of Farran, C.J., in Bai Ful v. Desai Manorbhai I.L.R. (1898) Bom. 849 to the effect that the decisio...
Nellavadivu Ammal Vs. Subramania Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-13-1916
Reported in: 38Ind.Cas.617
Oldfield, J.1. The first question is whether the appeal to the lower Appellate Court should have been dismissed as out of time. It was undoubtedly first filed with proper stamp after the period allowed by the Limitation Act had expired. But appellant, having failed on 31st December 1914 in his application for leave to appeal as a pauper, on 4th January 1915 obtained three weeks' time for payment of Court-fee and paid it within that period. The delay from 31st December 1914 to 4th January 1915 may be disregarded, because the Court was closed on the days in question and the failure during them must be regarded as condoned by the subsequent order. The question is whether that order was legitimate.2. I think that it was and with reference to more direct considerations than those afforded by Section 5, Limitation Act, on which the lower Appellate Court has, to some extent, relied. It has further followed the reasoning of Farran, C.J , in Bai Ful v. Desai Manorbhai Bhavanidas 22 B.D 849 to t...
Manjunatha Chetty Vs. Appaya Alias Manuel Souza and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-1916
Reported in: 36Ind.Cas.988; (1916)31MLJ429
1. This is a suit for a declaration that the decree obtained by the defendant against the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 662 of 1907 was satisfied and for an injunction restraining the defendant from executing that decree. There is a third prayer which is valued at Rs. 5 and which runs in these terms:--'Granting any other reliefs which are not prejudicial to the plaintiffs and which the Court may think fit according to the circumstances of the case.' It is difficult to see what this prayer means.2. The defendant pleaded that he did not receive the money and did not agree to enter up satisfaction. The Munsif disbelieved the plaintiffs' story, but the Subordinate Judge has decreed the claim.3. An objection was taken by Mr. Adiga for the first time in this Court that the suit as brought is not sustainable. As the determination of this question did not involve the ascertainment of any facts, we heard arguments on it. We are of opinion that the objection is wellfounded. The question raised in the s...
P. Radhakrishna Mudaliar Vs. P. Subraya Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-1916
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.849; (1916)31MLJ357
1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Bake well, J. and raises a question of some importance as to whether under Section 50 of the Indian Succession Act, when the testator is a marksman or unable to sign his name, his mark as distinct from his signature may be affixed by any one but himself. The Wills Act XXV of 1838 which in this respect reproduced the provisions of the English Wills Act of I Vic. did not contain any express provision as to signature by means of affixing a mark where the testator was unable to write but merely required the will to be signed ' by the testator or by some other person in his presence and by his direction'. It was however well settled that under these provisions a testator unable to write might sign by affixing his mark. In Section 50 of the Indian Succession Act, probably on account of the great number of illiterate people in India, it was thought desirable to provide expressly for execution by affixing a mark and in that section three ways of executio...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »