Chennai Court January 1917 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.V. Naganatha Sastri Vs. N.P. Subramania Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad700; (1917)32MLJ392
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. These two connected appeals arise out of the same suit brought by the plaintiff, a leading Vakil of the Tanjore bar, for the recovery of Rs. 2,000 for damages for the libel contained in a letter sent to the Madras Standard by the Defendant and published hi that paper on the 22nd August 1912 The letter is marked as Ex. A in the case. The District Munsif awarded Rs. 500 damages and full costs. Both sides appealed and the learned Subordinate Judge on appeal reduced the damages to Rs. 10 but awarded full costs to the plaintiff in the defendant's appeal and dismissed the plaintiff's appeal without costs. In the defendant's Second Appeal No. 1349 of 1915 Mr. G.S. Ramachandra Aiyar argues that only the last 11 lines of Exhibit A were intended by him to refer to the plaintiff and that even as regards the matter contained in those 11 lines his letter amounts to a fair comment bona fide upon the plaintiff's conduct as vakil putting forward arguments in a particular mode in a...
Ghulamsa Ravuthar and ors. Vs. S.M.R.M.S.V. Visvanathan Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad524; 40Ind.Cas.347
1. The first objection raised in these appeals is that the plaintiff's firm was not entitled to maintain the suits, inasmuch as the promissory notes on which the suits are based are made out in the name of 'S.M.R.M.S.V. Raman Chetty', the contention being that the payee that is intended is Raman Chetty, the agent of the firm, indicated by the letters prefixed to his name, and not the firm itself. The question is entirely one of construction. We have to consider whether when the notes purport to be made payable to S.M.R.M.S.V. Raman Chetty what was intended was that the payee was to be the firm as indicated by the letters of the vilasam and represented by Raman Chetty the agent, or whether the payee was to be Raman Chetty who was in fact the agent of the plaintiff's firm. No evidence has been adduced in this case as to any particular usage obtaining among the Nattukottai Chetties, in describing the firm either as maker of the promissory note or as payee. But there is a decision Mungamal...
Chikkam Ammiraju and ors. Vs. Chikkam Seshamma and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad414; 34Ind.Cas.578; (1917)32MLJ494
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The defendants are the appellants. The only question in this case is whether the release-dead Ex. A. was executed by the plaintiffs with their free consent or whether it was obtained from the two plaintiffs (mother and son) through the exercise of coercion or undue influence or both, brought to bear upon them by the defendants (the younger brothers of the 1st plaintiff's husband) and their father Doraiyya through the 1st plaintiff's husband Swami who threatened to commit suicide unless the plaintiffs executed the release deed (Ex-A) in respect of their reversionary rights in certain lands which the 1st plaintiff's mother had sold without necessity to the defendant's father's vendor.2. The lower Courts found (a) that the 1st plaintiff's husband (the 2nd plaintiff's, father) did threaten to commit suicide if the plaintiffs would not execute the release deed and that it was on account of that threat working on their minds that the plaintiffs executed the deed; (b) tha...
Kandasami Naicker Vs. Irusappa Naicker and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-1917
Reported in: (1917)33MLJ309
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The first defendant is the appellant. The plaintiff sued in ejectment basing his title on a. sale-deed of 1893 (Exhibit A) executed to him by the mother of the defendants Nos. 2 and 3. The plaintiff was in possession till 1909 when he was ejected forcibly by the first defendant who had obtained a sale-deed from the 2nd defendant in 1908 (Exhibit II). The sale-deed (Exhibit II) was executed by the second defendant for himself and also for the 3rd defendant who was then a minor. The second defendant attained majority in 1903, while the third defendant attained majority about the end of 1911 or the beginning of 1912. The suit was brought in July 1912.2. The sale-deed by the mother of the defendants 2 and 3 to the plaintiff was executed by her as guardian of the 2nd defendant alone, the 3rd defendant (the posthumas son of his father) not having been born then. The statement of the District Judge in paragraph 2 of his judgment that the plaintiff's sale-deed was executed...
S. Nathamuni Pillai Vs. Vengammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad657; 40Ind.Cas.358
Napier, J.1. In my opinion, the view taken by the Muusif and upheld by the District Judge that the right of redemption can only be exercised on payment of the whole of the mortgage amount is correct. The mortgage-bond, Exhibit A, is perfectly easy to understand. A sum of Rs. 3,000 was borrowed. The property was obviously not of sufficient value to discharge the interest which the mortgagee required from the usufruct and so the usufruct was to be applied to the payment of only half the interest. With respect to the interest on the balance of Rs. 1,500, the mortgage is treated as a hypothecation bond and the interest is calculated at one per cent, a month. Then the final provision is that both sums are to be paid in one lump on the same day, 10 years afterwards, and the bond is entitled 'usufructuary hypothecation bond.'2. Mr. Ramachandra Aiyar has sought to make two mortgages out of this transaction and suggests that the fact that these two mortgages are contained in one document does n...
Appanna Prasada Panda Vs. Appanna Mahapatro and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad730; 40Ind.Cas.145
1. The lower Appellate Court has decided the appear on the single ground that the suit is barred by Article 44 of Schedule I of the Limitation Act which runs as follows: 'By a ward who has attained majority, to set aside a transfer of property by his guardian.' It has been held by the Privy Council in Gharib-ullah v. Khalak Singh 25 A 407 : 30 I.A. 165 : 5 Bom. L.R. 478 : 7 C.W.N. 681 : 8 Sar. P.C.J. 483 that there cannot be a guardian of a minor's interest in an undivided Hindu family, for the simple reason that such an interest is not individual property at all. Mr. Narasimham argues that this ruling only applies to the appointment of a guardian by a Court. But the reason applies with equal force to the case of a person claiming guardianship by natural right. Applying this rule we must hold that the sale of the minor plaintiff's property by J. Panda under Exhibit I was not the act of a guardian of property, whatever it purported to be: and following Kathaperumal Thevan v. Ramalingj, ...
Rja Sugutur Immidy Pedda Chikka Royal Yeshowan Bahadur and anr. Vs. Ra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1917
Reported in: 43Ind.Cas.654
1. In this case we agree with the District Judge that the deed, Exhibit A, settling the provision to be made for the then zemindar's brother of Rs. 2,400 does not confer any heritable right. Mr. Krishnaswamy Aiyar has been unable to refer us to any words in the document which could bear that construction. What the document does, is to recognize the right of the junior member to an allowance of Rs. 100 according to the custom of the family for maintenance and to provide, more or less as a matter of favour, that he should have another Rs. 100 as well. The arrangement was come to, at the time when the zemindir and his brother were minors, by their mother. There is no ambiguity in the grant. In certain cases where the grant was not forthcoming, the fact that payment has been made for successive generations has been held to be evidence from which a permanent heritable grant might be presumed. Hut here we have the grant and as we read it, it is simply a grant for life. We do not think there ...
S. Sundaram Ayyar, Receiver of the Tanjore Palace Estate Vs. Ramachand ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad435; (1917)32MLJ333
John Wallis, C.J.1. The repealed Rent Recovery Act VIII of 1865 contained in Section 1 a comprehensive definition of 'land-holders,' and proceeded to regulate the relations of certain classes of land-holders enumerated in Section 3 with their tenants, as those holding under them were called, leaving other land-holders unrestricted. The classes who were made the subject of this special legislation were broadly speaking, with one exception, assignees of land revenue, and ordinary Government ryots paying the full assessment direct to Government were unaffected. In the present Act the line is drawn by the definition of estate in Section 3(2) which has been adapted from the definition of estate in Section 4 of the Madras Proprietary Estates Village Service Act II of 1894. Clause (d) restricts the operation of the Act by including only the inams therein mentioned thereby excluding the so-called minor inams, but the definition as a whole clearly shows the general intention of the legislature ...
The Chalapuram Bank, Ltd., Through Its Managing Proprietor K.C. Sreeve ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad720; 40Ind.Cas.549
Oldfield, J.1. The main question argued is whether this suit is sustainable or is barred by Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code; and I, therefore, follow the lower Courtis in dealing with it with reference only to the plaint and a few documents necessary to its understanding, assuming the truth of the allegations made.2. In 1912, the late Zamorin of Calicut arranged with his Bank,, the defendant-appellant, that it should satisfy a decree, in connection with which his property had been attached. The Bank, however, did not satisfy the decree, but obtained an assignment of it and afterwards recouped itself for the amount spent in doing so by deducting it from the Zamorin's next instalment of maliltana or revenue, which was received to its credit in March-April 1912. The pending execution petition was, therefore, disposed of on 1st April, and the Bank on 28th June obtained recognition of its assignment in the order in Exhibit U. The present Zamorin, the plaintiff-appellant, succeeded on...
Nochulliyil Eazhuvan theethisson theethalan Vs. the Eralpad Rajah Styl ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-1917
Reported in: (1917)32MLJ442
John Wallis, C.J.1. The question raised in this appeal is whether mortgagees with possession from lessees are liable to the lessor for rent. The Subordinate Judge has held that they are liable on the ground that privity of estate exists between them. In this I think he is clearly wrong. Privity of estate is a technical term of English law, and it is clear that under that law no such privity arises unless the whole of the lessee's interest is assigned over. Where a subsidiary interest is carved out of the lessee's interest no fresh privity arises. For instance there is no privity of estate between a lessor and a sub-lessee. Where the lessee mortgages his whole lease-hold interest, privity arises in English Jaw, because there the mortgage is by conveyance with a right to a reconveyance, and therefore the whole interest of the lessee is assigned to his mortgagee; but, as this is not considered a desirable state of things, conveyancers prevent such privity of estate from arising by making ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »