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.
Palaniandi Chetty and ors. Vs. M.V. Appavu Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-05-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad225; 45Ind.Cas.52
Coutts Trotter, J.1. Although this appeal raises questions of difficulty and importance the facts material to it can be stated very shortly. The plaintiff sued for a declaration that he was the absolute owner by purchase of the suit properties as against the defendants who were holders of decrees against his vendor. The plaintiff's title was based on a sale-deed dated the 5th of September 1903 from Velayudan Cheity to himself for a consideration of Rs. 14,250. It has been found that this deed and the transaction which it carried out was brought into existence with intent to defraud and defeat the creditors of the transferor, and that finding is not and cannot be challenged; but the appellant contends that it is not competent to the defendant to invoke that finding in aid in the present proceedings. POP the moment, I am assuming that the transaction in question was in this sense a real one, that it effected and was meant to effect a real transfer of the property from the transferor to t...
Ammu Ammal and anr. Vs. Puthiaparambath MoidIn and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-04-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad278; 43Ind.Cas.677
1. It is admitted that a portion of the land sued for was demised by the 1st plaintiff's tarwad to the predecessor-in-title of the defendants. This was in 1871. Subsequent to the demise the defendants encroached upon the neighbouring land. We need not decide now whether that land belongs to the Government or not. The cane ha3 proceeded on that presumption; apparently by virtue of their possession the defendants obtained pattas from the Government for the land. The plaintiff now sues to eject the defendants from the land originally leased to them as well as from the lands for which they hold patta under the Government. The District Munsif decreed the plaintiff's claim. This was reversed in appeal as regards a portion of the property.2. In our opinion, the real point for decision has not been argued or considered by the Courts below, although it arises on the pleadings and is covered by the issues It is clear that where a tenant during the continuance of the tenancy encroaches upon lands...
Jagathambal Vs. Kannusami Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-04-1917
Reported in: AIR1988Mad499; 43Ind.Cas.985
Abdur Rahim, J.1. The 2nd plaintiff is the natural son of the 1st plaintiff and the defendant is the widow of the 2nd plaintiff's adoptive father, who was a nephew of the 1st plaintiff. The suit is brought to recover certain properties from the possession of the defendant on the allegation that the 2nd plaintiff is the adopted son of the defendant's husband. Of the items of properties which the plaintiffs sought to recover from the defendant, one is item No. 76, a house which originally was valued at Us. 200, but which has been found on proper enquiry being made on the objection of the defendant to be worth more than Rs. 6,000. When the proper value of item No. 76 was ascertained, the plaintiffs applied for leave to withdraw their claim with respect to this item with liberty to file a fresh suit afterwards. The District Munsif acceded to this application and it is against that Order that the present petition has been filed.2. The argument in support of the petition is that the plaintif...
Raminni Varadia Naidu Vs. Raminni Thippiah Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-03-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad336(2); 43Ind.Cas.697
1. This is an appeal from a decree of the Subordinate Judge of North Arcot dismissing the suit brought by the plaintiffs, claiming under persons who were the next reversioners on the death of the widow of the last male owner, one Kitchama. The defence which the Subordinate Judge has upheld is that the properties, which formed part of the estate of the last male owner and were alienated by his widow in 1882, formed the subject of a compromise in the suit in 1886 by three of the presumptive reversioners at that time against defendants Nos. 2 to 4 who were stranger alienees and 5th defendant Jangamiah who was one of the co-reversioners and was himself at the time an alienee from the widow whose alienations were questioned in the suit. That suit was filed on the 2nd October 1886. Very shortly, afterwards in the next month, by Exhibits II and II(a), the stranger transferees from the widow transferred their rights to one of the plaintiffs-reversioners Varadiah, who is the present 1st defenda...
Kalliani Ammal and ors. Vs. P. Narayana Menon and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-03-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad286; 45Ind.Cas.758
1. We think the Will amounted to a conditional ratification of the partition, to take effect if he died without setting it aside, and that the ratification completes the partition. Arayalprath Kunhi Pocker v. Kanthilath Ahmad Kuti Haji 29 M. 62. The properties claimed were assigned to the deceased as his share, and we do not think his right to them could be made conditional on his taking possession of them during his life-time.2. We reverse the decree of the Subordinate Judge and restore that of the District Munsif with costs here and in the lower Appellate Court....
Thavasi Ammal Alias Mahalakshmi Ammal and ors. Vs. Salai Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-02-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad419; 43Ind.Cas.643; (1918)35MLJ281
1. In two of the three cases covered by this finding, the learned City Civil Court Judge has found that it is not proved that there was any express agreement or encouragement given by the plaintiffs to the defendants in question to erect tiled houses, and we see absolutely no reason to differ from this conclusion. In these circumstances we think that our former judgment concludes the case and therefore these appeals must be allowed. We reverse the decrees and give judgment for the plaintiffs as prayed for, with costs throughout.2. As regards the 3rd case, the City Civil Court Judge has found that there was such an agreement or encouragement. We feel reluctant in the circumstances of the present case to differ from that finding. But we do not think that the evidence upon which the learned Judge has acted is such as can safely be relied upon. It consists of the evidence of the defendant and her husband who are interested, and they are also supported by 2 witnesses who are apparently in t...
Kanthammal Vs. Meenakshisundaramier
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-02-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad81; 43Ind.Cas.15
1. The property in dispute was given by the donor to his daughter in these words: 'These properties...having been gifted to you and delivered possession of to you, yourself and your santhathikalam puthira powthira parampariyamaya may enjoy the same, without creating any encumbrance, sale, etc.2. These words, as laid down in Kannu Pillay v. Chellatkammal 10 M.LJ. 203, are words of limitation in accordance with the ruling of the Privy Council with reference to similar Bengalee words 'Puthra pouthradhi kranu'. No doubt, the donor laid down a condition that the donee and her heirs should not alienate the property but that must be treated as a repugnant condition and, therefore, invalid. We do not think that the gift in this ease can be properly construed as conferring only a life-estate on the daughter Periakrishnamma. We, therefore, set aside the decree of the District Judge and restore that of the District Munsif with costs here and in the Court below....
Lakshminarayana Tantri Vs. Ramachandra Tantri
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-01-1917
Reported in: 45Ind.Cas.763; (1918)34MLJ71
Abdur Rahim, J.1. This appeal arises in a suit to file an award and is preferred by the 2nd defendant who is a minor represented by his mother, the other parties being the 1st defendant his father, and the plaintiff the brother of the 1st defendant and uncle of the 2nd defendant. All these three persons were members of an undivided Hindu family, and the arbitration was sought for the purpose of partitioning the properties between the plaintiff on the one hand and the first and second defendants on the other. The very next day after the submission, the 1st defendant who was acting as the guardian of the 2nd defendant gave notice to the arbitrator revoking the submission, thereafter he did not appear at all in the proceedings and the arbitrator proceeded to make the partition no one being there to watch the proceedings on behalf of the 2nd defendant and to protect his interests. It has been held that the revocation by the 1st defendant was not justified and the question for decision, the...
Sriram Sriral Nayudu and anr. and L. Krishnaswami Nayudu Vs. Sriramulu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-01-1917
Reported in: 43Ind.Cas.30
1. The Sub-Collector of Chingleput in his order, in Miscellaneous Petition No. 02 of 1917, held that the village of Lattur was not an estate as defined in Section 3(2)(d) of the Estates Land Act and that, therefore, he had no jurisdiction to deal with the petitions under Sections 73-75 of the Act. He, however, ordered that the melwaram produce should remain in the custody of the counter petitioner before the Board.2. It is argued for the petitioners that the Sub-Collector's order directing the retention of crops is illegal and ab initio void, as the Sub Collector according to his own finding was devoid of jurisdiction. This objection must prevail. The Sub Collector's order as regards the produce is accordingly set aside.3. His order that this village is not an estate is not disputed by either party. The parties should bear their own costs....
Muthiah Chettiar and ors. Vs. Kuttayan Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-01-1917
Reported in: 43Ind.Cas.20
1. The plaintiffs appellant instituted the' suit to recover a certain sum of money alleged; to be due on a hundi, dated 7th March 1903, and the question in the second appeal relates to limitation. The suit was instituted on the 13th November 1909, and, therefore, it is conceded by Mr. Ananthakrishna Aiyar for the appellant that, unless he succeeded in establishing acknowledgment or part payment within the meaning of the law under Exhibits B and C-B being dated 29th September 1905 and C 19th July 1907--the suit will be barred. As regards B, which purports to be a letter written by the defendant, the first question that arises is whether there was any signature to it of the 1st defendant within the meaning of Section 19 of the Limitation Act. The parties are Nattukkottai Chetties and the 1st defendant wrote to the plaintiffs giving the name of his firm' at the top of the letter, but no signature was put at the foot of it. We have been referred to a number of cases and it seems to us that...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›