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.
Ramanadhan Chetty Vs. Katha Velan and Two ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-1917
Reported in: (1918)ILR75Mad353
ORDER1. We must call for a finding as to whether at the time of the suit the right to collect monies due to the trust had devolved solely on the plaintiff.2. Fresh evidence may be adduced, if desired. The finding will be submitted within two months from this date, and the parties will be at liberty to file objections to the said finding within seven days after notice of the return of the same shall have been posted up in this Court.3. 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.4. Another question which was argued at some length need not...
Sambasiva Ayyar and anr. Vs. Ganapathi Ayyar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad264(1); 45Ind.Cas.727
1. The Subordinate Judge, in declaring that the partnership shall stand dissolved as from the date of the judgment, has given no reason for fixing that date. Order XX, Rule 15 of the Civil Procedure Code, no doubt, gives a discretion to the trial Court to fix the date; but it is a judicial discretion and not an arbitrary one. Ordinarily, as pointed out in Lindley on Partnership, page 644, the Court should direct dissolution either from the date of any notice 'given' in that behalf by one of the partners or from the date of the plaint. Section 25 of the Contract Act shows that in some cases the date of the judgment would be the most convenient date. See also Lyon v. Tweddell (1881) 17 Ch. D. 529 : 50 L.J. Ch. 571 : 29 W.R. 689.2. In the present case, the parties have been at arm's length since the filing of the plaint and an attempt to get a Receiver appointed was resisted by the first defendant. We think, under the circumstances, the partnership should stand dissolved as from the date ...
Chandra Goundan and ors. Vs. Palaniappa Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad638(2); 42Ind.Cas.961
1. A decree was passed ex parte against the parties in Original Suit No. 533 of 1915 by the District Munsif, Erode, and they applied to get it set aside under Order IX, rule 13. The Munsif, after hearing the parties, passed an order stating, ' I shall restore the suit if the defendants pay into Court the entire costs of the plaintiff except the institution fee, and also the respondents' costs of this application on or before the 7th April 1916.' The costs were not so paid, but on the 1st April petitioners applied again to have the suit restored to the file and reheard on the merits, stating that they were ready and willing to pay the costs into Court as ordered and that their failure to do so in time was due to their not having known of the order in time. The Munsif has treated this application as in substance one for extension of time and though he found that the case was one eminently fit for granting an extension, he held he had no power in law to grant any extension and dismissed t...
Sowbagia Ammal Vs. Manicka Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-1917
Reported in: (1917)33MLJ601
1. The appellant obtained on the 30th September 1913 a maintenance decree in O.S. No. 44 of 1911 directing the defendants to pay her maintenance at Rs. 50 a month and charging the same on the properties specified in the plaint. On. appeal the High Court modified the decree by substituting for the personal decree a decree making the maintenance payable out of the joint family properties in the hands of the defendants and by confining the charge to items 4 to 25 of the plaint. She applied to execute the decree by attachment and sale of certain items chargad with the maintenance. The judgment debtors objected on the ground that the decree holder can only proceed by a separate suit and the District Judge following Aubhoyessury Dabee v. Gouri Sunkur Pandey I.L.R. (1895) C 859 and Venkatasubbamma v. Venkanna (1907) 17 M.L.J. 217 upheld their contention and while granting the prayer for attachment, was of opinion that a separate suit for sale was necessary.2. We do not think that the order of...
Sowbagia Ammal Vs. Manika Mudali and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-1917
Reported in: 42Ind.Cas.975
1. The appellant obtained on the 30th September 1913 a maintenance decree in Original Suit No. 44 of 1911, directing the defendants to pay her maintenance at Rs. 50 a month and charging the same on the properties specified in the plaint. On appeal, the High Court modified the decree by substituting for the personal decree a decree making the maintenance payable out of the joint family properties in the hands of the defendants and by confining the charge to items Nos. 4 to 25 of the plaint. She applied to execute the decree by attachment and sale of certain items charged with the maintenance. The judgement-debtors objected on the ground that the decree-debtors objected on the ground that the decree-holder can only proceed by a separate suit and the District Judge, following Aubhoyessury Dabee v. Gouri Sunkur Panday 11 Ind. Dec. 568, and Venkatasubhamma v. Venkanna 17 M. L. J. 217, upheld their contention and while granting the prayer for attachment was of opinion that a separate suit fo...
In Re: Ravri Manikyam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad164; 43Ind.Cas.95
ORDER1. It is clear that the Magistrate has made no final order under Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. He says in his proceedings of July 17th: 'I refrain from taking proceedings under either of the aforesaid sections (Sections 145 or 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) just at present'. 'If the counter-petitioners persist in interfering with the petitioners' possession of the mil), I shall be constrained to institute regular proceedings under Section 107 of the Cede of Criminal Procedure; but I hope and trust that they will refrain from doing so I wish to make it clear that I am not actually issuing an order, disobedience to which is ipso facto a criminal offence'.3. Also it does not appear that he issued any order, as is required by Section 145(6) forbidding all disturbance of the possession, of the successful party until eviction, in, due course of law.4. The Magistrate in fact stopped the proceedings that he commenced under Section 145, and stated in writing what...
Ramachandra Mallya Vs. Narayana Hegade and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad665; 42Ind.Cas.972
Abdur Rahim, J.1. The first respondent as plaintiff in the suit obtained a decree against two defendants in the suit: the decree as against the appellant, who was the 2nd defendant, was passed ex parts and that against the 1st defendant after contest. The 1st defendant appealed to the lower Appellate Court to which appeal, however, the 2nd defendant was not made a party. The 2nd defendant made an application under Order Ix, rule 13, Civil Procedure Code, to the same Appellate Court to set aside the ex parts decree. The lower Appellate Court, that is, the District Judge, set aside the decree against the 2nd defendant and remanded the suit to the first Court for hearing and disposal. The appeal by the 1st defendant is, we understand, still pending in that Court. The plaintiff applied to the High Court under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code, for revision of the order of the District Judge setting aside the ex parte decree. Mr. Justice Sadasiva Aiyar, who heard the petition, set aside the...
Rapaka Viyyanna Vs. Parakala Bajamma Alias Seshamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad336(1); 44Ind.Cas.120
1. Under Section 27 of the Civil Courts Act, the general control over all Civil Courts in any District is vested in the District Judge and the latter is, therefore, an authority to which the Court of a Subordinate Judge is subordinate within the meaning of the Criminal Procedure Code, Section 195 (6). The High Court has general powers of superintendence over all Courts and is a similar authority. Sub-section (7) of that section deals with the case of several controlling authorities and provides that only the Court to which appeals ordinarily lie from the Court granting sanction shall exercise the power conferred by Sub-section (6). Sub-section 7 (a) also provides that where such appeals lie to more than one Court the Appellate Court of inferior jurisdiction shall be the authority to exercise this power. Appeals lie from the Court of a Subordinate Judge in certain cases to the District Judge and in other oases to the. High Court, and Section 13 of the Civil Courts Act treats the latter ...
Munugarra Satyalakshmi Naraya and anr. Vs. Munugarra Jagannadham and o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-1917
Reported in: 42Ind.Cas.939; (1918)34MLJ229
Krishnan, J.1. Plaintiffs--apppellants sued to recover 9 items of property as the reversionary heirs of their maternal grandfather, one Avadhanulu, the original owner, on the death of the last life-estate holder Venkamma in September 1902. Avadhanalu died long ago leaving a widow and two daughters Buchamma, plaintiff's mother and Venkamma her sister. The widow who had the first life estate died in 1887. The properties had all been alienated after the death of the widow and during the lifetime of the daughters by the first defendant, the father of the plaintiffs, who acted as their guardian in doing so, Plaintiffs claimed that as these alienations were made before the properties had become theirs and were without necessity and authority, they were not binding on them.2. Defendants other than the first pleaded, that the widow had with the consent of her two daughters surrendered the whole of her estate in favour of the first plaintiff and that the alienations by the father subsequently w...
Subramanian Chetty Vs. Vijia Raghunatha Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad169; 44Ind.Cas.419
Spencer, J.1. In substance the case set up by the plaintiff in this suit was that, instead of exercising his admitted right to collect rent at a fixed rate from the royts of Manjoori village for fishing in the village tank, he had a right to catch the fish himself to the exclusion of those royts who had hitherto been enjoying this privilege, or to lease out the fishery to strangers. In the plaint, after setting out his title, which is based on a seventy years' lease of the village of Manjoori from the Rajah of Ramnad (vide Exhibits A and B), he proceeded to allege that the defendants had obstructed him in the enjoyment of his alleged fishery rights, and to ask for a declaration of his title and for an injunction restraining defendants from interfering with his enjoyment, and for damages.2. The District Munsif dismissed the plaintiff's suit, finding on the first issue that the plaintiff was not the exclusive owner of the fishery in the plaint tank. This finding would have been enough fo...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »