Chennai Court August 1917 Judgments
C.S. Parameswara Ayyan Vs. Kittunni Valia Mannadiar Alias Puthunana Pa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1917
Reported in: 43Ind.Cas.173; (1917)33MLJ591
Saiasiva Aiyar, J.1. The 2nd plaintiff in this suit for redemption is the appellant before us. The two questions for consideration are, (1) whether a mortgagee tenant to whom the Malabar Compensation for Tenants' Improvements Act applies is bound to pay mesne profits from the date of tender of the amount due under the mortgage into court when it was found that the money so tendered sufficiently covered the compensation for improvements also, (2) Whether the 2nd plaintiff melcharatdar is under the circumstances of this case entitled to his costs.2. The answer to the first question depends entirely upon the construction to be placed upon Sections 5 and 6 of the Malabar Improvements Act (I of 1900) and especially Section 5. Omitting the words immaterial for our purpose, Section 5 is as follows: (1) 'Every tenant' (which includes a mortgagee in possession) 'shall on ejectment be entitled to compensation for improvements for which compensation has not already been paid; and every tenant to ...
Tag this Judgment!M. Pattabirama Naidu Deceased Through His Legal Representatives T.K.A. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1917
Reported in: 45Ind.Cas.76
1. The question is whether this application under Order XXXIV, Rule 5(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure for a final decree in a mortgage suit is subject to Article 181 or Article 182, Schedule I of the Limitation Act.2. We do not think it necessary to refer to any case before Mahammad Hussin v. Abdul Kareem 29 Ind. Cas. 237: 17 M.L.T. 424. It no doubt goes some way, if it is applicable, in support of appellants' contention for Article 182.3. But it is, in our opinion, inapplicable to the case before us, the preliminary-decree now in question having been passed after, whilst the decree then in question was passed before, the present Code of Civil Procedure came into operation. This distinotion is drawn in the judgment in Nimmala Mahankali v. Mahanakali v. Kallakuri Subba Rao 41 Ind. Cas. 268, with which we express our respectful concurrence. We are further fortified in that concurrence by the fact that the judgment is in accordance with the decisions of two other High Courts, those of B...
Tag this Judgment!Mayarkara Illath Narayanan Moosad Vs. Koori Kathil Itticherry Amma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad431; 42Ind.Cas.331; (1917)33MLJ449
ORDERSadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The petitioner in revision, Narayana Moosad, was at first directed by the Magistrate to pay Rs. 15 a month for the maintenance of the respondent's (Itticheri Amma's) elder child who seems to have been born in 1914. This order was passed on 12-5-1916, notwithstanding the petitioner's denial that he kept or married the woman or that the child was born to him. Against that order there was a previous revision petition to this Court (Crl. Revision Case No. 491 of 1916), and the 'Magistrate's order was set aside by Mr. Justice Spencer on 4-12-1916 in order that the Magistrate might consider the circumstances of the woman's tarwad and then fix the maintenance.2. Pending this maintenance case before the Sab-Divisional Magistrate, the petitioner filed a suit O.S. No. 295 of 1916) in the District Munsif's Court of Tirur for a declaration that the plaintiff was never his wife and the child was not born to him and for another relief (not relevant to this case). That decla...
Tag this Judgment!P.L.A. Palaniappa Chettiar Vs. V.L.A.R. Veerappa Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-1917
Reported in: (1918)34MLJ41
1. On the second question argued by Mr. A. Krishnaswami Aiyar, the facts are these :-The father of the plaintiff was a partner with defendants 3, 6 and 8 in the Epoh Firm, which we shall denominate as the Creditor Firm. Defendants 3, 6 and 8 were also partners with the 1st defendant in the Singapore Firm which we shall call the Debtor Firm. The plaintiff's father died in 1903. During the course of the winding up of the Creditor Firm, Defendants 3, 6 and 8 lent to the Debtor Firm a certain sum of money. The present suit is to recover the plaintiff's share of that loan. The question whether the plaintiff can maintain the suit against a firm which consists of some of his own partners need not be decided as we agree with the Lower Court upon another point.2. By Exhibit I, the debtor firm entered into a deed of composition with the outside creditors of that Firm. The main provisions of that document are that the 1st defendant should pay a certain sum of money to pay off these outside credit...
Tag this Judgment!P.L.A. Palaniappa Chettiar Vs. V.L.A.R. Veerappa Chettiar and Nine ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-1917
Reported in: (1918)ILR41Mad446
Seshagiri Ayyar, J.1. The suit was found by the Subordinate Judge to be barred by limitation. The suit loans were taken on 28th December, 1903, and 20th January, 1904, but the suit was not instituted till 3rd November, 1909.2. Appellant's first contention may be briefly disposed of. His vakil argues that in accordance with a usage of the trading community to which the parties belong, there was an automatic renewal at the end of every three months, the accrued interest being added to the principal and the total being treated as a fresh loan. There are entries in defendants' accounts which might be consistent with such a usage, but no evidence whatever has been adduced to show its actual existence. No such contention appears to have been raised in the Lower Court as far as can be seen and in paragraph 14 of his judgment the Subordinate Judge says these quarterly entries were made according to custom merely with a view to record exactly the amount of liability. In the absence of evidence ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Mallala Obiah of Owk
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad731; 42Ind.Cas.998
1. The petition has been convicted by a 1st Cass Magistrate of an offence under Section 211 of the Indian Penal code and the conviction has been confirmed on appeal by the Sessions Judge.2. On October 30th, 1915, he gave certain information to the Village Magistrate of Owk, the substance of which may be gathered from the Village Magistrate's report, which runs thus.This morning at about 9 o'clock Malyala Obanna of this village came to me and reported as follows.3. 'On 29th October 1915 I obtained a sale of two numbers from Sale Pedda Ramudu of this village for Rs. 384, got a registered sale-deed executed and had it registered. The aforesaid person got the document from the Sub-Registrar and brought it to my house on the same day at 5 o'clock in the evening and delivered it to me. At the time I had some urgent business and, as the previous document connected with this was in the pocket of the coat hung upon a peg, I appended this document to it and placed both the documents there is the...
Tag this Judgment!Palaniammal Vs. Muthuvenkatachala Maniagarar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad242; 43Ind.Cas.833; (1917)33MLJ759
Wallis, C.J.1. This Appeal appears to me to be quite unarguable on the question of the compromise, and I confine myself to the question whether the plaintiffs are entitled to partition of the suit lands as joint family property. The view taken in this Presidency prior to the Full Bench decision in Soundararajan v. Arunachalam Chetty 29 M.L.J. 8l6 was that, while every coparcener had, a right to partition, actual severance was only effected either by agreement of the co-parceners or by a preliminary decree in a suit for partition. The Full Bench felt bound to abandon that view in deference to the observations of their Lordships in Suraj Narain y, Ikbal Narain (1912) L.R. 40 I A. 43 and that they interpreted that decision correctly appears from the subsequent decision of their Lordships in Girjabai 1 Sadashiv Dhundiraj (1916) L.R. 43 IndAp 151 which must be taken as finally settling the question, Kawal Nain v. Prabhu Lal . In Girjabai v. Sadashiv Dhundiraj (1916) L.R.43 IndAp 151 the cas...
Tag this Judgment!Kandasami Pillai Vs. Muthuvenkatachala Maniagar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad263; 43Ind.Cas.850; (1917)33MLJ787
1. A preliminary objection has been taken to the hearing of Appeal No. 220 of 1909 that the court is not legally constituted. By the proviso to Section 101(2) of the Government of India Act, 1915, the Governor-General in Council is empowered to appoint persons to act as Additional Judges of any High Court, for such period, not exceeding two years, as may be required, and this is subject to the further provision that the maximum number of the Judges of a High Court shall be twenty. The Act which is a consolidating one reproduces in this, proviso the provisions of the Indian High Courts Act, 1911 (1 and 2 Geo, V. Ch. 18). Reading the proviso with Section 32 of the Interpretation Act of 1889, it is admitted that the power conferred may be exercised by the Governor-General in Council from time to time, but it is said, that as regards each High Court, appointments can only be made for periods not exceeding two years in all, however much they may be required subsequently. That would be a ver...
Tag this Judgment!Sunkuru Suryanarayana Alias Lakshminarayana, Being a Minor by His Moth ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-1917
Reported in: 43Ind.Cas.526; (1918)34MLJ87
Seshagiri Aiyar, J.1. One Gurumurthi Subudhi belonging to the Vaisya caste had four sons, three of whom were married and the other was unmarried. All the four sons died during his lifetime, the three married sons leaving behind their widows. In this state of circumstances Gurumurthi adopted a boy for himself the 1st defendant in this suit, and made a will on the 28th June 1909 by which he authorised his three daughters-in-law to adopt a son each. The 2nd plaintiff in this case adopted a son under the authority given to her by Gurumurthi. That boy died. Thereupon she attempted to adopt the 1st plaintiff in this case in November 1911 but was temporarily prevented by injunction from doing so. She subsequently adopted him in 1913.The present suit is brought by the adopted son as 1st plaintiff, and by the adoptive mother as second plaintiff to recover the share of the property bequeathed to the latter's 1 adopted son Gurumurthi. Their allegation is that the 1st defendant gave his consent fo...
Tag this Judgment!Chelimi Chetti and ors. Vs. Subbanna
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad379; (1918)34MLJ213
1. This matter arises in connection with a suit instituted on behalf of a minor member of a Hindu family for partition. The minor plaintiff died after the institution of suit but before the written statement was filed. The respondent before us who is the mother of the plaintiff applied to the first court to be brought on record and for permission to continue the suit as legal representative of the deceased plaintiff. That court held that no cause of action survived and refused the application of the respondent. On appeal however the District Judge set aside the order of the first court holding that the respondent was entitled to continue the suit as legal representative of the plaintiff. The contention before us on behalf of the defendants in the suit is that when the minor died whatever rights he had in the family property survived to the other members of the family as there was no partition. A rather interesting question was discussed before us as to whether an appeal lay to the Dist...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »