Chennai Court September 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.
M.K. Ramaswami Pattar Vs. Gopalan Styled Kallampalli Valia Nayar Averg ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-1916
Reported in: (1917)32MLJ97
1. The 1st plaintiff obtained a lease from the 2nd plaintiff the present Karnavan of the tarwad to which the defendants belong. It is found that the 1st plaintiff as a matter of fact, did not pay the Rs. 600 towards the consideration of the lease and the Munsif has also found that the lease was not a bona fide one. But it is contended by Mr. Ananthakrishna Aiyar that the question of consideration is not relevant so far as his client's right to recover possession from the defendants is concerned. The 2nd plaintiff on the decree being made dismissing the suit did not appeal against the decree. It is the 1st plaintiff that appealed to the lower Court. Therefore so far as the 2nd plaintiff is concerned even supposing that the 1st plaintiff had a bona fide lease we do not think that he is entitled to oust the defendants from possession. The defendants are in possession as junior members of the tarwad under an arrangement made sometime ago, by which they were given possession of this land in...
Vengu Naidu and ors. Vs. the Deputy Collector of Madura Division
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1916
Reported in: (1918)34MLJ279
Phillips, J.1. This is an application to consolidate the several appeals from awards passed by the District Judge of Madura on reference made to him by the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 18 of Act I of 1894. Several references appear to have been made to the District Judge, but they were all in connection with land taken up for the extension of Madura Town, except one with which we are not now concerned. The District Judge treated all the references as 47 separate petitions, and passed a separate award on each of these although they were all tried together and were disposed of in one judgment. It is not quite clear whether the Land Acquisition Officer divided up the references in this way, either of his own initiative or at the request of the District Judge or whether it was done by the District Judge himself.2. The first question argued is whether this Court has power to consolidate appeals. No express power to do ho is conferred by the legislature, but such power has been hel...
P.M.A. Rm. Muthiah Chettiar and ors. Vs. A.V.A. Chitambaram Chetti and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1916
Reported in: (1916)31MLJ688
1. We have already held in Nagappa Chettiar v. Chidambaram Chettiar (1916) 31 M. L J. 684 that the question when the agency terminates is a question of fact in each case. In this very case, the agent does not say that his agency terminated at the expiry of three years. The fact that certain inums or items of credit or debit were handed over at the place of business in foreign parts to the successor does not necessarily put an end to the agency of the predecessor. In this view, the case has to go back. We ought also to point out that the learned Subordinate Judge in the Court below was in error in holding that he had no power to allow the plaintiff to amend the plaint by setting up a latter referred to in the defendants' own written statement as an acknowledgment of liability on the ground that such amendment will take away from the defendants the benefit of the pleas of limitation which they would otherwise have for which he thinks Weldon v. Neal (1887) 19 Q.B.D. 394 is an authority. B...
Murali Doss Brijaratna Doss and ors. Vs. the Official Assignee of Madr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1916
Reported in: 43Ind.Cas.532
Abdur Rahim, C.J.1. I shall deal with the question of limitation first of all. It must be taken as settled law that until the Official Trustee intervenes, all transactions by a bankrupt after his bankruptcy with any person dealing with him bona fide and for value in respect of his after-acquired property, whether with or without knowledge of the bankruptcy, are valid against the trustee. This proposition was laid, down by Esher, M.R., in Cohen v. Mitchell (1890) 59 L.J.Q.B. 409 and has been accepted and followed in this country. See Sriramulu Naidu v. Andalammal 17 M.L.J 14. But, apart from such transactions, the law laid down in Herbert v. Sayer (844) 2 D. & L. 49, that the bankrupt acquires property and contracts for the Official Assignee's benefit, holds good not only in England but in India. In fact whatever property an insolvent acquires before his final discharge is as an agent and for the benefit of the Official Assignee. That being the position, I agree with the learned Chief J...
Annamalai Pathan and anr. Vs. Muthu Vijaya Raghunath Muthukumara Vanan ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1916
Reported in: 39Ind.Cas.427
1. The appellants, who belong to the family of the mortgagors, have taken the objection that the plaintiff, who is the present zemindar, ought to have joined his brothers as plaintiffs in suing on the mortgage executed in the late zemindar's favour. Even assuming that the property in question was common to all the descendants of the original mortgagee, the plaintiff as the managing member of the family would be entitled to sue on behalf of all the members without joining them as plaintiffs. Vide Kishen Parshad v. Har Narain Singh 9 Ind. Cas. 739 and Sheikh Ibrahim Tharagan v. Rama Aiyar 35 M.K 635.2. But in this case the plaintiff produced some evidence that the property was part of the impartible zemindari and as the defendants failed to rebut this, the lower Court found against them on the facts. The second appeal fails and is dismissed with costs....
Ramasami Aiyangar Vs. Govinda Iyer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-1916
Reported in: (1916)31MLJ839
Seshagiri Aiyar, J.1. Mr. Ganesa Aiyar takes the preliminary objection that the suit is for damages below Rs. 500 and that consequently there is no second appeal. In order to understand the nature of the suit, it ought to be stated that the plaintiff purchased the properties in suit in auction in September 1908. He was put in possession on the 15th January 1909. Exhibit D, the attakshi says that on the date of the delivery, tuvarai crops upon a portion of the property had been removed away and that the purchaser was put in possession of the lands and the crops on the remaining property. In the plaint, the plaintiff says that his cause of action for the harvested crops arose on the 3rd January 1909 and for the crops cut and carried away since delivery in February 1909. So far as the claim for the harvested cropsis concerned, it is taken away from the cognisance of the Small Cause Court by the second part of Article 31 of the second schedule to the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act. It ...
Abdul Kasim Vs. Thambusami Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-1916
Reported in: 37Ind.Cas.673
1. The second defendant was a party to the Small Cause suit in which the decree under execution was passed; and the lower Court's judgments were given, the District Munsif's allowing and the Subordinate Judge's dismissing his claim to the attached property.2. The first question is whether this appeal to this Court lies. We must hold that it does not with reference to Section 102 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Vide Aithala v. Subbana 12 M.S 116 . The second appeal (Appeal against Appellate Order), therefore, must be dismissed.3. Next he has also filed a revision petition and we have to consider whether the conditions postulated by Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure are fulfilled. We have been pressed only by one argument, which calls for notice, that the second defendant was not a party throughout the suit in which the decree under execution was passed and that, therefore, the enquiry into his claim was not held under Section 47 and no appeal lay. If the lower Appellate Court h...
Muthuswami Nadan and anr. Vs. Kalinga Muppan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1916
Reported in: 36Ind.Cas.158
ORDERSpencer, J.1. The Deputy Magistrate took cognisance of a dispute as to a right of way-falling under Section 147 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. Under Section 148 he directed a Subordinate Magistrate to hold a local enquiry. That Magistrate made the enquiry and submitted his report and, as provided by the section, it was read as evidence in the case.3. It is now alleged that the Deputy Magistrate acted without jurisdiction because he acted on the Sub-Magistrate's report and decided the case.4. The parties filed their written statements which were admitted and considered, and it does not appear that they tendered any evidence which the Magistrate refused. I am unable to see why it should be held that he acted without jurisdiction when his decision was based on the materials in the case. It is clear from the Sub-Magistrate's report that he did not go beyond the scope of the local enquiry and decide matters that he had no jurisdiction to decide.5. Secondly, it is urged that the e...
V. Ramaswami Aiyar Vs. the Madras Times Printing and Publishing Compan ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-1916
Reported in: 37Ind.Cas.655
Seshagiri Aiyar, J.1. This is a suit for damages for wrongful dismissal The plaintiff was appointed co-editor of the Madras Times in January 1912 for a period of ten years. He was dismissed from service on the 21st of February 1914. The learned Judge held that the dismissal was right. The appeal raises questions relating to the validity of the plaintiff's appointment and the competency of the Directors to dismiss him. It is not necessary to deal with these questions. The appeal can be disposed of on a shorter ground.2. Mr. C. P. Ramasami Aiyar, examined for the plaintiff, deposed thus:By the Court.You said that the plaintiff has not, to your knowledge, been employed elsewhere since leaving the Times?A.---Yes.Q.---Could he have obtained employment?A.---I do not think so at all.Q.---Why?A.---He cannot be a co-editor or manager of a paper elsewhere from my knowledge of him. He has not the qualifications for it.3. The plaintiff has not gone into the witness-box to swear to the contrary. We...
Abdul Rahim Sahib Vs. P. Gangathara Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-1916
Reported in: 37Ind.Cas.436
Krishnan, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of the City Civil Court, Madras, returning for presentation to the proper Court the plaint in Original Suit No. 262 of 1915, filed in that Court by the plaintiff-appellant. The defendant had applied under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act for an order of ejectment against the plaintiff and had obtained an order under Section 43 of that Act The plaintiff in his plaint alleges that he has a permanent right of occupancy on the land and is not liable to be ejected under the order of the Small Cause Court, and prays for a declaration of that right and for an injunction restraining defendant from executing the order of ejectment or in the alternative for a decree directing defendant to eject plaintiff only on payment of Rs. 1,500, the value of the superstructures erected by him on the land. At the time he filed his suit the ejectment order had not been executed and as he obtained a temporary injunction from the City Civil Co...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »