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.
P.M.A. Muthia Chetty Vs. P.V. Kothandaramaswami Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-1916
Reported in: (1916)31MLJ347
Abdur Rahim, Offg. C.J.1. In this case the whole question is whether Mr. Justice Kumaraswami Sastri is right in refusing to admit in evidence a letter dated 17th February 1911 written by the 2nd defendant to the 1st defendant when the former deposited the titledeeds of his house with the latter in order to cover certain liabilities which he might incur in the course of business. The document is neither stamped nor registered and the learned Judge refused to take it in evidence on both these grounds. If the letter merely stated the terms on which the equitable mortgage was effected, I should be inclined to hold that it did not require any registration and should only be stamped on the basis of an agreement under Article 5 of the Stamp Act. It is the deposit of the titledeeds that creates an equitable mortgage and a letter or a writing which contains evidence of the transaction cannot be said to create or declare any right or interest in immovable property within the meaning of Section 1...
thevaraya Reddy and ors. Vs. Venkatachala Pandithan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-1916
Reported in: (1916)31MLJ548
Abdur Rahim, O.C.J.1. The only question in this appeal is whether the appellants having deposited the money due from them on a mortgage, under Section 83 of the Transfer of Property Act, can claim exemption from interest under Section 84 although they withdrew the amount afterwards. The money was left in Court for a year or more but the title of the respondents as legal representatives of the mortgagee was then in dispute. The suit which settled their right was not decided until after the appellants had withdrawn the money. Section 84 says ' when the mortgagor or such other person as aforesaid has tendered or deposited in Court under Section 83, the amount remaining due on the mortgage, interest on the principal money shall cease from the date of the tender or as soon as the mortgagor or such other person as aforesaid has done all that has to be done by him to enable the mortgagee to take such amount out of court, as the case may be '. The legislature has drawn a distinction between th...
The Secretary of State for India in Council Vs. Srinivasa Chariar and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-1916
Reported in: AIR1915Mad690; (1916)31MLJ483
Abdur Rahim, Officiating C.J.1. I agree in the judgment which my learned brother Seshagiri Aiyar, J. is going to read.Seshagiri Aiyar, J.2. The facts of the case are fully set out in the judgment of Spencer, J. The question on which the learned Judges differed relates to the right of the Government to levy seigniorage fee on the stones quarried from the lands of the plaintiffs. The village in which the lands are situated was granted by the Nawab of the Carnatic in 1750. It was enfranchised in July 1865. It is conceded that since the enfranchisement Government acquired lands of similar quality and description to those from which stones are quarried from the plaintiffs, under the Land Acquisition Act and paid them compensation (Ex. B.). This document also shows that the Government purchased stones quarried in the village from the plaintiffs. But after some preliminary correspondence, the Government claimed seigniorage fee at a particular rate and levied the same in or about November 1907...
Venkata Chetty Vs. Aiyanna Goundan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-1916
Reported in: 36Ind.Cas.817; (1916)31MLJ712
Abdur Rahim, Officiating C.J.1. The question referred to us is in these terms:--Whether a tenant who has executed a lease but has not been let into possession by the lessor is estopped from denying his lessor's title in the absence of proof that he executed the lease in ignorance of the defect in his lessor's title or that his execution of the lease was procured by fraud, misrepresentation or coercion? Mr. Justice Coutts Trotter, one of the learned Judges who made the reference, is of opinion that a tenant is altogether estopped from denying the title of the landlord who has let him into possession. So far there can be no doubt as to the law in India or in England. Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act which says ' No tenant of immovable property, or person claiming through such tenant, shall, during the continuance of the tenancy, be permitted to deny that the landlord of such tenant had, at the beginning of the tenancy, a title to such immovable property' is quite clear on the point...
Kovvuri Basivi Reddi and Five ors. Vs. Nidumoori Ramayya Et Al
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-1916
Reported in: (1918)ILR41Mad733
Seshagiri Ayyar, J.1. The facts of the case are not in dispute. The appellant, plaintiff, was taken in adoption by a ryotwari landholder. The patta for the lands in dispute stood in his name. After his death, the patta was transferred to the name of the adoptive mother. She did not pay the Government revenue, and the lands were brought to sale and purchased by the second defendant. The suit is to recover possession. The Subordinate Judge has found that there was no fraud on the part of the first defendant in allowing the property to be sold for arrears of revenue. We accept that finding. He has further found that the suit is barred by limitation as it was brought more than six months after the plaintiff attained his majority; vide Section 59 of the Madras Revenue Recovery Act.2. The main argument before us was that Section 59 of the Act has no application to the facts of this case. The property was admittedly sold when the plaintiff was a minor. Regulation X of 1831, Section 2, enacts ...
P.M.A. Muthiah Chetty Vs. P.V. Kothandaramaswami Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-1916
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.864
Abdur Rahim, Offg. C.J.1. In this case the whole question is, whether Mr. Justice Kuma-raswami Sastri is right in refusing to admit in evidence a letter, dated 17th February 1911, written by the 2nd defendant to the 1st defendant when the former deposited the title-deeds of his house with the latter in order to cover certain liabilities which he might incur in the course of business. The document is neither stamped nor registered and the learned Judge refused to take it in evidence on both these grounds. If the letter merely stated the terms on which the equitable mortgage was effected, I should be inclined to hold that it did not require any registration and should only be stamped on the basis of an agreement under Article 5 of the Stamp Act. It is the deposit of the title-deeds that creates an equitable mortgage and a letter or a writing which contains evidence of the transaction cannot be said to create or declare any right or interest in immoveable property within the meaning of Se...
The Secretary of State for India in Council Vs. Srinivasachariar and o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-1916
Reported in: 39Ind.Cas.337
Abdur Rahim Officiating C.J.1. I agree in the judgment which my learned brother Seshagiri Aiyar, J., is going to read.Seshagiri Aiyar, J.2. The facts of the case are fully set out in the judgment of Spencer, J. The question on which the learned Judges differed relates to the right of the Government to levy seigniorage fee on the stones quarried from the lands of the plaintiffs. The village in which the lands are situated was granted by the Nawab of Carnatic in 1750. It was enfranchised in July 1865. It is conceded that since enfranchisement, Government acquired lands of similar quality and description to those from which stones are quarried from the plaintiffs under the Land Acquisition Act and paid them compensation (Exhibit B). This document also shows that the Government purchased stones quarried in the village from the plaintiffs. But after some preliminary correspondence, the Government claimed seigniorage fee, at a particular rate and levied the same in or about November 1907. Th...
Kovouri Basivireddi and ors. Vs. Nidumoori Ramayya and anr.,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-1916
Reported in: 36Ind.Cas.445
Abdur Rahim, Offg. C.J.1. The question in these Letters Patent Appeals is, whether tha suits instituted to establish the plaintiffs right to certain moveable property attached by the judgment-creditors of a third person and for recovery of its value, the property having been sold in execution, within a year of the date of the order dismissing the plaintiffs claim preferred under the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, but more than a year from the date of attachment and of sale, is governed by Article 11 of the Limitation Act. The answer depends on whether recovery of the value of the property comes within the scope of a suit to establish, the right which the plaintiff claims to the property in dispute within the meaning of Rule 63 of Order XXI, Civil Procedure Code, and of Article 11 of the Limitation Act.2. It is contended that the only relief which can be given in such a suit is what the court which heard the claim could have granted under Rule 60, i.e., to release the property ...
The Official Assignee of Madras Vs. Vadavalli Ammal and C. Kesava Pill ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-1916
Reported in: 36Ind.Cas.524
Abdur Rahim, Offg. C.J.1. Mr. Justice Bakewell sitting in the Insolvency Court has held that under the new Insolvency Act III of 1909, he has no jurisdiction to try the question whether certain property situate outside the local limits of the original civil jurisdiction of this Court belongs to the insolvent, it being alleged by the Official Assignee that the purchase in the name of the insolvent's wife, effected three or tour years before the petition in insolvency was filed, was merely benami for the insolvent himself. He was of opinion that though admittedly the old Act 11 and 12 Victoria, Chapter 21, gave a discretion to the Judge sitting in the Insolvency Court to exercise jurisdiction in such cases over third parties, the present Insolvency Act has made a change in the law and all questions arising between the Official Assignee and third parties must be dealt with by the ordinary Civil Court which has jurisdiction over the matter. With all respect to the learned Judge, it seems t...
Neelakanta Row and ors. Vs. Narayanaswami Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1916
Reported in: (1916)31MLJ847
1. The plaintiffs as reversionary heirs of one Ramachandra Ekanadha brought this action to recover certain immovable property, the subject of this appeal, sold by Jamna Boi the widow of the last male owner. Ramachandra Ekanadha the last male owner died in 1833 leaving his widow Jamna Boi and a daughter Soma Boi, then an infant of two years or thereabouts. The sale was made to six persons in equal shares by six separate sale deeds on the 4th October 1860. The 10th defendant the principle contesting defendant (whom we shall hereafter call the defendant) has now acquired the whole of the properties now in dispute through several intermediate sales from the alienees of the widow. The learned Subordinate Judge in the Court below has dismissed the plaintiffs' suit in respect of these items on the ground that the sales were made by the widow to get money to pay for debts borrowed by her for the expenses of the marriage of her daughter and for the cultivation expenses of some of her lands whic...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »