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.
Venkataswami Naidu Vs. Shanmugam Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad257; 43Ind.Cas.1
1. We are of opinion that the expression 'rejecting an application' in Order XLIII, Rule 1(d), signifies an immediate rejection and not a conditional or prospective rejection. The latter interpretation would lead to the dilemma pointed out under similar circumstances in Nannhu Mal v. Gulabo (1903) A.W.N. 225.2. We respectfully agree with the principle laid down in the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Jagarnath Sahi v. Kamta Prashad 23 Ind. Cas. 138. We think that it was the duty of the District Munsif to adjourn the case in order to take security and only to pass final orders after the party had tendered or failed to furnish sufficient security, and that the order made may be construed as contemplating further proceedings on the application. The decisions of this Court under the Succession Certificate Act (VII of 1889), Venkataswami Naik v. Chinna Narayana Naik 5 M.L.J. 28 and Ariya Pillai v. Thangammal 7 Ind. Dec. 313, were prior to the present Rules of Practice of 1905. The Le...
Chella Balayya Vs. Kanuparthi Subbayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1917
Reported in: 44Ind.Cas.813
1. The suit promissory note purports to be executed by defendant-appellant in virtue of the words on it 'Nishi, mark of Chella Subbayya.'2. There is in fact no separate mark. The plaintiff contends that the absence of one is immaterial and that he is at liberty to prove that the words referred to were written with defendant's authority and, therefore, constituted a valid execution of the instrument.3. As regards the 1st point, we cannot see and have not been shown authority for holding that any separate mark is essential, if the writing relied on is in fact written with authority.4. As regards the 2nd, no case has been cited to the effect that the ordinary law of agency stated in Section 226 of the Indian Contract Act is inapplicable to negotiable instruments, and Section 27, Negotiable Instruments Act, is to the contrary effect, its restrictive portion being irrelevant in the present connection. Radhakrishna Mudaliar v. Subraya Mudaliar 34 Ind. Cas. 849relied on by appellant, was deci...
Aiyavier Vs. Subramania Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad395; (1917)32MLJ439
Abdur Rahim, J.1. The 3rd defendant who died since the institution of the suit at the age of about 92 was the grandfather of the plaintiffs - 1st and 2nd respondents and divided brother of 1st defendant's father. He purported to make a settlement of the family property on 16th May 1911 by Exhibit A and the question under litigation was how far if at all it was valid and binding. Both the Courts have found that the settlement was not brought about by the exercise of fraud or undue influence on the part of the 1st defendant and I am unable to say that the finding is vitiated in law as contended for the 1st and 2nd respondents by the onus of proof being wrongly laid on them. The finding was arrived at on a consideration of all the circumstances and the evidence bearing on the point, and we are not at liberty to re-open it in second appeal. The Subordinate Judge, however, held that the settlement was validly revoked by the 3rd defendant by Ex. B inasmuch as according to him the 3rd defenda...
Panchapagesa Odayar and anr. Vs. Kanaka Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-1917
Reported in: 42Ind.Cas.344; (1917)33MLJ455
1. The 1st appellant, the 1st defendant in the suit is an undivided brother of one Venkataramana Oodayan who died in October 1908 and the 1st respondent, the 1st plaintiff claims to be the permanent concubine of Venkataramana Oodayan and the 2nd respondent (the 2nd plaintiff) is a child by the 1st plaintiff and claims to be the, illegitimate son of Venkataramana Oodayan. The suit was one for maintenance. The Subordinate Judge has given a decree awarding as maintenance Rs. 20 a month to the 1st plaintiff for life and Rs. 20 a month to the 2nd plaintiff till he attains majority. Mr. T. Rangachariar appearing on behalf of the appellants has contended that it is not proved that the 1st plaintiff was the permanent concubine of Venkataramana or that the 2nd plaintiff was his son. [Their Lordships then discuss the evidence.] * * * *2. We therefore agree in the conclusion of the Subordinate Judge that the 1st plaintiff was in the exclusive keeping of Venkataramana until his death and that the ...
Muthukrishna Naidu, Minor, by Mother and Guardian Janaki Ammal Vs. Kan ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad723; 39Ind.Cas.504
1. The lower Appellate Court was right in its view that the Rs. 500 debt due on the moiety of the plaint tributed over the plaintiff's one-fourth share and the grandfather's one-fourth share and there is nothing in the contention that the whole Rs. 500 should be charged on the plaintiff's one-fourth share alone.2. As regards mesne profits, the plaintiff was rightly awarded the. value of such profits with reasonable interest on the plaintiff's half (one-fourth share of the whole) of the other moiety, as that moiety was not affected by any charge binding on the plaintiff.3. As regards Rs. 70, being item 4 of the consideration for Exhibit I, it had admittedly not been paid before the decision of the lower Appellate Court which set aside the sale-deed Exhibit I, assuming that the othi debt of Rs. 70 was due to a third person. The 2nd defendant had no right to pay it (as he alleges that he had paid) after his sale-deed had been set aside by the decree of the lower Court. He cannot, in secon...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›