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.
Marwadi Mothiram (Died) and ors. Vs. M. Samnaji (Died) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1916
Reported in: (1916)31MLJ772
Krishnan, J.1. This appeal arises from a suit brought by one Motiram for damages for malicious prosecution and for maliciously obtaining a search warrant in that prosecu-tion. The lower Court dismissed the suit but without costs. Motiram appealed but pending his appeal, he died. His sons were added as his legal representatives on record.2. At the hearing a preliminary objection is taken by the respondents that the appeal has abated as the cause of action, being a personal one, did not survive to Motiram's heirs under the maxim 'actio personalis moritur cum persona.' The appellants on record, while admitting that the action is a personal one, contend that their appeal has not abated because the maxim quoted should not be applied to India as it is a technical rule of English Jurisprudence and because Section 89 of the Probate and Ad-ministration Act as construed by the High Court of Calcutta in the case reported in Krishna Behari Sen v. Corporation of Calcutta I.L.R. (1904) 0. p. 993 sho...
Sree Mahant Prayag Doss Jee Varu Vs. Ravur Chengama Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1916
Reported in: 37Ind.Cas.456
Abdur Rahim, Offg. C.J.1. I agree in the judgment which my learned brother is going to read.Krishnan, J.1. In this appeal we have a case of competition for possession between a first mortgagee who purchased the properties in execution of his own mortgage-decree against the owner and a second usufructuary-mortgagee, whose mortgage was before the decree and who was not a party to the 1st mortgagee's suit or decree but who had taken a new usufructuary mortgage after the date of the decree from the owner.3. The material facts on which the question in this case arises are undisputed and are these. The plaint lands were part of the zemindari of Karvetnagar. The then Raja and his eldest son executed a simple mortgage-deed, Exhibit A, of the plaint lands in 1S77 for Rs. 18,000 in favour of two persons whose interest is now represented by the plaintiffs. In 1884 the said son who had then become the Raja gave a usufructuary mortgage, Exhibit I, for Rs. 14,00,000 to the then mahant of Tirupati, w...
A. Bhagirathi Nethiar Amma and anr. Vs. M.M. Minakshi Nethiar Amma and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-1916
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.891; (1916)31MLJ438
1. In this case, the District Munsif passed a decree in an Original Suit. Against that decree, an appeal was preferred and the appellate Court confirmed the decision of the District Munsif. After the confirmation of the decree, an application was made to the District Munsif to amend the decree. It is settled law in this Presidency that where a decree is confirmed by the Appellate Court, the decree liable to be amended is only that o'f the Appellate Court and not that of the court of first instance, The District Munsif had therefore no jurisdiction to entertain the application for amendment of the decree of the Appellate Court. Mr. Kutti Krishna Menon drew my attention to a decision in Visvanatha Chetty v. Ramanathan Chetti I.L.R. (1901) M. 646, which says that after amendment, the decree can be appealed against and contended that the proper course which should have been adopted by the present petitioners was to have preferred an appeal against the amended decree and that they should no...
A.S. Aiya Nadar Vs. Tenammal by Guardian Sanganna Nadar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-1916
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.939
1. The only objection to the lower Court's order, which, in our opinion, merits detailed reference, is that 2nd respondent is ineligible for the Receivership, because be is guardian of the incapacitated 1st defendant.2. No doubt in some English cases Stone v. Wishart 54 E.P. 258 and incidentally in Taylor v. Oldham (1882) 1 Jac. 527 the proposed Receiver was held, disqualified for that reason. But there is, so far as we have been shown, no inflexible rule; and several instances of the contrary view being taken are referred to at page 951, Seton on Judgments and Orders, (7th Edition, Volume II). In Rukmani Ammal v. Advocate-General of Madras 31 Ind. Cas. 908 a Bench of this Court refused, independently of the English authorilies, to recognise the rule as binding. The whole circumstances of the particular case must be looked at, and the Appellate Court will not in any case interfere lightly with an appointment, unless a general principle can be shown to have been infringed. Cookes v. Coo...
Saminatha Asarl Vs. G. Gopalakrishna Aiyengar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-1916
Reported in: 37Ind.Cas.750
1. We cannot agree with the lower Appellate Court's conclusion that the application by the widow enured for the benefit of the adopted son, the present petitioner. For the cases they have relied on relate either to the representation of the real judgment-debtor by some other person or to the representation of the decree-holder by a person not claiming hostilely against him, as the widow was against petitioner. The authorities in question being irrelevant, we have not been shown any other ground on which the widow can be treated as the representative of the petitioner to the prejudice of the judgment debtor. We allow the appeal, set aside the lower Court's decision and dismiss the execution petition with costs throughout....
In Re: T. Nagalinga Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-1916
Reported in: (1916)31MLJ426
1. This is a motion under Section 45 of the Specific Relief Act of 1877 asking for an order in the nature of a writ of Mandamus for compelling the Commissioner of Police, Madras to issue a license to the petitioner to conduct the procession with music of Sri Ellamman temple Goddess in Triplicane through certain streets. The history of this matter is as follows:--The temple in question is in the middle of a district which in recent years has become increasingly populated by Muhammadans. In the year 1912, the musical procession which went directly past the Muhammadan mosque in Mallan Ponnappa Mudali Street, gave rise to a very serious disturbance. In consequence of that, in the succeeding years, the Commissioner of Police prohibited the procession to go past that mosque, which involved the missing out from the route of some part of Mallan Ponnappa Mudali St. and a certain length of Agathi Muthan Street. In 1914, the Dharmakartas of the temple brought a suit in the City Civil Court in ord...
Ayiroor Swaroopathinkal Ayiroor Malika Kovilakath Randaman Kunhunni Al ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-1916
Reported in: (1916)31MLJ733
Oldfield, J.1. This suit was brought by the plaintiffs appellants, to recover property on behalf of a Devaswom alleged to be the property or to be under the management of themselves and defendants Nos. 9 to 11 ; and the main defence was that the property is held by the 1st defendant on a valid mortgage, which is still outstanding.2. The facts are that the property was first mortgaged by the predecessor of the 9 th defendant, the present Karnavan of the Kovilagam, in 1905 under Exhibit I ; and that 9th defendant compromised a suit, which he brought in 1908 to set Exhibit I aside on obtaining modifications of certain of its terms, which are embodied in Exhibit L. The first contention before us is that Exhibit 1 superseded the original mortgage Exhibit I, but created no fresh mortgage relation and that the property, thus freed, should therefore be restored to plaintiffs.3. Exhibit 1 is executed only by the 1st defendant, the mortgagee ; and, if it purported to supersede Exhibit I and were...
Sri Sri Sri Ramachendra Marda Raja Deo Garu Minor by His Agent and Nex ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-1916
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.640
Spencer, J.1. These suits were brought by the Zemindar of Kallikota and Attagada against certain ryots of his estate for the recovery of arrears of rent under Section 77 of the Madras Estates Land Act. From the printed papars, the admissibility of which is- not disputed, it appears that what happened was this.2. On the 22nd January 19i2, certain ryots applied under Section 74 of the Act to the Deputy Collector to depute a Government Officer to make a division of the crops on their holdings, alleging that the estate officials had over-estimated the crop for the current fasli, that the ryots not agreeing to the estate's estimate sent a notice to the taluk officer to have the crop estimated by mediators within two days of the receipt of their letter, stating that, if he would not do so, the crop would be cut and heaped in the threshing-floor, and that, as no one had come ' within six days, they had got the crop estimated by respectable persons and had cut and heaped it on the threshing-fl...
Mohammad Maraikkar Vs. the Official Receiver and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-1916
Reported in: 36Ind.Cas.828
1. As regards the sale evidenced by Exhibit II the case is clear and we cannot add anything to the lower Court's discussion of it. Its order regarding Exhibit II is confirmed.2. As regards the mortgage Exhibit III, dated 8th September 1909 the question is whether Section 26, Provincial Insolvency Act is applicable when the order adjudicating 2nd respondent insolvent was passed on 24th July 1912 We will assume, though we do not decide that for the purpose of Section 16(6) the date of the adjudication can with reference to Section 16(6) be treated as that on which the insolvency petition was presented. But even then the Official Receiver respondent's argument requires the further assumption that the petition was presented not on 20th September 1911 when it was presented in the Court having jurisdiction but on 15th August 1911 when it was presented to a Court having none. This assumption has been justified by reference to Section 14 Limitation Act. But that section relates only to computa...
The Secretary of State for India in Ocuncil Vs. C.A. Mahadeva Sastrial
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-1916
Reported in: (1917)32MLJ411
Abdur Rahim, Officiating C.J.1. The answer to the questions asked in the Order of Reference depends on the interpretation of Section 1 of the Madras Irrigation Cess Act' VII of 1865. That section is as follows : (a) 'Whenever water is supplied or used for purposes of irrigation from any river, stream, channel, tank or work belonging to, or constructed by, Government and also (6) whenever water by direct or indirect flow or by percolation or drainage from any such river, stream, channel, tank or work from or through adjoining land irrigates any land under cultivation or flows into a reservoir and is thereafter used for irrigating any land under cultivation, and, in the opinion of the Collector, subject to the control of the Board of Revenue and of the Government, such irrigation is beneficial to, and sufficient for the requirements of, the crop on such land it shall be lawful for the Government to levy at pleasure on the land so irrigated a separate cess.' The preamble says 'Whereas, in...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »