Chennai Court September 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.
Manjeshwara Krishnayya Vs. Vasudeva Mallayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1917
Reported in: (1918)34MLJ263
John Wallis, C.J.1. Manjunatha Bhandari filed a suit O.S. No. 114 of 1898 for a declaration that the sale deed of the suit properties which he had executed in favour of the 1st defendant in that suit and this was not binding on him, and for a further declaration that the mortgage for Rs. 2,000 executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the 3rd defendant in that suit, the father of the present plaintiffs, was not valid and binding on him. The real question was the validity of the sale under Ex. D, as if that was upheld, the plaintiff had no concern with the subsequent mortgage by the vendee, the 1st defendant, to the 3rd defendant, the father of the present plaintiffs. The 1st and 3rd defendants in that suit made common cause and succeeded in upholding the validity of the sale under Ex. D, subject to the plaintiff's lien for unpaid purchase money. The 1st defendant in his written statement admitted his mortgage to the 3rd defendant, and as, there was no contest about the mortgage, what ...
Manjeshwara Krishnaya Vs. Vasudeva Mallya and Four ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad578; (1918)ILR41Mad458
John Wallis, C.J.1. Manjunatha Bhandari filed a suit, Original Suit No. 114 of 1898, for a declaration that the sale deed of the suit properties which he had executed in favour of the first defendant in that suit and this was not binding on him, and for a. further declaration that the mortgage for Its. 2,000 executed by the first defendant in favour of the third defendant in that suit, the father of the present plaintiffs, was not valid and binding on him. The real question was the validity of the sale under Exhibit D, as if that was upheld, the plaintiff had no concern with the subsequent mortgage by the vendee, the first defendant, to the third defendant, the father of the present plaintiffs. The first and third defendants in that suit made common cause and succeeded in upholding the validity of the sale under Exhibit D, subject to the plaintiffs' lien for unpaid purchase money. The first defendant in his written statement admitted his mortgage to the third defendant, and as there wa...
S.S. Venkataramana Aiyar Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1917
Reported in: 43Ind.Cas.88
ORDERSadasiva Aiyar, J.1. This is a petition for revision of the order of the Divisional Magistrate of Erode, dated 1st September 1917, passed under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code prohibiting the petitioner, who is a High Court Vakil at Erode, from flying a a Home Rule flag and directing him to remove the said flag immediately. The order says, 'as this is a ease of emergency, this order is passed ex parte.' It was served on the petitioner at 9 P. M. on the 1st September 1917.2. The order is defective Prima facie in the following matters: (1) it does not say where the flag was being flown by the petitioner, but this seems to be immaterial as the petitioner knew where it was being flown, that is, over his residence; (2) it does not set out what were the materials on which the Magistrate arrived at the opinion that the flying of the Home Rule flag was (a) 'causing annoyance to the public' and was (6) 'likely to cause disturbance of the public tranquillity,' and (c) 'also likel...
Manikkam Pillai Vs. Rathnasami Nadar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1917
Reported in: 43Ind.Cas.210
1. Two points have been raised before us by the appellant in this case: (1) that Exhibit A, the muchilika given by the plaintiff, is not valid as, it was agreed to only by one of the trustees of the plaint temple and not by the other; (2) that the defendant has a monthly tenancy apart from the lease, Exhibit II and that it has not been properly terminated, as the notice to quit given to him was not by his lessors or on their behalf but by the plaintiff himself and in his own name.2. On the first point we agree with the District Judge that the muchilika, Exhibit A is valid and binding on the temple as it was taken in accordance with the usual practice of the temple by the managing trustee in the names of both the trustees. Though the ordinary rule is that when there are more trustees than one, all must join in the execution of the trust and that one trustee cannot delegate any of his duties to his co-trustee, yet the delegation in the regular course of business is not improper. Compare ...
Grande Gangayya Vs. Grande Venkataramiah and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-1917
Reported in: (1918)34MLJ271
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. The question for decision is whether it is open to a member of a Hindu family who has become divided in status to sue for dissolution of partnership entered into between the managing member of the family and strangers, when the family was joint.2. Sections 254 and 265 of the Indian Contract Act only contemplate suits by one of the partners (as denned in Section 239) for dissolution of partnership and the taking of partnership accounts and there is nothing in the Act which confers such right of suit on a person merely by reason of his being entitled to a share in the interests of one of the partners in the firm. Such a person cannot be in a better position than a sub-partner and it is settled law that he has no right to ask for dissolution of patnership or the taking of the partnership accounts, there being no contract or privity except between him and the partner with whom he is a sub-partner.3. In the present case the plaintiff was not admitted as a partner in...
Grande Gangayya Vs. Grande Venkataramiah and Three ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-1917
Reported in: (1918)ILR41Mad454
Kumaraswami Sastriyar, J.1. The question for decision is whether it is open to a member of a Hindu family who has become divided in status to sue for dissolution of a partnership entered into between the managing member of the family and strangers when the family was joint.2. Sections 254 and 265 of the Indian Contract Act only contemplate suits by one of the partners (as defined in Section 239) for dissolution of partnership and the taking of the partnership accounts and there is nothing in the Act which confers such right of suit on a person merely by reason of his being entitled to a share in the interest of one of the partners in the firm. Such a person cannot be in a better position than a sub-partner and it is settled law that he has no right to ask for dissolution of partnership or the baking of the partnership accounts, there being no contract or privity except between him and the partner with whom he is a sub-partner.3. In the present case the plaintiff was not admitted as a p...
Kasaribada Venkatachelapati Rao Vs. Maddipatla Kameswaramma Alias Kama ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1917
Reported in: 43Ind.Cas.214; (1917)33MLJ515
Ayling, J.1. With all respect to the views of the learned Judges in Hukum Chand Boid v. Kamalanand Singh I.L.R. (1905) .Cal. 927. I prefer to follow the reasoning of an earlier Bench of the same Court, in Bissesswari Chowdhurany v. Horro Sundar Mozum-dar 1.C.W.N. 226, which has been adopted by this Court in Muthuhnmarasami Rowther Minda Nayinar v. Kuppusami Ayyangar I.L.R. (1909) .M. 74. I regard an order of an Appellate Court staying execution as in the nature of a prohibitory order to the Lower Court which becomes effective only on communication., Till it is communicated steps in execution taken by the Lower Court must be treated as legally valid.2. I would answer the reference in the negative.Seshagiri Aiyar, J.3. Notwithstanding the high regard I entertain for the opinions of the two learned Judges who decided Hukum Chand Boid v. Kamalanand Singh, I.L.R. (1905) .Cal. 927 and to the opinion of Sadasiva Aiyar,. J., I am unable to agree with their conclusions. In my opinion, sufficien...
Sri Vidhya Varuthi theertha Swamigal Through His Authorised Agent, M. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1917
Reported in: (1917)33MLJ682
Abdur Rahim, J.1. The question for decision in this appeal is one of limitation in connection with a petition for execution. The decree holder made an application for execution, No. 1571 of 1909 on the 13th September 1909, the object of the application being to get a transfer of the decree from the Tinnevelly court to the Ambasamudram Munsif's court. The application' was dismissed on two grounds by the District Mutisif--firstly that it was not shown that there was no property of the judgment debtor within the local limits of the Tinnevelly court and secondly that the application was barred by limitation. Then on appeal, the Subordinate Judge reversed that order. But the High Court in second appeal restored the order of the District Munsif. This was on the 13th February 1913. The present application was put in on the 14th October 1913 and limitation is said to be saved by deducting the time between the filing of the application on the 13th September 1909 and of the date of the High Cour...
Emani Lakshminarasu Avadhanulu and ors. Vs. the Secretary of State for ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1917
Reported in: 43Ind.Cas.113; (1918)34MLJ223
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The appellants have no doubt, argued fresh questions which were not expressly raised in the pleadings and which were probably thought of only after the decision in Kanduhuri Balasurya Prasada Row v. Secretary of State for India I.L.R (1917) M. 886 but having regard to the very difficult and novel questions raised in these water-cess cases owing to the obscurity of the Water-Cess Act, I think it better to consider and decide these questions also. On the findings of fact by the Lower Appellate Court, the only arguable questions in this case are; (1) whether the plaintiffs are riparian owners and whether the plaint lands are riparian lands, (2) whether baling out water from the natural stream Musi and leading it into and storing it in wells and thence irrigating the plaint lands falls within the natural rights of a riparian owner in India, and (3) whether the water of the Musi stream, if taken by the riparian owner of inam lands, is water belonging to Government withi...
Srinivasa Ranga Row Pantulu (Died) by the Official Assignee, High Cour ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1917
Reported in: (1918)34MLJ454
John Wallis, C.J.1. In construing the provisions of Section 41 of the Court of Wards Act, I of 1902, regard must be had to the scope and object of the amendments introduced into the Madras Court of Wards Regulation V of 1804 by Madras Act IV of 1899 and reproduced without substantial alteration in the Act of 1902. The object was to save the estates of embarrassed proprietors or at least a portion of them for their owners, and it was hoped that with the and of the additional powers conferred on it the Court of Wards would be able to provide for the full discharge of the proprietor's debts and liabilities. If not, the creditors were left to their ordinary remedies which were only interfered with as expressly provided. Among the powers conferred on the Court of Wards and its Agent, the Collector, specified in the order under Section 19 of the Act, was that of requiring all persons having pecuniary claims on the ward, whether decrees or not, to notify those claims within a specified period...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »