Chennai Court August 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.
Panakkal Iyyappan and anr. Vs. Elachar Chakkunnt
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-1916
Reported in: 41Ind.Cas.556
Abdur Rahim, J.1. The decisive question in these appeals is whether the Will Exhibit X of one Chakkunni, dated the 18th December 1905, is revoked by a later Will of his, Exhibit A, dated the 24th September 1907. He also executed another Will Exhibit H between these two dates, i. e., on the 26th November 1936. I have used the Exhibit marks in the appeal against order The testator resided in the State of Cochin and had properties not only there but also some in British India. The latter properties he devised to his wife Elachar by Exhibit X, the earliest Will, by the next Will Exhibit H, he devised to her 38 items of property for her maintenance and by the last Will Exhibit A he gave all the rights which I have in the moveable and immoveable properties which I own this day and in those which I may acquire in future, inclusive of the right of succession similar to that which I have, and the freed Dm to buy and to alienate will pass to the children of my younger brother's daughter Panakkal...
A.R.P. Narayanan Chetti and ors. Vs. Kana Pana Veeanna Rana Virappa Ch ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1916
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.918; (1916)31MLJ386
1. The facts are fully stated in the Judgment of the Lower Court and it is unnecessary to restate them. Two points are taken for the appellant in the appeal.2. First it is contended that the discharge of the bankrupts under Straits Settlements Bankruptcy Ordinance by the Singapore Court does not operate as a discharge from the debts in this country. It is conceded that the discharge operates as an extinguishment of the debt and not merely as a bar of the remedy so far as Singapore is concerned. The plaintiffs and the defendants are trading at Singapore, the debts were contracted there and were payable there. The plaintiffs proved their debts under the bankruptcy, received dividends and were really parties to the order of discharge. In these circumstances a release of the debt under the Bankruptcy Law of Singapore is a discharge of it everywhere. The fact that the parties have their domicile in this country and the defendants have some property, here is immaterial. The rule is, we think...
Kalyana Venkataramana Ayyangar and anr. Vs. Kasturiranga Ayyangar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1916
Reported in: (1917)ILR40Mad212
Seshagiri Ayyar, J.1. This is a suit by two worshippers of the temple for a declaration that a perpetual lease of temple-income in favour of the defendants is void and not binding on the Devasthanam. The defendants Nos. 1 to 9 represent the members of the Devasthanam Committee who granted the lease on the 9th September 1893. Defendants Nos. 10 to 15 are the representatives of the archakas of the temple who obtained the lease. The trustee of the temple has not been made a party to this litigation. It is undisputed that the temple in question came under the management of the Committee only in 1882. At the time of the lease, Srinivasa Ayyangar, one of the archakas of the temple, was the trustee.2. A number of defences was raised to the action. It was pleaded that the collections leased out really belonged to the archakas and that the arrangement by which a sum of Rs. 300 a year was secured in perpetuity to the temple was beneficial to the temple. The further contentions were that the suit...
A.R.P. Narayanan Chettiar and Seven ors. Vs. K.P.V.R. Veerappa Chettia ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1916
Reported in: (1917)ILR40Mad581
1. The facts are fully stated in the judgment of the Lower Court and it is unnecessary to restate them. Two points are taken for the appellant in the appeal-2. First it is contended that the discharge of the bankrupts under Straits Settlements Bankruptcy Ordinance by the Singapore Court does not operate as a discharge from the debts in this country. It is conceded that the discharge operates as an extinguishment of the debt and not merely as a bar of the remedy so far as Singapore is concerned. The plaintiffs and the defendants are trading at Singapore. The debts were contracted there and were payable there. The plaintiffs proved their debts under the bankruptcy, received dividends and were really parties to the order of discharge. In these circumstances a release of the debt under the Bankruptcy Law of Singapore is a discharge of it everywhere. The fact that the parties have their domicile in this country and the defendants have some property here is immaterial. The rule is, we think,...
K.A.N. Chidambaram Chettiar Vs. Krishna Vathiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-15-1916
Reported in: (1917)32MLJ13
Abdur Rahim, Officiating C.J.1. I would answer the question referred to the Full Bench in the affirmative. Order XXI, Rule 2 which, speaks of a decree being adjusted in whole or in part assumes the existence, of the decree at the time of adjustment. But it has no application to cases in which the alleged adjustment was by virtue of an agreement entered into between the parties before the passing of the decree. See Rama Ayyan v. Sreenivasa Pattar I.L.R. (1895) M. 230. Then it is said that it is the duty of the executing Court to enforce the decree as it stands and it has no power to stay proceedings in execution because of an agreement made while the suit was still pending and in contemplation of a decree being passed in favour of the plaintiff. Order XX Rule 11 says that after a decree for money-which is the nature of the decree in this case - has been made, the Court can postpone payment of the amount decreed only with the consent of the decree-holder. But the Court here referred to i...
Sivasubramania Aiyar Vs. Subramania Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-15-1916
Reported in: (1916)31MLJ530
Abdur Rahim, Officiating C.J.1. The question referred to us must be answered in the negative. Section 55, Sub-section 4, Clause (6) of the Transfer of Property Act says that in the absence of a contract to the contrary, the vendor shall have a charge upon the property in the hands of the buyer for the amount of the purchase money or any part thereof remaining unpaid. In this case the vendor has asked the purchaser to pay the unpaid purchase money to a certain creditor of his. It is not alleged that the creditor accepted the liability of the purchaser of the property in substitution of the vendor's own liability. But the purchaser as between himself and the vendor has accepted the obligation to pay the purchase money according to the vendor's direction. It has been held by the Privy Council in Webb v. Macpherson I.L R. (1908) C. 67, that the statutory charge created by Section 55 of the Transfer of Property Act is not to be negatived except where there is a contract to the contrary, eit...
Kalyana Venkataramana Aiyangar and anr. Vs. Kasturi Ranga Aiyangar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-15-1916
Reported in: (1916)31MLJ777
Abdur Rahim, Officiating C.J.1. the question referred to the Full Bench is in these terms: ' can the present suit be maintained at the instance of the plaintiffs acting neither on the relation of the Advocate-General nor with the sanction prescribed by Section 18 of the Religious Endowments Act, but merely suing on behalf of themselves and of other worshippers of the temple?' It appears from the plaint in this suit that the Devastanam Committee of the Temple of Venkataramana Swami in Tandoni Hill near Karur, now represented by defendants 1 to 9, granted on 9th September 1893 what is called a perpetual lease of the right to collect, offerings made by the pilgrims in cash and in gold and silver jewels, to defendants 10 to 14 who are the Archakas and Stanikas. It is alleged that the alienation of what is a chief source of income of the temple is highly detrimental to its interests, was beyond the power of the Committee and is not binding on the temple.2. The main reliefs which the plainti...
Mygapula Ganganna and ors. Vs. Sri Rajah Uppalapati Venkata Vijaya Gop ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-15-1916
Reported in: (1916)31MLJ870
Spencer, J.1. I have had the advantage of reading the judgment which my learned brother is about to deliver and I agree with him in thinking that it is not necessary that we should call upon the District Judge's successor to rehear these appeals and deliver a fresh Judgment. The questions at issue are really quite simple. It has been clearly found that no occupancy rights were ever possessed in these lanka lands before the Madras Estates Land Act I of 1908 came into force. The question then arises:--Did the tenants acquire occupancy rights in consequence of the introduction of the Act?2. The auction sale lists are dated 16th and 17th July 1908, but assuming that the letting to the successful bidders was intended to have effect from the beginning of Fasli 1318, that is, from 1st July 1908, it would still be letting 'after the passing of the Act;' for as held in Second Appeal No. 1760 of 1912 by Sadasiva Aiyar, J. and myself the Act was passed on 28th June 1908 when it received the assen...
Arakkalakath Koyatto and ors. Vs. Panigalatt Kunhammad
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-15-1916
Reported in: 37Ind.Cas.664
1. The melkanomdar has redeemed the prior kanom and in so doing has had to pay for improvements made by the kanomdar and he seeks to recover the same from the jenmi.2. His plea that when the melcharth was executed the jenmi misrepresented that he had carried out the repairs and that there was nothing more than Rs. 600 due to the kanomdar, has been found against. The plaintiff did not seek to avoid his own melkanom in consequence of having had to pay for improvements, and in this view, the lower Courts rightly found that his suit was premature.3. It is now sought to make a cause of action out of a personal covenant in the kanom deed (Exhibit B) by the jenmi to pay for repairs, the melkanomdar having succeeded to all the rights of the kanomdar, when he redeemed his mortgage under Section 74 of the Transfer of Property Act. But as we read Exhibit B, the jenmi has not undertaken to pay these sums until he pays the mortgage money, and it cannot be contended that he has been called upon to d...
The South Indian Mills Company Limited by Its Managing Director T. Sri ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-1916
Reported in: (1917)ILR40Mad706
1. The Appeal against Order No. 266 of 1915 is against an order appointing an official liquidator for the winding up of a company. Appeal against Order No. 265 of 1915 is against the Lower Court's order refusing a rehearing of these appointment proceedings. Both the appeals purport to be preferred by the company through its Managing Director. There is a preliminary objection to them that the company having been ordered to be wound up and the winding-up order having been confirmed by this Court, neither the company nor its director can prefer such appeals. The objection is, in our opinion, valid. Section. 141 of Act VI of 1882, under which the proceedings took place, provides that, after an order for winding-up has been made until an official liquidator has been appointed, all the property of the company shall be deemed to be in the custody of the Court. Section 137 provides that the winding-up order shall be deemed to be notice of discharge to the servants of the company except (what i...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »