Chennai Court March 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.
R. Ramchandra Naidu and ors. Vs. Malang Hyath Batcha Saib and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-1917
Reported in: 43Ind.Cas.661
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. This is a suit filed by the heirs of one Tirumalasami Naidu for taking partnership accounts. By a deed of partnership,' dated the 7th January 1901 (Exhibit Q), the 1st defendant, Tirumalasami Naidu (whose heirs the plaintiffs claim to be), the late Muthuswami Naidu, the late Abdul Rahiman Sahib and one Kothandaramiah Chetti entered into a partnership agreement for carrying on business for five years from 1st January 1901. On the expiry of that period Kothandaramiah Chetti left the partnership and a fresh deed of partnership (Exhibit R, dated 29th January 1906) was entered into between the 1st defendant, the deceased Tirumalasami Naidu and the deceased Muthusami Naidu whereby they agreed to carry on business under the name and style of M.A. Hyath Batcha Sahib and Co., for a further period of five years from the 1st January 1906 with the option to continue the partnership thereafter on the same terms. Kothandaramiah Chetti, who was a partner in the business previ...
Arumugha Mudaliar Vs. Krishnasami Naicken
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad697(2); 42Ind.Cas.498
1. The appellant is assignee of a decree in favour of one Yogambal, in execution of which he realised Rs. 2,992-2-10, now in the lower Court. Respondent-petitioner in the lower Court, however, attached the decree as Yogambal's property after the assignment and has applied for this amount in satisfaction of his own decree. The lower Court in the order under appeal allowed him to draw' the balance remaining after payment to appellant of the amount still required to make up Rs. 2,230, that being the extent to which it held the latter entitled to execute the decree under his assignment. This order was passed without consideration of the merits on the ground that the assignment had been held invalid generally against Yogambal's creditors, except as to Rs. 2,230, in Exhibit C, a decision of this Court. The question is whether Exhibit C has this effect.2. Yogambal's decree, one for possession, profits and costs, was assigned to appellant as a whole. At the date of Exhibit C only the amount aw...
M. Kandaswami Chetty Vs. P. Subramania Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1917
Reported in: (1917)33MLJ448
1. Upon the question whether Courts in this country have the power by virtue of Order 39, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure to issue temporary injunctions in mandatory form, we are not prepared to adopt the opinion expressed by Beaman, J., in Rasul Karim v. Pirubhai Amirbhai I.L.R. (1914) B. 381.2. The description of temporary injunctions in Section 53, Specific Relief Act does not exclude injunctions of a mandatory nature, and in Israil v. Shamset Rahman I.L.R. (1918) C. 436, upon an application for an interim injunction, pending the disposal of a suit it was ordered that defendant should 'not only be restrained from further erection of a building but that he should pull down so much of it as he had erected after he became aware of the institution of the plaintiff's suit. We also may observe that Shah, J., did not agree with the opinion of his learned brother in Rasul Karim v. Pirubhai Amirbhai I.L.R. (1914) B. 381, and that the other Judges of the Bombay High Court took a differe...
Sannasi Kudumban Vs. Sivasubramania Kone and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1917
Reported in: (1917)33MLJ366
ORDERAyling, J.1. The main point involved in this petition is whether Section 344, Criminal Procedure Code authorises a Magistrate to grant an adjournment; conditionally on the. payment of costs. The power, if it exists is certainly one very rarely exercised; on the other hand, the words of the section ('on such terms as it thinks fit') seem wide enough to cover an order making the payment of costs by one party to another a condition of granting an adjournment. This is the contention of the learned Public Prosecutor and the only cases to which our attention has been directed Mathura Prasad v. Basant Lal I.L.R (1905) A.209 Sheo Prasad Poddar v. The Corporation of Calcutta 9 C.W.N.18 and a recent decision of a single Judge of this Court in Crl. Rev. Cases Nos. 485 and 486 of 1916 are all in his favour. It is pointed out that the Code contains no provision for the recovery of costs ordered to be paid under this section. But this is not conclusive, for Sections 433 and 488 are instances in...
Chidambaranatha Thambiran Alias Sivagnana Desika Gnana Sammanda Pandar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad464; (1917)33MLJ357
Wallis, C.J.1. This is a suit brought by the two plaintiffs with leave under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as representing themselves and other Thambirans and disciples of the suit mutt to declare certain alienations made by the Mahant invalid and have the property alienated handed over to the Mahant, the first defendant. The Mahant having died during the pendency of the suit and been succeeded by the 1st plaintiff, the plaint was amended accordingly and now pray for possession to be given to the 1st plaintiff.2. The Subordinate Judge has held that mutt properties as such are not trust properties and that consequently the suit is not barred under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code, but he has also held that the plaintiffs are not entitled to sue for possession to be given to the first defendant and that the suit must be treated as one for a declaration and is barred under Article 120 of the Limitation Act.3. If the suit properties were held by the Pandarasanna...
Florina Marties Vs. M.L. Pinto and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad461; 42Ind.Cas.677; (1917)33MLJ476
Srinivasa Aiyangar, J.1. The question raised in this appeal is whether a sum of money paid into court by the 2nd defendant the Roman Catholic Provident Fund, Mangalore belongs to the plaintiff or the 1st defendant. The Roman Catholic Provident Fund is an unregistered voluntary association in the nature of a club managed by a committee. Its object is to make provision for the family of the deceased members out of the funds of the society in accordance with its rules which are subject to alteration. One Lucia Fernandez joined the society as a member and according to the rules of the society obtained what is called a ' policy ' by which the society undertook to pay a certain sum called 'bonus' to the person named in her latest nominee list and in the absence of such a person to those who are declared to be legal heirs by evidence approved of by the directors. According to the rules of the society the policy was not assignable and a member can only nominate a member of his or her family-th...
Aiyasami Aiyar Vs. Aiyasami Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-1917
Reported in: (1917)33MLJ545
ORDERAbdur Rahim, J.1. The petitioner who is a pleader practising in the District Munsif's Court of Shiyali and a senior member of the profession there was party, to a suit in which he was the plaintiff. He obtained a decree and the defendants deposited the amount of costs in Court. The petitioner for the purpose of drawing this amount from Court made an affidavit and in that affidavit he stated that the property which he gave as security according to the order of the Court was subject only to one encumbrance and was not subject to a mortgage in favour of one Vaidyanatha Aiyar. This apparently was not correct. When an amin was deputed to enquire whether the mortgage in favor of Vaidyanatha Aiyar did actually subsist, the petitioner admitted that he had made a mistake, and that as a matter of fact, there was this encumbrance also on the property. The learned District Munsif who heard the application made by one of the unsuccessful defendants in the suit for sanction for the prosecution ...
Malaiperumal Chettiar, Minor, and anr. Vs. Arunaohalla Chettiar, by Hi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad706; 41Ind.Cas.224
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The two minor defendants in Appeal No. 139 of 1916 are the 2nd and 3rd defendants in the connected Appeal No. 275 of 1916. The 1st defendant in the suit (Original Suit No. 6 of 1916) out of which the latter Appeal No. 275 of 1916 has arisen, is the mother of the two principal defendants who are the sons of one Kannusami Chetti and the younger brothers of one Tirumudi Chetti. Tirumudi Chetti died on the 7th July 1911 having carried on trade in arecanuts for about two years before his death. The trade had been carried on on a pretty expensive scale and he owed moneys to numerous customers. But he also left stock in trade of the value of about five or six thousand rupees according to the evidence. The probabilities are that there were also outstandings due to him in the business when he died suddenly of cholera, but as the defendants have not produced their trade accounts, it is impossible to state what sums were then really due to the business In the power of-attorne...
Aiyasami Iyer Vs. Aiyasami Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad627; 39Ind.Cas.1004
ORDERAbdur Rahim, J.1. The petitioner, who is a Pleader practising in the District Munsif's Court of Shiyali and senior member of the profession, was party to a suit in which he was the plaintiff. He obtained a decree and the defendants deposited the amount of costs in Court. The petitioner for the purpose of drawing this amount from Court made an affidavit, and in that affidavit he stated that the property which he gave as security according to the order of the Court was subject only to one encumbrance and was not subject to a mortgage in favour of one Vaidynatha Aiyar. This apparently was not correct. When an amin was deputed to enquire whether the mortgage in favour of Vaidyanatha Aiyar did actually subsist, the petitioner admitted that he had made a mistake and that, as a matter of fact, there was this encumbrance also on the property. The learned District Munsif who heard the application made by one of the unsuccessful defendants in the suit for sanction for the prosecution of the...
Chidambaranatha Thambiran Alias Sivagnana Desika Gnanasambanda Pandara ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-1917
Reported in: 42Ind.Cas.366
Wallis, C.J.1. This is a suit brought by the two plaintiffs with leave under Order I, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as representing themselves and other tambirans and disciples of the suit mutt, to declare certain alienations made by the mahant invalid and have the property alienated handed over to the mahant, the 1st defendant. The mahant having 'died during the pendency of the suit and been succeeded by the 1st plaintiff, the plaint was amended accordingly and now prays for possession to be given to the 1st plaintiff.2. The Subordinate Judge has held that mutt properties as such are not trust properties and that consequently the suit is not barred under Section 92, Civil Procedure Code, but he has also held that the plaintiffs are not entitled to sue for possession to be given to the 1st defendant and that the suit must be treated as one for a declaration and is barred under Article 120 of the Limitation Act.3. If the suit properties were held by the Pandara Sannadhi o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »