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.
Sree Rajah Venkata Ramayya Appa Rao Bahadur Zemindar Varu and anr. Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad191; 45Ind.Cas.471; (1918)34MLJ309
1. The Receiver of the Nidadavole and Medur Estates who is the appellant sued the respondent in the Revenue Court to recover Rs. 323-11-7, arrears of rent for faslis 1320 to 1322. The case for the plaintiff was that the lands were granted by the former zamindar at low rent to defendants 1 to 8 who were performing washerman services, that they ceased to do so and conveyed a portion of the land to the 9th defendant and that plaintiff was consequently entitled to recover the full rent claimed. Defendants 1 to 8 were ex parte. The 9th defendant pleaded inter alia that the lands were ryoti lands, that he has been paying the rent reserved ever since his purchase, that plaintiff has no power under the Estates Land Act to enhance the rent and that the suit was bad for misguided of parties. No question was raised as to the jurisdiction of the Court and at the trial plaintiff conceded that the lands were ryoti lands and that the defendant had occupancy rights, The Suits Deputy Collector decreed ...
Kathirayasami Naicker Vs. Dewan Bahadur V. Ramabadra Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad180; 45Ind.Cas.608
Srinivasa Aiyangar, J.1. The plaintiff's father Kadiriyasami on the 15th September 1893 mortgaged to Sabapathi Chetty, the 2nd defendant, what may generally be termed the Zasmindari Estate of Doddappa' naikannr. The mortgagee sued to enforce' his security in Original Suit No. 3 of' 1901 on the file of the District Court of Madura and obtained a decree for sale on October 1st, 1901. He transferred the decree on May 38th, 1906, to Mr. Ramabhadra Naidn, the 1st defendant, who executed the decree brought what presumably were the mortgaged properties to sale and purchased them himself after obtaining the necessary sanction from Court. Kadiriyasami Naicker, the mortgagor judgment-debtor, however, died before the final execution and sale. The 1st defendant after his purchase obtained a sale-certificate from Court and got possession of the properties which, it was assumed he purchased. The Zamindari of Doddappanaikanoor consists of the 2 villages of Doddappanaikanoor and Sempatty together with...
Puthiya Pandikasaliyal Abdulla Koya Vs. Mavileri Eacharan Nair, Deceas ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1917
Reported in: 47Ind.Cas.845
1. In this case the 1st 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 the 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 ...
Ganapathy Mooppen and anr. Vs. Subba Nayakkan Alias Narayanasamy Nayak ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad276; 44Ind.Cas.834
1. The plaintiffs-appellants are members of the Muppan caste and sued for a declaration, injunction and damages, because defendants, members of other castes, prevented their taking a marriage procession by the street along which it is, they alleged, customary to take them. The lower Appellate Court in the decree appealed against confirmed the District Munsif's decision, dismissing the suit in toto.2. An attempt was made to support this decision on the ground that the lower Appellate Court erred in finding that the procession was prevented. It is true that it did not start and that its progress was not actually obstructed. But, as the lower Appellate Court found, it did not start owing to defendants' hostile attitude and we agree that so far as plaintiffs proved, (sic) sufficient proof of actual obstruction or the use of violence being unnecessary.3. The next question raised was whether the road, the use of which was disputed, is public. But the lower Appellate Court did not decide it, ...
Pisupati Venkata Rangayya Vs. Gandavarapu Narasamma (Dead) and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad147; 44Ind.Cas.852
1. The plaintiff, who is the appellant in the second appeal, had brought a suit against the husband of the first defendant for specific performance of an agreement to sell the property in dispute. The husband of the first defendant died pending the suit, and the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants were brought on record by the plaintiff as the deceased's legal representatives, the 1st defendant being the widow, the 2nd defendant the daughter-in-law, and the 3rd defendant the mother of the deceased. The plaintiff, in making the application, stated that he was informed that there had been a Will executed by the deceased owner of the property in favour of the 2nd and 3rd defendants. The 2nd defendant, however, did not appear and the 1st and 3rd defendants alleged in their written statement that they were not liable to any decree inasmuch as the property had been bequeathed solely to the 2nd defendant. The District Munsif who tried the suit, however, held that it was not proved that the 2nd defend...
Vaithilingam Chetty Vs. Kaliaperumal Mudali and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad100; 45Ind.Cas.13
Seshagiri Aiyar, J.1. The suit was originally instituted on the Small Cause Side of the Subordinate Judge's Court at Kumbakonam. He pronounced judgment on the 27th October 1915. A petition for review was presented to him on the 19th November 1915. He directed the issue of notice to the opposite party on the 27th November, On the 1st January 1916 a Special Small Cause Court was established at Kumbakonam which was invested with jurisdiction to try all small cause suits within a specified area. The High Court issued a circular, R.O.C. No. 3656 of 1916, dated 31st October 1916, in which it was stated that the Special Small Cause Judge alone shall have jurisdiction to hear all small sauae suits instituted after the 1st January 1916. Apparently on this circular the District Judge transferred the review petition from the Kumbakonarm Subordinate Court to the new Small Cause Court. The question for consideration is whether this transfer was right.2. This petition was presented by the plaintiff ...
Gotatai Vigneswarudu Vs. Tadanki Venkata Suryanarayanamurthi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad280; 45Ind.Cas.782
1. In this case the 2nd defendant attached the suit property in execution of a decree and brought it to sale. The sale was set aside under Order XXI, Rule 89 of the Civil Procedure Code. The result of setting aside the sale was that in accordance with a recent decision of the Privy Council in Minn Kumari Bibi v. Bijoy Singh Dudhuria 40 Ind. Cas. 242: 1 P.L.W. 425 : 21 M.L.T. 344 : 19 Bom. L.R. 424 : (1917) M.W.N. 473 : 44 I.A. 72. and a recent Full Bench decision which followed it. No assets had been realised under that attachment against which other creditors could claim rateable distribution under Section 64 of the Code.2. The 2nd defendant's claim against the suit property was satisfied by the deposit pursuant to Rule 89, but the decree was not fully satisfied and a particular sum has subsequently accrued as interest.3. Assuming that the 2nd defendant, the attaching creditor, had the right to bring the property to sale a second time insatisfaction of that balance, that has not been ...
Doraisami Moopan Vs. Subbalakshmi Palayee Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1917
Reported in: 46Ind.Cas.880
1. The agreement in question was not to further prosecute the suit, that is, not to obtain a decree in the suit. The decision in Chidambaram, Chettiar v. Krishna Vathiyar 37 Ind. Cas. 836: 5 L.W. 132 does not apply, as the agreement before decree in that case was to the effect that a decree was to be passed but the decree so obtained was not to be executed.2. The question, whether there was an agreement which prevented a decree itself being passed in the suit, cannot be gone into in, execution.3. The former decree, however, as against the respondents Nos. 4 to 7 (defendant's Nos. 5 to 8) has been set aside by the decree in a fresh suit. On this ground this appeal is dismissed against them.4. As regards 3rd respondent (4th defendant) the appeal is adjourned till the disposal of the Second Appeal No. 101 of 1917....
Muthaya Shetti Vs. Kanthappa Shetti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1917
Reported in: 45Ind.Cas.975
Seshagiri Aiyar, J.1. The predecessors-in-title of the plaintiff executed Exhibit A to one Shankaranaranappayya in 1872. Shankaranaranappayya sold the property comprised there under to Venkappayya under Exhibit I in 1879. Venkappayya's widow sold it in 1897 to Puttappayya and Puttappayya's sons sold the same in 1912 to the defendant. The present suit is brought by the plaintiff to redeem the mortgage of 1872. The answer of the defendant is that the suit is barred by Article 134 of the Limitation Act as more than twelve years have elapsed since the date of the transfer by the original mortgagee. Both the Courts have come to the conclusion that the suit is barred by limitation. The judgment of the District Judge is so measre that we were obliged to hear this case as a first appeal. Mr. Sitarama Row contended before us that under Article 134 the burden of proving that the transferee from the mortgagee had acquired an absolute right in the property lay on the defendant.2. Before considerin...
Ankalamma Vs. Bellam Chenchayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1917
Reported in: 45Ind.Cas.419; (1918)34MLJ315
1. The bond sued on was executed to the father of the 1st plaintiff. The 1st plaintiff's case was that it was assigned to him by the father. After filing the suit, he died and the 2nd plaintiff, is his legal representative. The 1st defendant is the son of the mortgagor. Defendants 1 to 11 are alienees of some of the properties mortgaged. The 12th defendant is the eldest son of the mortgagee. The defendants pleaded that the mortgage bond was discharged by the payment made to one Chinna Narayana Reddi. This Chinna Narayana Reddi was another son of Byreddi Venkuta Reddi, the original mortgagee. In the written statement the case for the defence was that in a partition between the father and the sons, this bond fell to the share of Chinna Narayana Reddi and that after it came to him, there was a complete discharge of the obligation under the bond.2. The District Munsif gave a decree to the plaintiff. In appeal after remand in which the District Judge asked for certain findings upon some sub...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »