Chennai Court December 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.
Nynam Veetil Mayan Kutti Vs. Valappilakath Kunhammad and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad370; (1918)34MLJ167
John Wallis, C.J.1. This case raises a question of considerable importance and interest, namely, what is the effect of a plaintiff, who obtains a decree in ejectment in Malabar directing payment of compensation, allowing that decree to become barred. The question is whether he is entitled to maintain another suit, as it is contended, upon his title, a proposition which is supported by reference to the decision of Kutti Ali v. Chindan I.L.R. (1900) M. 629. Now the ordinary principle is that, when a man has a cause of action and brings a suit upon it, that causa of action is merged in the decree, transit in rem judicatum; and then his remedy is in execution, and if he does not enforce his remedy and allows it to become barred, his rights are gone. When a lessor sues to eject a lessee he has to prove that there was in existence a lease and a determination of that lease. That is his cause of action, and if he gets a decree and allows that decree to become barred, it seems to me that, on ge...
Mylappa Chettiar and anr. Vs. the British India Steam Navigation Compa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad341; 45Ind.Cas.485; (1918)34MLJ553
John Wallis, C.J.1. A case somewhat similar to this came before the Courts in the British India Steam Navigation Company v. Hajee Muhamed Esack and Company I.L.R (1881) 3 M. 107 where it was held that the stipulation for a claim for short delivery being made on the ship-owner at Calcutta within a month was not unreasonable. This appears to be a sufficient answer to the claim against the British India Steam Navigation Company.2. As regards the Madura Company, the second defendant who was the landing agent, Sir Charles Turner, C.J. and Innes, J., observe in the course of their judgment, as regards Ramanujulu and Sons who were in the same position as the Madura Company here, that ' they were the agents of the appellants (the British India Company) to retain the goods, receive freight and give delivery; they were also the agents of the respondents (the consignees) to land the goods, but they were not the agents of the appellants to receive claims for compensation for the non-delivery of go...
Mayankutti Vs. Kunhammad and Fourteen ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-1917
Reported in: (1918)ILR41Mad641
John Wallis, Kt., C.J.1. This case raises a question of considerable importance and interest, namely, what is the effect of a plaintiff, who obtains a decree in ejectment in Malabar directing payment of compensation, allowing that decree to become barred. The question is whether he is entitled to maintain another suit, as it is contended, upon his title, a proposition which is supported by reference to the decision of Kutti Ali v. Chindan I.L.R.(1900) Mad. 629. Now the ordinary principle is that, when a man has a cause of action and brings a suit upon it, that cause of action is merged in the decree, transit in rem judicatum; and then his remedy is in execution and if he does not enforce his remedy and allows it to become barred, his rights are gone. When a lessor sues to eject a lessee he has to prove that there was in existence a lease and a determination of that lease. That is his cause of action, and if he gets a decree and allows that decree to become barred, it seems to me that, ...
Natesa Iyer Vs. Subramania Iyer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad328; 45Ind.Cas.535
1. The plaintiff, the 1st and 2nd defendants are the sons of one Mahalinga Sivan. The father and sons entered into a partition of their properties in the year 1911: and signed a deed in that behalf. When it was sought to register it, the first defendant refused to consent to the registration on the ground that some of the schedules to the deed were inserted without his' knowledge. Thereupon, the father and the plaintiff applied for registration under Section 35 of the Registration Act, and the document was registered. The father died subsequently, having subsequent to the registration made a Will of the properties allotted to him in the partition deed in favour of the 1st defendant.2. In the present suit the plaintiff alleges that the deed of partition is void and of no effect, that the Will of the father is inoperative, and that he is entitled to his share on the footing that the family is undivided.3. The Subordinate Judge held that the parties became divided in status by the deed of...
Nynam Veetill Mayan Kutti Vs. Valappilakath Kunhammad and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-1917
Reported in: 44Ind.Cas.110
John Wallis, C.J.1. This case raises a question of considerable importance and interest, namely, what is the effect of a plaintiff, who obtains a decree in ejectment in Malabar directing payment of compensation, allowing that decree to become barred. The question is whether he is entitled to maintain another suit, as it is contended, upon his title, a proposition which is supported by reference to the decision in Kutti Ali v. Chindan 23 M. 629. Now, the ordinary principle is that, when a man has a cause of action and brings a suit upon it, that cause of action is merged in the decree, transit in rent judicatum; and then his remedy is in execution and if he does not enforce his remedy and allows it to become barred, his rights are gone. When a lessor sues to eject a lessee, he has to prove that there was in existence a lease and a determination of that lease. That is his cause of action, and if he gets a decree and allows that decree to become barred, it seems to me that, on general pri...
Vairappa thevan and anr. Vs. Subbiah thevan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-1917
Reported in: 44Ind.Cas.251
1. The previous suit was for redemption. A preliminary decree was passed on the 30th September 1909, which gave a month for the payment by the mortgagor. The payment was actually made on the 29th October 1909. The final decree was passed on the 13th December 1912, The present suit is for mesne profits between the 29th October 1909 and the date of the suit. Both the lower Courts, following Sakari Datta v. Sheikh Ainuddy 6 Ind. Cas. 336 gave plaintiff a decree.2. In second appeal Mr. Bashyam Aiyangar argued that the claim is barred by res judicata. His contention is that as Order XXXIV, Rule 10, provides for an adjustment of the amount due on the occasion of passing the final decree, the relationship of mortgagor and mortgagee subsists till then and the only remedy open to the mortgagor is to claim a settlement of accounts in the passing of the final decree and not to sue separately for the mesne profits. The question is whether the mortgagor is compellable to adopt this course indicated...
Doraiswami Muttiriyan and anr. Vs. Muttachi Alias Nambiyappa Muthirita ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad97; 44Ind.Cas.500
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. These two second appeals have arisen out of two cross-suits. In the earlier Suit No. 92 of 1914, the plaintiff is the owner of the upper western land and he sued for an injunction preventing the defendants from obstructing the draining of the surplus water of his upper land into the defendant's field, through a particular madai or opening which, after traversing the breadth of the eastern ridge of the plaintiff's field, passes through the breadth of the boundary ridge between the two villages of the plaintiff and the defend-ants respectively and then opens out into the defendants' field. He also prayed for the removal by the defendants of the bund which they had put up on their own land opposite to the madai so as to prevent water falling through the madai into the defendants lower land. The 3rd relief claimed by the plaintiff was that he might be put in possession of the site of the madai situated on his own patta land and its entrance. The plaintiff also prayed f...
Subbaraya Chetty Vs. Nachiar Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad143(1); 44Ind.Cas.863
1. On the finding of the District Judge it is clear that the defendant did receive the money. The learned Judge has, however, found that the suit was premature because of the terms of the unregistered mortgage bond. Granting that the terms of the bond are binding on the parties, having regard to the fact that immediately after the suit the money became payable, we think that it is undesirable that the plaintiff should be compelled to institute another suit for the money. money. The principle of Chinta Hararan Das v. Radha Charan Poddar 37 Ind. Cas. 962 and of the decision of this Court in Sethrucherla Rama Chandra v. Maharajah of Jeypore 34 Ind. Cas. 411 in which it was held that Courts have power to grant a decree where a cause of action arose subsequent to the suit, is applicable to this case. Following these decisions and having regard to the special circumstances of this case, we reverse the decree of the District Judge and restore that of the District Munsif, except as to costs. E...
M. Ponnusami Pillai and anr. Vs. Chidambaram Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1917
Reported in: (1918)35MLJ294
1. The first question to be decided in this appeal is whether the assignment pendente lite of the decree of an original court carried with it the right to execute whatever decree may be passed in appeal. We hold that it did in this case, under the present Code of Civil Procedure at any rate.'2. The change of language in Order 21 Rule 16 compared with SECTION 232 in the old Code is significant. It evidently arose out of the decision in Muthunarayana Reddi v. Balkarishna Reddi I.L.R. (1896) M. 306.3. It shows that what is really transferred when a decree is assigned is not the decree itself but the interest of the decree-holder in the decree. The word ' interest' must mean the interest as finally determined. Order 22, Rule 10(1) contemplates such an assignment of interest being made during the pendency of a suit (suit including appeal vide Sub-clause 2 and Rule 11) and the continuance of the suit or appeal by the assignee. The mention in Ex. A., the deed of Assignment, of the fact that t...
Puthiya Pandikasaliyal Abdulla Koya Vs. Mavileri Eacharan Nair (Deceas ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1917
Reported in: 47Ind.Cas.945; (1918)35MLJ405
1. In this case the first defendant as karnavan of the tarwad, granted a melcharth to the 4th defendant whereby he empowered him to recover 2 items of property held under 2 leases, the term of one of which had expired and the term of the other would expire in 2 years. This melcharth has been held by the lower courts to be invalid apparently on two grounds, that is,(1) that 2nd defendant was the de facto karnavan, and (2) that the lease was not beneficial to the tarwad. As regards the first point it is not disputed that 1st defendant was actually karnavan, and consequently, although he may have allowed 2nd defendant to discharge the duties of karnavan, it was open to him to resume the management at any time. On the second point the learned vakil for the appellant argues that a karnavan has absolute powers as regards leases, and leases granted by him cannot be questioned on the ground that they are not beneficial to the tarwad. The karnavan by the grant of a lease does not alienate tarwa...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »