Chennai Court February 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.
Vadla Nagiah Vs. Valuru Divakara Mudaliar, Deceased, by His Legal Repr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad564(1); 41Ind.Cas.585
1. We are bound by the Privy Council decisions in Ram Narayan Singh v. Adhindra Nath Mukhurji 34 Ind Cas. 900 : 4 L. W. 15 : 20 C. W. N. 989 : (1916) 1 M. W, N. 428 : 31 M. L. J. 251 : 20 M. L. T. 216 : 14 A. L. J. 1017 : J 8 Bom. L. R. 862 : 25 Cri. L. J. 115. and Shamu Patter v. Abdal Kadir Rowthan 16 Ind. Cas. 250 : 35 M 607 : 16 C. W. N. 1009 : 23 M. L. J. 321 : 12 M. L. T. 23'; (1912) M. W. N. 935 : 10 A. L. J. 259 : 14 Bom. L R. 1034 : 6 Cri. L. J. 596 : 391. A 218 to hold that even where the defendant admits execution of what purports to be a mortgage-deed, the transaction would not be a valid mortgage, if the defendant does not admit that it was attested by two witnesses who saw him execute it or if it is not proved that it was attested by two such witnesses (Section 59 of Act IV of 1882).2. We, therefore, set aside the District Judge's judgment and restore that of the Munsif. The parties will bear their respective costs throughout....
Ramanamma Alias Vidchi Patnayakam and anr. Vs. Bathala Kamaraju and Th ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad640; (1918)ILR41Mad23
Ayling, J.1. Appellants' contention before us is that the suit is barred under Article 13 of the Indian Limitation Act. This article is clearly inapplicable in terms, since the plaint contains no prayer to alter or set aside any decision or order of a Civil Court. Appellants' counsel, however, argues that the District Munsif's order dated 6th December 1910 allowing his clients' claim under Order XXXVIII, Rule 8 (attachment before judgment), is governed by Order XXI, Rule 63, and unless set aside, will become final; in which case it will preclude any proceedings against the same property in execution of the decree subsequently obtained. Hence, whatever the prayer in the plaint, the suit must be treated as a suit to set it aside, otherwise it will not be maintainable at all.2. As authority for his proposition that Order XXI, Rule 63, governs orders passed in investigation under Order XXXVIII, Rule 8, Mr. Chenchiah relies on the ruling in Bisheshar Das v. Ambika Prasad I.L.R. (1915) All. ...
M. Narayani Ammal Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council, by ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad590; 41Ind.Cas.167
Spencer, J.1. On the preliminary objection taken by the Counsel for defendants other than 1st defendant that the suit was insufficiently valued both in respect of Court-fees payable on the plaint and for purposes of jurisdction, the District Munsif decided before commencing the trial that the plaintiff's valuation was correct. This decision was final as between the parties to the suit, subject to the power of a Court of Appeal to require an additional fee in a case of loss of revenue being occasioned by a wrong decision on the question of valuation (Section 12 of the Court Fees Act).2. The District Judge was of opinion that the suit had been undervalued and that it ought, therefore, to be dismissed. In this he was wrong, firstly, because he applied Section 7, Clause V (a), of the Court Fess Act to these lands although the revenue from them is admittedly not permanently settled; secondly, because under Section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act he had no power to entertain an objection based...
Ramanamma Alias Videhi Patnayakam and anr. Vs. Bathula Kamaraju and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1917
Reported in: 39Ind.Cas.863
William Aying, J.1. Appellants' contention before us is that the suit is barred under Article 13 of the Indian Limitation Act. This Article is clearly inapplicable in terras, since the plaint contains no prayer to alter or set aside any decision or order of a Civil Court. Appellants' Counsel, however, argues that the District Munsif's order, dated 6th December 1910, allowing his clients' claim under Order XXXVIII, Rule 8 (attachment before judgment), is governed by Order XXI, Rule 63, and unless set aside, will become final; in which case it will preclude any proceedings against the same property in execution of the decree subsequently obtained. Hence, whatever the prayer in the plaint, the suit must be treated as a suit to set it aside: otherwise it will not be maintainable at all.2. As authority for his proposition that Order XXI, Rule 63, governs orders passed in investigation under Order XXXVIII, Rule 8, Mr. Chenchiah relies on a ruling in Bisheshar Das v. Ambika Pershad 89 Ind. Ca...
D. Soundararaja Iyengar Vs. K. Sreenivasa Chariar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad703; 39Ind.Cas.975
1. The main question argued on behalf of appellant is whether an application for a copy required for institution of execution proceedings a starting point from which time will run under Article 182, Schedule I, of the Limitation Act.2. It is, however, unnecessary to deal with it, because respondent has supported the lower Appellate Court's decision on a point on which it held against him, his objection that the appeal to it was presented out of time.3. The objection was considered and dismissed in the lower Appellate Court's order of 3rd January 1916, which we read as a finding that appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal earlier within the meaning of Section 5, Clause 2, of the Limitation Act. The facts are that appellant, the debtor, objected to the petition for execution, which was originally presented by 1st respondent, on two grounds, (1) that it was out of time, (2) that 1st respondent, who applied as a Receiver, no longer held that position. The District Mun...
Samandan Karakat Etathil Karnavan Ryrappan Nambiar Vs. Manikot Velluva ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-1917
Reported in: (1917)33MLJ679
Sadasiva Aiyar, J. 1. The 20th defendant is the appellant in this second appeal. The suit is brought upon a panyam deed of 1883 to recover, by sale of the property mentioned in the deed, the sum of Rs. 400 principal and the interest at 18 per cent. per annum from the date of the bond till date of repayment. The Dower Appellate Court decided against the contentions of the defendants and gave the plaintiff a mortgage decree for sale for the sum of Rs. 400 and interest thereon at 18 per cent. per annum till 5th January 1896 and for interest thereafter at 6 per cent. per annum.2. In second appeal Mr. Chamier, the learned Counsel for the appellant, raised several contentions which might be shortly formulated thus: (1) Exhibit A is not a simple mortgage document but only created a charge and hence the plaintiff is not entitled to take advantage of the provisions of Section 3 of the new Limitation Act of 1908 and his claim had become barred long before the filing of this suit; (2) The lower A...
Samandan Karakat Etathil Karnavan Ryrappan Nambiar Vs. Manikoth Velluv ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad558; 42Ind.Cas.349
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The 20th defendant is the appellant in this second appeal. The suit is brought upon a panayam deed of 1883 to recover, by sale of the property mentioned in the deed, the sum of Rs. 400 principal and interest at 18 per cent, per annum from the date of the bond till date of repayment. The lower Appellate Court decided against the contentions of the defendants and gave the plaintiff a mortgage decree for sale for the sum of Rs. 400 and interest thereon at 18 per cent, per annum till 5th January 1896 and for interest thereafter at 6 per cent, per annum.2. In second appeal Mr. Chamier, the learned Counsel for the appellant, raised several contentions which might be shortly formulated thus: (1) Exhibit A is not a simple mortgage document but only created a charge and hence the plaintiff is not entitled to take advantage of the provisions of Section 31 of the new Limitation Act of 1908 and his claim had become barred long before the filing of this suit. (2) The lower Appe...
In Re: Bagiammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad488; (1917)32MLJ258
ORDERJohn Wallis, Kt., C.J.1. Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code only authorises transfer to a Court competent to try the case. The City Civil Court is not such a court Section 3 of the City Civil Court Act C.M.P. No. 334 of 1917 and I do not think Section 24(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure makes it so.2. It can only become so by the Chief Justice of the High Court authorising the City Civil Judge to try the case in his capacity of Small Cause Court Judge under Section 5(2) of the City Civil Court Act.3. I so direct him....
Appan Patrachariar Vs. V.S. Srinivasachariar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad531; (1917)32MLJ364
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. He purchased the plaint lands in December 1909 from the 1st defendant. The first defendant has a minor step-brother who is the second defendant and also an uterine sister, the 3rd defendant. The first and third defendants' mother was the pre-deceased first wife of one Srinivasa Chariar who died on the 14th November 1908. Within a fortnight before his death and on the 1st November 1908 (when he was in his death-bed and with the knowledge that his dissolution was not far off) he executed the will Ex. V(a) by which he gave the properties mentioned in the schedule A attached to the will to his eldest son, the 1st defendant, gave the properties mentioned in the schedule B to his minor son, the second defendant, and the land mentioned in the C schedule to his daughter, the 3rd defendant, besides making some other provisions. It is not denied that relatively to the A and the B schedule properties bequeathed to the two sons, the C schedule p...
Sathula Venkanna Vs. Namuduri Venkatakrishnayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad492; 41Ind.Cas.807; (1917)33MLJ35
1. This appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiff to compel the 1st defendant to execute a duly registered transfer in respect of a decree in a suit, O.S. No. 364 of 1904. The 1st defendant was the holder of this decree and he had by an agreement, Exhibit F, made with one Jayanti Venkayya (the second defendant) agreed that on Jayanti Venkayya paying to him the amount of that decree he would transfer the decree to the plaintiff. The particular clauses of that agreement which are important are to the following effect: (1) The amount was to be paid within 6 months; (2) The transfer in favour of the present plaintiff was to be made as soon as the amount in respect of this Razinamah was paid. It is to enforce this latter clause that this suit is brought. No point has been taken that it was not open to the plaintiff, not a party to the contract, to bring a suit for specific performance; so we must deal with it as if that right did vest in him. The Lower Appellate Court has held...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »