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.
Avaran Marakarakath Kizhakkekath Kemalutti and anr. Vs. Pulikkalakath ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1917
Reported in: 45Ind.Cas.743; (1918)34MLJ170
Seshagiri Aiyar, J.1. This is a suit for ejectment by a landlord on the ground that the tenant had forfeited his right by his denying the title of the plaintiff. The District Munsif held that the act complained of did amount to a disclaimer of the landlord's title and decreed possession. On appeal the Subordinate Judge agreed with the District Munsif that there was a disclaimer but held that as the lease was granted for the lifetime of the lessee, the disclaimer had not the effect of putting an end to the tenancy and that the suit was premature. He dismissed the suit upon that ground.2. There are two questions for consideration in this Second Appeal. The first is, was there a disclaimer of title, secondly, whether the tenant has not forfeited the tenancy as the lease was for the lifetime of the tenant although he did deny the landlord's title. I shall dispose of the second point first.3. The cases quoted by the Subordinate Judge have not much bearing upon this second question. I fail t...
Srikakolapu Venkataraju Vs. Gudivada Ramanujam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1917
Reported in: (1918)34MLJ561
1. We accept the finding that the contract was a wagering one. The further question is whether the money deposited by the plaintiff with the defendant as the security for the performance of his part of the contract is recoverable. There is no question of limitation.2. The Lower Courts held that Section 65 of the Contract Act was applicable to the transaction. We are unable to agree with them. Section 30 makes a wagering contract void ah initio and to such a class of contracts, Section 65 has no application. In Ledu Coachman v. Hiralal I.L.R. (1915) Cal. 115 this view was taken. Despite the inclination of the learned Judges of the Bombay High Court in the earlier cases to apply Section 65 to such contracts the later view is in agreement with the Calcutta view. See Parshotam Veribhai v. Chatrasanghji I.L.R. (1916) 41 Bom. 546 in this Court Oldfield and Bakewell, JJ. held in Srinivasa Aiyar v. Sesha Aiyar (1917) 34 M.L.J. 282 that Section 65 does not cover moneys paid under a marriage bro...
Kizhakkekath Kemalooti and anr. Vs. Pulikkalakath Muhamed and Three or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1917
Reported in: (1918)ILR41Mad629
Seshagiri Ayyar, J.1. This is a suit for ejectment by a landlord on the ground that the teNant has forfeited his right by his denying the title of the plaintiff. The District Munsif held that the act complained of did amount to a disclaimer of the landlord's title and decreed possession. On appeal the Subordinate Judge agreed with the District Munsif that there was a disclaimer but held that as the lease was granted for the life-time of the lessee, the disclaimer bad not the effect of putting an end to the tenancy and that the suit was premature. He dismissed the suit upon that ground.2. There are two questions for consideration in this second appeal. The first is, was there a disclaimer of title, secondly whether the tenant has not forfeited the tenancy as the lease was for the life-time of the tenant although he did deny the landlord's title. I shall dispose of the second point first.3. The cases quoted by the Subordinate Judge have not much bearing upon this second question. I fail ...
Srikakolapur Venkataraju Vs. Gudivada Ramanujam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad163; 44Ind.Cas.319
1. We accept the finding that the contract was a wagering one. The further question is whether the money deposited by the plaintiff with the defendant as the security for the performance of his part of the contract is recoverable. There is no question of limitation.2. The lower Courts held that Section 65 of the Contract Act was applicable to the transaction. We are unable to agree with them. Section 30 makes a wagering contract void ab initio and to such a class of contracts Section 65 has no application. In Ledu v. Hira Lal Base 29 Ind. Cas. 625 this view was taken. Despite the inclination of the learned Judges of the Bombay High Court in the earlier cases to apply Section 65 to such contrasts, the later view is in agreement with the Calcutta view. See Parshottam Veribhai v. Chhotrasangji Madhavsangji 40 Ind. Cas. 1002 : 19 Bom. L.R. 545. In this Court, Oldfield and Bakewell, JJ., held in Srinivasa Aiyar v. Sesha Iyer 41 Ind. Cas. 783 that Section 65 does not cover monies paid under ...
Manakari Venkappa Chari Vs. Holagunel Pompana Gowd and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad42; 45Ind.Cas.474
Abdur Rahim, J.1. This is an appeal against the decree of the District Judge of Bellary, setting aside a sale, for arrears of revenue, of certain land. The sale took place on the 20th May 1912 and the appellant, the 1st defendant in the suit, purchased it. The second defendant is the mortgagee, who apparently was in possession of the land at the time of the sale. The grounds on which the sale was sought to be set aside are set out specifically in paragraph 3 of the plaint, and made part of the issues at the time of the trial. It is clear that grounds (a), (b) and (c) would not be good grounds for a Civil Court to set aside the sale. The Collector has got power, if the sale is vitiated on account of any irregularity in the conduct of it, to set it aside.2. But, it is contended, that the sale was bad, firstly, because it was fraudulently brought about. Supposing that, if made out, would be a sufficient reason for setting aside the sale, it is quite clear that it has not been shown that t...
In Re Mantripragada Mattapalli Narasimha Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-03-1917
Reported in: 44Ind.Cas.973
ORDERSpencer, J.1. The offences of which the accused has been found guilty are wrongful restraint, hurt, and putting a person in fear of injury in order to commit extortion. A single sentence of fine has been imposed for the three offences combined. The convictions for the first and the last of these offences, viz., those under Sections 341 and 385, Indian Penal Code, will not stand because it has not been found that any physical restraint was put on the person of P. W. No. 1. If he remained for the night in Lingagiri because the accused, a proprietor of that place, told him to stay, there was no offence within Section 341. Again the threat that the accused is alleged to have used towards the cooly, who was discovered transporting Arrack from the Nizam's Dominions into British Territory, was to the effect that he would report him to British Police. For the purpose of Section 385 it is necessary that the accused should have put some person in fear of injury in order to extort some prope...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›