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.
Municipal Council of Vizagapatam Vs. Foster
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1917
Reported in: (1918)ILR41Mad538
Seshagiri Ayyar, J.1. The plaintiff sued tie Municipality of Vizagapatam for compensation for injuries sustained by him owing to the negligent stacking of gravel in a municipal road The Subordinate Judge awarded damages to the extent of about Rs. 3,200 and odd. The amount was increased on appeal by the District Judge.2. In this second appeal, I shall deal with the various questions involved in the case, in the order in which they were argued by Mr. Sarma.3. The first contention for the appellant was that Municipalities in India have only delegated powers from the local Governments and that consequently their liability is subject to the same restrictions as that of the Government. This contention was raised with reference to an observation of mine in The Secretary of State v. Cockraft I.L.R. (1816) Mad. 351 where I pointed out that in laying out roads, the Municipal Corporations in America were exercising to some extent sovereign functions. I took care in that judgment to reserve my opi...
Ankalamma Vs. B. Chenchayya and Ten ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad29; (1918)ILR41Mad637
Seshagiri Ayyar, J.1. The bond sued on was executed to the father of the first plaintiff. The first plaintiff's case was that it was assigned to him by the father. After filing the suit he died and the second plaintiff is his legal representative. The first defendant is the son of the mortgagor. Defendants Nos, 2 to 11 are alienees of some of the properties mortgaged. The twelfth 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 Venkata 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 ...
The Municipal Council of Vizagapatam Vs. William Foster
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad264(2); 44Ind.Cas.308
Seshagiri Aiyar, J.1. The plaintiff sued the Municipality of Vizagapatam for compensation for injuries sustained by him owing to the negligent stacking of gravel in a Municipal road. The Subordinate Judge awarded damages to the extent of about Rs. 3,203 and odd. The amount was increased on appeal by the District Judge.2. In this second appeal, I shall deal with the various questions involved in the case, in the order in which they were argued by Mr. Sarma.3. The first contention for the appellant was that Municipalities in India have only delegated powers from the Local Governments and that consequently their liability is subject to the same restrictions as that of the Government. This contention was raised with reference to an observation of mine in Secretary of State v. Cockcraft (1915) M.W.N. 39 where I pointed out that in laying out roads, the Municipal Corporations in America were exercising to some extent sovereign functions. I took care in that judgment to reserve my opinion whe...
Champyil Koppan and ors. Vs. Kolasseri Kelappan Nambiyar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad142; 44Ind.Cas.864
1. The respondent attached the suit property as the property of his judgment-debtor. A third party put in a claim that the property was his and succeeded. The judgment-debtor sued to set aside the settlement by virtue of which the claimant had succeeded in his claim and for possession and obtained a decree. This was not a suit under Order XXI, Rule 63, of the Civil Procedure Code, which confers a right of suit only on the party against whom an order has been made rejecting his claim or his objection to another's claim. The person who objects to a claim is the attaching decree-holder. He (the judgment-debtor) then sold the suit property to the appellant. The respondent then again attached the property and the appellant put in a claim petition, and having failed in it, brought the present suit. It is practically admitted that the Subordinate Judge was wrong in holding that the suit was barred by Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. See Arasayee Ammal v. Sokhalinga Mudali 33 Ind. Ca...
Abi Dhunimsa Bibi Vs. Mahammad Fathi UddIn and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1917
Reported in: (1918)ILR41Mad1026
Seshagiri Ayyar, J.1. This is a suit by a Muhammadan lady for dower. The defence is that when her husband was on his deathbed and she was only fifteen years of age, she relinquished her right to the dower. The question for consideration is whether this relinquishment debars the plaintiff from suing to recover it. The District Munsif found that the dower was released but the release was brought about by undue influence and fraud, and that consequently plaintiff was entitled to recover it. The learned District Judge has written an interesting judgment in which, while accepting the conclusion of the District Munsif that there was a release of the dower, he differs from the lower Court on the question of fraud and finds that the release is binding upon the plaintiff.2. The question is not covered by any authority and is one of some importance. It has to be decided on first principles. Under the Muhammadan Law a dower, as pointed out by Mr. Justice Abdur Rahim at page 334, in his book on Mu...
Subramania Aiyar Vs. Namasivaya Asari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad162; 45Ind.Cas.11; (1918)35MLJ377
1. A preliminary objection has been taken by Mr. Purushotam Aiyar to the maintainability of the second appeal, and we are of opinion that the objection should prevail.2. The suit was for Rs. 50 and odd for cutting and carrying away trees. It was originally instituted in the Small Cause side of the Tanjore Subordinate Judge's Court. As a question of title was involved in the determination of the claim, the plaint was returned for presentation to the District Munsiff's Court at Pattukottai, The suit was tried by that Court and an appeal was heard therefrom by the District Judge. This second appeal is against the decree of the District Judge.3. The suit as originally filed was not exempted from the jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court. An amending Act was passed in 1914 by which a new Clause (ii) was added to Article 35 of the second schedule of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. Under this new clause if the suit were to be filed now, there can be no question that the Small Cause Cou...
P.V. Kothandaramaswami Naidu Vs. P.M.A. Muthia Chetti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad344; 45Ind.Cas.186
John Wallis, C.J.1. This appeal raises an interesting question, as to whether a suit can be filed on an endorsement made by a stranger on the back of a note, who does not satisfy the definition of an endorser. There is such a usage of law on the continent known as the making of an aval, which is recognised by Section 56 of the English Bills of Exchange Act, but there is no recognition of it in the Indian Negotiable Instruments Act. It was with reference to the Bills of Exchange Act that we are told in the well-known words of Lord Halsbury in the Vagliano case, (1891) A.C. 107: 39 W.R. 657 : 55 J.P. 676. that the essence of a Code is to be exhaustive. We may apply that principle to the Negotiable Instruments Act, and say that we are not prepared to recognise this backing of bills by strangers. That is the view which I am at present disposed to take, but it is not necessary to express a final opinion on the point, because I think the appeal fails upon another ground.2. Section 118 of the...
Sundara Singh Vs. Pazhamalai Padayachi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad262; 45Ind.Cas.701
1. The appellant is a purchaser at a Court auction. No second appeal lies against an order passed in appeal upon his petition to set aside a sale by Court on the ground that the judgment-debtor Had no saleable interest.2. See Section 104(2) and Order XLIII, Rule 1(j) of the Code of Civil Procedure, and Surendra Mohini Debi v. Loharam Chattopadhya 14 Ind. Cas. 67. and Parameswara Atyar v. Veerakutti Patter A.A.A.O. No. 111 of 1916. in this Court.3. It is suggested for appellant that he was a representative of the judgment-debtor and that Section 47, therefore, applies, but it has been held in Nadamuni Narayana Iyengar v. Veerabhadra Pillai 8 Ind. Cas. 429. that this is not so where, as in this case, the sale was in execution of a money decree. We have been asked to treat this appeal as a petition for revision but there are no grounds for doing so. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed with costs....
Adiraja Arsu Alias Kumaraya Ballala Vs. Sheik Budan Sahib and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad160; (1918)34MLJ358
Bakewell, J.1. The question in this case is, what is the remedy of a person who has sold goods on credit to the Manager of a temple to be used for the purposes of the institution? It has been found that the plaintiff, the vendor, was aware that the 2nd defendant, the purchaser, was the manager and that he made the purchase of fireworks for the temple, and that those goods were necessary for the temple.2. A temple is a permanent religious charity, carried on for the benefit of the present and future worshippers and it is obvious that its property should be preserved intact in order that the existence of the charity may be continued, and that its income alone should be applied by the manager or dharmakartha in the administration of the charity. (See Palaniappa Chetty v. Sreemath Devasikamani Pandara Sannadhi (1916) I.L.R. 40 M. 709. 712 (P.C) It follows that the manager has ordinarily no authority to dispose of the capital of the institution, since such a disposition would endanger its v...
Abi Dhunimsa Bibi Ammal Vs. Muhammad Fatttu UddIn Sahib and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad319; (1918)35MLJ468
1. This is a suit by a Muhamadan lady for dower, The defence is that when her husband was on his death-bed and she was only 15 years of age she relinquished her right to the dower. The question for consideration is whether this relinquish-ment debars the plaintiff from suing to recover it. The District Munsif found that the dower was released but the release was brought about by undue influence and fraud and that consequently plaintiff was entitled to recover it. The learned District Judge has written an interesting judgment in which while accepting the conclusion of the District Munsif that there was a release of the dower, he differs from the lower court on the question of fraud and finds that the release is binding upon the plaintiff.2. The question is not covered by any authority and is one of some importance. It has to be decided on first principles. Under the Muhamadan Law, a dower, as pointed out by Mr. Justice Abdur Rahim in his book on Muhamadan Jurisprudence 'is a sum of mone...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »