Chennai Court October 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.
Sri Mahant Prayaga Doss Jee Varu Vs. Venkama Naidu,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-1917
Reported in: 44Ind.Cas.641
1. In all these second appeals the appellant is the Mahant of Tirupati and the respondents are the ryots of Karvetnagar Estate. In all of them the question arises whether the landholder was entitled to charge garden rates for crops grown with the aid of well water. In Second Appeals Nos. 1437 to 1439 and 1440 to 1447 there is a question whether the landholder was entitled to charge for a second crop cultivated on dry land with the aid of well water. In Second Appeals Nos. 1440 to 1447 there is a further question whether the District Judge was right in disallowing the charge for mathiri kasuvu (straw rent), and in Second Appeals Nos. 1437 to 1439 whether he was right in disallowing the charge for sadalwar (stationery) which he allowed in the former batch.2. In Venkata Perumal v. Ramudu 27 Ind. Cas. 688 : (1915) M.W.N. 132 mathiri kasuvu and sadalwar were treated as charges incidental to the tenure of the land and payable with the rent. Following that decision we allow the appeals in thi...
Annavajhula Venkatachellamayya Garu Vs. Ramagirjee Neelakanta Girjee
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-1917
Reported in: 43Ind.Cas.685; (1918)34MLJ156
John Wallis, C.J.1. Under Order 21, Rules 84 - 86 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the default of a purchaser at a court auction either in making the deposit or paying the balance of purchase money within the specified period the property is to be resold; and under Order 21, Rule 71 any deficiency in price which may occur at the re-sale together with the expenses attending the re-sale, as certified to the Court, are recoverable at the instance of the decree-holder or the judgment-debtor under the provisions relating to the execution of a decree for the payment of money. By his failure to complete his purchase the purchaser commits a breach of contract and is answerable in damages to the Court or the persons on whose behalf it sells, viz., the decree-holder and the judgment-debtor. These damages estimated by the ordinary rule consist of the deficiency if any in the price obtained at the re-sale as compared with the price at the first sale together with the expenses of the re-sale; and ...
Natuthodi Kunhi MoidIn Vs. P.R. Chamu Nair
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad281; 43Ind.Cas.787; (1917)33MLJ607
ORDERAyling, J.1. I agree with Phillips, J., that the contract was one, not merely to supply labour, but to get work performed by workmen or labourers, and, to that extent comes within the scope of Act 13 of 1859. But it is further necessary, vide Section (1) that any person against whom the Act is sought to be enforced should be himself 'an artificer, workman or labourer': and this is a point, on which not only is there no finding by the Magistrate but which has apparently escaped his attention altogether.2. This status of the accused person is an integral part of the case which the complainant has to establish; and if there is no evidence, the Magistrate's order cannot stand, no matter whether the accused did, or did not raise the point before him.3. With all respect, I cannot agree with my learned brother Phillips, J. in holding (as I think he does) that the evidence on record is sufficient to establish that the present petitioner (accused) is a workman within the meaning of the Act...
A. Subba Rao Vs. Parasurama Pattar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-1917
Reported in: 46Ind.Cas.973; (1918)34MLJ551
Seshagiri Aiyar, J.1. The plaintiff's suit was dismissed by the Subordinate Judge on the ground that it was barred by limitation. He held that Exhibit B did not contain an acknowledgment of liability. I am unable to agree with him. It is necessary to state the facts which led to the writing of Exhibit B, before deciding whether it contains an acknowledgment of liability. The plaintiff was a subscriber to a chit fund of which the defendant was the manager. The assignor of the plaintiff was entitled to some money from this defendant and the plaintiffs case is that that money was assigned to him. Thereupon he wrote to the defendant a letter asking him to credit towards the chit the amount due under the assignment deed in his favour and to pay him the balance of the subscription amount. In reply to that Exhibit B was written. Exhibit B contains these statements, 'You have not shown me the deed of assignment under which you make the claim. Further I have been issued an injunction order proh...
Palakkunnath Illath Govindan Numbudiri Vs. Ottathayil Moidin
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-1917
Reported in: (1918)ILR41Mad469
1. A marupat is a counterpart of lease or a deed executed by a tenant promising certain rent--Moore's Malabar Law.2. We think it must be stamped both as a counterpart and as a mortgage....
Ramaswami Sastri Vs. Kali Raghava Aiyangar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad358; 43Ind.Cas.124
Seshagiri Aiyar, J.1. I am unable to agree with the learned Subordinate Judge. The defendant in this case assigned Exhibit A, a deed of mortgage executed to him by one Kamuthathamrnal. Exhibit B is the deed of assignment and in that the defendant stipulates 'excepting the sum of Rs. 52...no other sum has been received. If any sum is alleged to have been paid in excess and proved, I shall myself be responsible for such turn and pay the same to you with interest.' After giving notice to Kamuthathammal, the present plaintiff sued upon Exhibit A in Original Suit No. 356 of 1912 on the file of the Tiruthiraipundi Munsif's Court, and the District Munsif came to the conclusion that Exhibit A was completely discharged and that the plaintiff was not entitled to re-cover anything. Thereupon the present suit was instituted to enforce the terms of the indemnity contained in Exhibit, B. Various defences were raised by the defendant, and one of them was that in the previous litigation the plaintiff ...
Suppu Sokkayya Bhattar Vs. Suppu Bhattar Alias S. Kalyana Bhattar, Min ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-1917
Reported in: 43Ind.Cas.714
1. According to the findings, the suit properties were left by the Will of Chandrasekhara Bhattar to Rajah Bhattar, the last male owner. During his lifetime he effected a settlement Exhibit C with Chandrasekhara's widow Thalamuthammal, pursuant to which he paid her Rs. 1,750, which sum he raised by mortgaging the suit and other properties under Exhibit I on 5th June 1881. He died in 1882 and on 9th March 1882 his widow transferred the suit properties to Thalamuthammal on her undertaking to discharge Exhibit I The plaintiff as next reversioner instituted Original Suit No. 15 of 1882 and obtained a declaration that her alienation was not binding on the reversioners. During the litigation Thalamuthammal borrowed money from the defendant under Exhibit XXIII to enable her to discharge Exhibit f, and according to the finding he discharged it. In 1891. he sued on his mortgage Exhibit XXIII, brought the suit properties to sale and purchased the interest of his mortgagor Thalamuthammal has been...
Kuttikatt Alias Padipurakkal Puthanmadathil Kochamma and Ors. Vs. Kuru ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-1917
Reported in: 43Ind.Cas.989
Bakewell, J.1. The decision in this case depends upon the true construction of a kanom deed, dated 13th July 1897. The deed commences by reciting two previous documents, a hanom, and a patom chit under which a balance of Rs. 600 Was due from the defendants' tarwad and then demises the land in perpetuity and contains a covenant for renewal after every twelve, years.2. In Malabar it is customary to create a usufructuary mortgage of lands by a demise for twelve years and the mortgage is not redeemable until the expiration of that period. This practice resembles that of English conveyances in creating forms to secure jointured or for raining portions or sub-terms as mortgages of lease-hold interests. Having regard to the facts that the purpose of the document was to discharge previous incumbrances and that the rent reserved is nominal, and to the recital of the number of trees and tanks upon the property which would furnish evidence in estimating any improvements claimed to have been made ...
Palakkunnath Illath Govindan Nambudri Vs. Ottathayil Moideen
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad504(2); 42Ind.Cas.943; (1917)33MLJ693
1. A marupat is a counter-part of a lease or a deed executed by a tenant promising certain rent: Moore'sMalabar Law.2. We think it must be stamped both as a counter-part and as a mortgage....
Meda Chinna Subbamma Vs. Papireddigari Chennayya Minor by His Guardian ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-1917
Reported in: (1918)ILR41Mad467
Sadasiva Ayyar, J.1. Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot, in terms apply as no decree was varied or reversed but only an order under Order XXI, Rule 90, refusing to set aside a sale in execution, was reversed by the Appellate Court. '2. Assuming that Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure allows an order for restitution in appropriate cases even though it does not fall under Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure, such an order cannot be made on the analogy of Section 144 unless the auction-purchaser was a party before the Appellate Court which set aside the sale in the proceedings instituted for setting it aside.3. The mere fact that the decree-holder was a party to those proceedings will not suffice as the Court auction-purchaser is not the representative of the decree-holder. Manicka Udayan v. Rajagopala Pillai I.L.R. (1907) Mad. 507 which held otherwise has been disapproved of in Nadamuni Narayana Iyengar v. Veerabhadra Pillai I.L.R. (1911) Mad. 417 to both of...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »