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.
Doorvas Seshadri Iyer Vs. Ananthayee and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad401; 42Ind.Cas.671
1. The question for decision was whether the petition dated 3rd April 1912 which was presented to the Madura Court, was in accordance with the law so as to save limitation The jurisdiction over the properties had been transferred before the date of the application from the Madura Court to the Melur Court. We have a recent ruling of thin Court reported as Subbiah Naicker v. Ramanathan Chettiar 22 Ind. Cas. 899. 8: (1914) M. W. N 205. which concludes the point. That decision has been followed in several other decisions of this Court. Penugonda Rattam v. Korasika Thatha 35 Ind. Cas. 237. Vadivelu Pillai v. Maruda Pillai 26 Ind. Cas. 413., Parthasaradhi Appa Rao v. Maka Venkatadri Appa Rao 27 Ind. Cas. 88: (1914) M. W. N. 896. It may be taken to be settled that when the properties with respect to which execution is sought have been transferred to the jurisdiction of another Court, it is that Court that is competent to entertain all applications for execution, and not the Court within whose...
Muthammal Vs. Razu Pillai and Five ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1917
Reported in: (1918)ILR41Mad513
Srinivasa Ayyangar, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff from the decree of the Temporary Subordinate Judge of Ramnad, dated 21st September 1914, in a suit to enforce a mortgage. The question is what amount is due to the fourth defendant on two prior mortgages which, it is agreed, should be deemed to be still outstanding against the plaintiff. On March 29, 1899, defendants Nos. 1 to 3, the owners of certain houses in the town of Madura, mortgaged them to the Hindu Permanent Fund of that town to secure the repayment of the sum of Rs. 1,500 and interest. On the 26th September of the same year they again mortgaged the same houses and certain lands of theirs to Sevugan Chetty, the fourth defendant, to secure the repayment of Rs. 1,000 and interest. On February 9,1901, they again mortgaged the houses alone to the plaintiff's husband (deceased) to secure the repayment of Rs. 500 and interest. Sevugan Chetty sued on his mortgage in the Madura Munsif's Court, obtained a decree for Rs. 1,265...
Gollanapalli Subbatya Vs. Sankara Venkataratnam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1917
Reported in: 42Ind.Cas.683
1. The 1st respondent in this appeal put in a claim under Order XXI, Rule 58, Civil Procedure Code, to certain property which had been attached at the instance of another person. There was another claim filed by the 2nd defendant in the suit and both claims were disposed of on the same date. The 1st respondent's claim was dismissed, it being found that he was not in possession of the property as alleged; the claim of the 2nd defendant on the other hand was allowed and the attachment of the property was removed. Then the decree-holder instituted a suit to establish his right to attach the property belonging to the judgment-debtor and ultimately succeeded in the suit. Thereupon, the 1st respondent put in a fresh claim and, that being dismissed, he instituted this suit.2. The question is whether the suit is in time. The contention of the appellant is that once the claim of the 1st respondent to the appeal was dismissed, although attachment was removed on the same date at the instance of a...
Vema Rangiah Chetty Vs. V.M. Vajravelu Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad557; 43Ind.Cas.78; (1917)33MLJ618
1. The learned Judges have differed on the question whether a second appeal lies to this Court and that depends upon the question whether the present suit is one of a small cause nature, and if it be a suit for the apportionment of rent it is not of a small cause nature (see Article 7 of 2nd Schedule of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act). The plaint in this case recites that the lessee failed to get possession of a portion of the demised premises by reason of a decree against the lessor. The plaintiff who sues for rent claims only a rateable amount namely one-third of the stipulated rent or Rs. 116-10-8 a year. He does not allege that the rent had been apportioned at this figure by consent of the parties but only that the defendant had settled the claim for rent up to 1904 on what terms he does not say. The finding is that there was no agreement about it, and therefore it is quite clear that the suit did involve an apportionment of rent and could not have been decided without it, t...
A.T. Venkata Narayana Pillai Vs. V. Ponnusami Nadar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-1917
Reported in: 43Ind.Cas.205; (1917)33MLJ660
1.This is an appeal from a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Kumbakonum dismissing the suit, brought by the plaintiff for a declaration that his suspension from the office of temple trustee by the Kumbakonum Devasthanam Committee was illegal, and for damages. The decision as to the legality of the suspension depends mainly in this case on the question whether the procedure adopted by the Committee can be supported What happened was that, after the plaintiff had been given notice of some or all of the charges against him, the 2nd defendant a member of the Committee drew up a report Ex. B 1, and forwarded copies of it to the other members of the Temple Committee proposing that the plaintiff and some other trustees should be suspended until further orders. In it he stated that, though the subject had been or a long time before the meeting, it had not been concluded. ' It is therefore sent in circulation. I request that instead of writing 'meeting' in this you will write your opinion.' De...
Asa Beevi and ors. Vs. S.K.M. Kuruppan Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-1917
Reported in: 41Ind.Cas.361; (1918)34MLJ460
1. We agree with the conclusion arrived at by Mr. Justice Sadasiva Aiyar in this case on the ground that a transfer of an expectancy of this kind is not permitted by the Muhammadan Law. That was decided in accordance with the opinion of the numerous law officers consulted in Mussammat Kanum Jan v. Mussamat Jan Beebee (1827) 4 S.D.A. 210. cited at p. 89 of the Macnaughten's Principles and Precedents of Muhammadan Law is to the same effect. This view has also been taken by the text writers on Muhammadan Law (Sir Roland Wilson's Digest of Anglo-Muhammadan Law, page 268, and more particularly Volume II, pages 50 and 51 of the 3rd Edition of Mr. Ameer Ali's Muhammadan Law where the subject is more fully dealt with). Mr. Tyabji's Principles of Muhammadan Law is to the same effect. On the other hand, reliance has been placed mainly on the decision of the Privy Council in Mussammat Hurmutool-Nissa Begam v. Allahdia Khan (1871) 17 W.R. 108 by which Mr. Justice Spencer appears to have been mainl...
Grandhe Gangayya Vs. Grandhe Venkataramiah and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad37; 43Ind.Cas.9
Kumaraswami Sastsi, 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 at 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 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 partnership 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 p...
Asha Beevi and ors. Vs. S.K.M. Karuppan Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-1917
Reported in: 45Ind.Cas.35
1. We agree with the conclusion arrived at by Mr. Justice Sadasiva Aiyar in this case on the ground that a transfer of an expectancy of this kind is not permitted by the Muhammadan Law. That was decided in accordance with the opinion of the numerous law officers consulted in Musammat Khanum Jan v. Musammat Jan Beebee 4 S.D.A. 210 of Macnaugbten's Principles and Precedents of Muhammadan Law is to the same effect. This view has also been taken by the text-writers on Muhammadan Law (Sir Roland Wilson's Digest of Anglo-Muhammadan Law, page 268, and more particularly Volume II, pages 50 and 51 of the 3rd edition of Mr. Amir Ali's Muhammadan Law where the subject is more fully dealt with). Mr. Justice Tyabji's Principles of Muhammadan Law is to the same effect.2. On the other hand reliance has been mainly placed on the decision of the Privy Council in Musammal Hurmut-ool-nissa, Begum v. Allahdin Khan 17 W.R. 108 by which Mr. Justice Spencer appears to have been mainly influenced in dissentin...
In Re: Lakshminarayana Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad738; 42Ind.Cas.989
ORDER.12. The petitioner has been convicted of the offence of abetment of bribery. It has been found that he went to the house of the Sub-Magistrate of Saidapet, and saying that he wished to introduce one Arunagiri Naick, who was accused in a case then pending before the Sub-Magistrate, as a person to whom some favour should be shown, pressed Rs. 53 in notes into the Sub-Magistrate's hand.13. The learned Judges, who composed the Bench which heard the revision case, differed only on the question whether the sentence should be reduced for the reason that the petitioner's object in offering a bribe to the Sub-Magistrate may have been rather to lay a trap for a dishonest official than to secure the acquittal of the offender, Arunagiri Naick. Mr. Justice Phillips declined to consider the case in tiffs aspect, as this defence was not raised at the trial or at the hearing of the appeal in the Sessions Court. As the whole case has now been referred to me, it is argued that it is open to me to ...
Ramanadhan Chetty Vs. Katha Velan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-1917
Reported in: 42Ind.Cas.934; (1917)33MLJ627
1. We must accept the finding that the promissory note sued on was executed to Ulagappa Chettiar as trustee of the charity. The question whether the said payee could alone have maintained the suit without joining his co-trustees was not raised in the Court below. It would depend in each case upon the powers and duties of the managing trustee whether such a person is competent to represent the trust solely. That question has not been put in issue and we are not prepared to allow it to be debated now.2. Another question which was argued at some length need not be discussed now, namely, whether if there is an assignment of the note by the act of parties, it should not be only in the mode prescribed by the Negotiable Instruments Act. There is a considerable conflict of opinion on this question and it can only be settled by a reference to a Full Bench.3. The possibility of transfer of right in the note by operation of law has not been the subject of judicial pronouncements to any considerab...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »