Chennai Court July 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.
Meduru Brahmayya Vs. Vedulu Yellamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1916
Reported in: 36Ind.Cas.437
Seshagiri Aiyar, J.1. This case is typical of the want of care, precision and information with which execution applications are presented to Courts. The decree was passed on the 31st of March 1900. The applications, made from 1903 up to the one we are dealing with, were all dismissed owing to failure to comply with the requirements of the law. The application of the 22nd March 1912, just within a few days of 12 years, was so defective that the Court had to return it for amendment no less than six times. This went on till the 28th June 1912. On this date, the Subordinate Judge felt bound to dismiss the application, as the particulars he called for were not furnished. A perusal of the B diary shows how negligent was the conduct of these proceedings. Then we enter upon another stage. On the 8th of July, an application for restoration was presented, accompanied by affidavits which are as inadequate as any can be. Here again, the B. Diary shows that the Court had to return the petition for ...
Reguna Nagendran Chetty and ors. Vs. Kuppusami Aiyen and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1916
Reported in: 36Ind.Cas.593
Krishnan, J.1. The only ground taken by Mr. Sen in arguing this application for review is that the case of Gilbertson & co. v. Anderson & Coltman 18 T.L.R. 224.is an authority to show that we were mistaken in holding that the delivery order in this case was a document of title to the goods to which it relates. But the case cited has no application to the present' case because the goods in that case were never in existence and naturally a delivery order in respect of goods which are not in existence cannot be a document of title to any goods. In that case it was held that a subsequent endorsee of the delivery order could not sue the maker for shortage and that the delivery order did not amount to a warranty by the maker that the goods were in existence. In the present case the goods were in existence had been ascertained, and were the property of Naina in the custody of the defendant Rowther. The delivery order is made by rowther on himself to deliver to Naina or bearer and 16 was not d...
Kamakshi Ammal Vs. Pitchu Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-1916
Reported in: (1916)31MLJ561
1. The defects in this application dated 27th July, 1911 are regarded by the Subordinate Judge as serious but in our opinion they were not calculated nor intended to mislead the court, for if the dates of the applications in 1907 and 1908 had been correctly stated, the applications would still be found to be within 3 years of the preceding and succeeding applications and therefore the defects would not be material.2. Following the decisions in Rama v. Varada (1904) 14 M.L.J. 245 Narayanaswami Naidu v. Gantayya I.L.R. (1902) M. 322 and Gopisetti Narayanaswami v. Muthala Venkataratnam (1914) 83 L.J. Ch. 28 we think that an execution petition returned for amendment but not represented may yet give a fresh starting point for limitation.3. We do not consider that O. XXI, Rule 17 in the Civil Procedure Code of 1908 was intended to affect the construction put upon the words ' applying in accordance with law' in the Limitation Act by this Court and by other High Courts in dealing with defects ...
Venkati Rama Reddi and ors. Vs. Pillati Rama Reddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-1916
Reported in: (1916)31MLJ690
1. We answer the question referred to us ' whether a deed of gift registered by the donee after the death of the donor without the consent of the legal representatives of the donor is valid ' in the affirmative. The learned Judges who referred the case have fully discussed the question and it is not necessary for us to go into the matter at any length. Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act says ' For the purpose of making a gift of immovable property, the transfer must be effected by a registered instrument signed by or on behalf of the donor and attested by at least two witnesses'. There is nothing in this section which requires the donor to have the deed registered; all that is required is that he should have signed the registered instrument. Once such an instrument is duly executed, the Registration Act allows it to be registered even though the donor may not agree to its registration and upon registration the gift takes effect from the date of execution. The doctrine that a d...
Kamatchi Ammal Vs. Pichu Iyer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-1916
Reported in: (1916)ILR35Mad876
1. The defects in the application, dated 27th July 1911, are regarded by the Subordinate Judge as serious, but, in our opinion, they were not calculated nor intended to mislead the Court, for if the dates of the applications in 1907 and 1908 had been correctly seated, the application would still be found to be within 3 years of the preceding and succeeding applications, and/therefore, the defects would not be material.2. Following the decisions in Rama v. Varada 16 M.K 142 and in Narayanaswami Naidu Garu v. Kovidi Gantayya 32 Ind. Cas. 691 and in Gopisetti. Narayanaswami Naidu Oaru v. Muthyala Venkataratnam 32 Ind. Cas. 816 we think that an execution petition returned for amendment but not re-presented may yet give a fresh starting point for limitation.3. We do not consider that Order XXI, Rule 17, of the Civil Procedure Code of 1903 was intended to affect the construction, put upon the words 'applying in accordance with law' in the Limitation Act, by this Court and by other High Court...
Muthu Reddi and ors. Vs. Muthu Venkatapathi Eddi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-1916
Reported in: (1916)31MLJ354
1. The plaintiffs sue as ryots, owning the occupancy right in the suit lands and the Lower Courts have held that they gave defendants, their tenants, valid notice to quit and are entitled to recover possession, rent and profits. The defendants first and main contention before us depends on the following facts, which have been admitted or found:--The mirasi or occupancy right in lands in the suit village belongs to the first and 2nd plaintiffs, each owning an unascertained moiety of it. First plaintiff and his predecessors have owned their moiety from time immemorial. Second plaintiff acquired hers as stridhanam from her father in 1873. There is no connection between their titles, though it is a fact that second plaintiff married a member of 1st plaintiff's family. The plaintiffs sue together, as tenants-in-common of the whole village and co-owners of the whole occupancy right. First plaintiff's predecessor however became entitled to the Zamindari, in which the suit lands are, by purcha...
Ramachandra Naidu Vs. Tirupathi Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-1916
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.614
1. In this case the petitioner sought to save limitation by treating as steps-in-aid of execution two execution petitions in which the decree-holder prayed for the arrest of the judgment-debtors in spite of the fact that the decree to be executed did not make the defendants personally liable. The lower Courts ' have dealt with the case on the basis that execution petitions asking for a relief which the executing1 Court was not competent to grant, are not in accordance with law.' The present is not a case of competence or incompetence. It has been held, in cases where the decree did not give the relief asked for, that an execution petition may yet give a fresh starting point for limitation, e.g., applications to sell properties not liable to be sold and applications against a deceased judgment-debtor. Vide Varadiah T. v. Rajakumara Venkata Perumal (1914) M.W.N. 157: 26 M.L.J. 83 and Samia Pillai v. Chockalinga Chettiar 17 M.k 76.2. Any mistake or error in an execution petition will not ...
Mohamad Rowther Vs. Pichai Rowther and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-1916
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.624
1. This is an application by an assignee decree-holder to execute the decree. It is found that the assignment was benami for one of the judgment-debtors. On this finding bin application was rightly dismissed under Order XXI, Rule 16. The transferee must first prove his right before lie can be allowed to execute and it is only then any question of adjustment by payment arises. See Bayyana Ramayya v. Nidamarthi Krishnamurthi 32 Ind. Cas. 952 : 3 L.W. 186 : 19 M.L.T. 124. The appeal against the appellate order is dismissed with costs....
Kota Balabadra Patro Vs. Khetra Doss and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-1916
Reported in: 25Ind.Cas.401; (1916)31MLJ275
1. The question in this appeal is whether an alienee of a co-parcener in a joint Hindu family is entitled to possession of the alienor's share as a tenant-in-common. There can be no doubt that so far at least as this Presidency is concerned that he has no such right, It has been ruled in a series of decisions that his only right is to obtain by a suit for partition, the share to which his alienor was entitled. He is allowed to stand in the shoes of the co-parcener whose rights he has acquired and thus the equities are worked out between the parties. The point is covered by recent decisions of this Court. In Maharaja of Bobbili v. Venkataramanujulu Naidu I.L.R. (1914) M. 265. s.c. 27 M.L.J. 409, it was ruled by Wallis, Chief Justice and Kumaraswami Sastri, J. that a purchaser of the undivided share of a member of a joint Hindu family does not thereby become a tenant-in-common with the other members. Sankaran Nair, J. and Bakewell, J. in Nanjaya Mudali v. Shanmuga I.L.R. (1914) M. 684. s...
Ponnambala Moothan Vs. Mahadeva Pattar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-1916
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.697
1. In this case plaintiff applied for amendment of a decree which was against three defendants by increasing the costs and interest awarded to him. He failed in the lower Court, and his application to the High Court was rejected. This is a Letters Patent Appeal against that order. Pending this appeal one of the defendants-respondents died and no proper steps were taken to bring his legal representatives on record in time. The appeal, therefore, has abated as against him under Order XXI1, Rules 4 and 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, read together. The preliminary objection is taken by the other respondents that this appeal cannot go on and must be dismissed as the legal representatives of the deceased respondent are necessary parties to this appeal. The application from which this appeal arises is to amend a decree passed against three defendants as above stated. It is not possible to amend that decree without having on record and hearing all of them on the point. We cannot allow a pa...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »