Chennai Court January 1918 Judgments
Hajee Ismail Sait and Sons Vs. Wilson and Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-1918
Reported in: 45Ind.Cas.942
Wallis, C.J.1. The plaintiffs in this case are a well-known firm carrying on business in Mysore and Madras. In 1913 they obtained from the Mysore Government the Abkari contract for Mysore and arranged with the defendants, who carry on business in Madras, that they should go on importing molasses for them in the same way as they had done for the previous holders of the contract. Admittedly the goods contracted for were intended for use by the plaintiffs in their factories at Bangalore. Owing to the disorganization of shipping consequent on the outbreak of the war at the beginning of August 1914, the defendants were unable to ship 800 tons from Java in the month of October 1914 as they were bound to do under their contract. This was a breach of contract for which admittedly they are bound to compensate the plaintiffs in damages, and the main question argued before the learned Judge and before us is as to the measure of damages. The learned Judge awarded the plaintiffs only, nominal damag...
Tag this Judgment!Kannusami Pillai and anr. Vs. Jagathambal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1918
Reported in: (1918)35MLJ27
Oldfield, J.1. I am not disposed to reconsider the principle referred to in Aiya Koundan v. Jagan Mandalathipathiar (1911) 27 M.L.J. 480 since as my learned colleague has shown in the judgment, which I had the advantage of reading, if has been accepted by this and other High Courts in cases in the authorised reports; and I do not think it necessary to decide whether the District Munsif has jurisdiction to pass his order. For I am clear that it was not one passed in the exercise of a judicial discretion, since in passing it he gave no weight to the fact that plaintiffs, appellants, gave an under-valuation of one item of the suit property so gross that it can hardly have been honest and that they therefore deserved no consideration. In the circumstances the District Munsif had no right to use his powers to assist them; and on that ground, I concur in dismissing the Letters Patent Appeal with costs.Sadasiva Aiyar, J.2. The plaintiffs are the appellants in these Letters Patent Appeals. The...
Tag this Judgment!Sankaralinga Mudaliar and ors. Vs. Kuthalinga Mudaliar (Dead) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1918
Reported in: 52Ind.Cas.637
1. We agree with the lower Court that the suit is barred by limitation, although in our opinion the appropriate Article is Article 142, and not Article 131 of the Limitation Act. The suit is in effect for possession of the temple and the value of the temple itself is specifically included in the plaint valuation of the suit. The judgment in Eshan Chunder Roy v. Monmohini Dassi 2 Ind. Dec. 434, which is relied on by appellants' Vakil, proceeds on the basis that no interest in immoveable property was involved and Ramanathan Chetty v. Murugappa Chetty 13 M.L.J. 341, Gnanasambanda Pandara Sannadhi v. Velu Pandaram 2 Bom. L.R. 597 : 27 I.A. 69 and Charapattada Siddalinga Swamulu v. Sondur Ramachandra Charlu 35 Ind. Cas. 646all support the view that Article 142 is the proper article to apply in the present case.2. But this makes the case of plaintiffs worse, for under Article 142 the burden of proof must rest on plaintiffs, and on the meagre evidence on record we have no hesitation whatever ...
Tag this Judgment!Kaveramma Vs. Vishnu Kunkullayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1918
Reported in: 46Ind.Cas.263
1. Before finally disposing of the case, we think that there should be a distinct finding on the question whether Exhibit A refers to the whole of the family properties or only to portions of them. The question is raised in the written statement and is covered by the latter portion of issue 1. Before the District Judge, a ground was taken that the Munsif should have recorded a finding on that point.2. Therefore, a finding should be now arrived at on that question. Parties shall be at liberty to: produce fresh documents, if any and not oral evidence.3. Finding will be submitted in two months and ten days are allowed for filing objections.4. We do not think it necessary to call for a finding on the question whether Exhibit A was not given effect to. The Subordinate Judge held it was acted upon and no serious attempt seems to have been made to impeach that finding.5. In compliance with the order contained in the above judgment the District Judge of South Kanara submitted a finding that Ex...
Tag this Judgment!C. Rama Aiyangar Vs. Anga Gurusami Chetti and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1918
Reported in: (1918)35MLJ129
Abdur Rahim, J.1. The case of the appellant plaintiff in the suit was that the defendants were tenants from year to year and that he was entitled to eject them after giving proper notice as required by law. Should it however be held that they have a permanent leasehold right, the appellant claims that the respondents having denied his title have incurred forfeiture and on that ground also they are liable to be ejected. The defendants are transferees of the land from the original grantee under what is called a Kayam Saswathampatta. The original lessee died long since, and the case of the appellant is that the heirs of the former were holding the land merely as tenants from year to year and that is all the right which the defendants can claim.2. There have been several decisions of this Court with respect to Kayam Saswathampattas and we are bound by the principles regulating their construction as laid down in those cases. Those decisions applied to Kayam Saswathampattas the well known ru...
Tag this Judgment!A.K.T.K.M. Sankaran Nambudripad Vs. S.N. Ramaswami Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1918
Reported in: (1918)34MLJ446
Ayling, J. 1. The main point for our disposal in this appeal is the general question raised in the single issue framed, whether the provisions of Section 42 of Madras Act II of 1864 apply to a sale under Section 7(1)(c) of the Land Improvement Loans Act (XIX of 1883): in other words, whether such a sale is free of prior encumbrances.2. The Subordinate Judge has decided that it is : and in my opinion, he is right. The point is not covered by authority as the cases quoted on appellant's side Ramachandra v. Pitchaikanni I.L.R. (1884) M 434 and Chinnaswami Mudali v. Tirumalai Pillai and the Secretary of State for India I.L.R. (1901) M. 572 all relate to sales under Clause (a)(and not Clause c) of Section 7(1). A comparison of the various clauses a, b, c, and d shows that the framers of the Land Improvement Loans Act considered that there was some substantial difference between a sale for arrears of land revenue of the land on which the arrears accrued and a sale for the same purpose of oth...
Tag this Judgment!A.K.T.K.M. Sankaran Nambudripad Vs. S.N. Ramasami Iyer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1918
Reported in: 47Ind.Cas.301
William Ayling, J.1. The main point for our disposal in this appeal is the general question raised in the single issue framed--Whether the provisions of Section 42 of Madras Act II of 1864 apply to a sale under Section 7(1)(c) of the Land Improvement Loans Act (XIX of 1883): in other words, whether such a sale is free of prior encumbrances.2. The Subordinate Judge has decided that it is and in my opinion he is right. The point is not covered by authority, as the oases quoted on appellant's side, Ramachandra v. Pitchaikanni 2 Ind. Dec. 886 and Qhinnasarhi Mudali v. Tirumalai Pillai 25 M. 572, all relate to sales under Clause (a) [and not Clause (c)] of Section 7(1). A comparison of the various Clauses (a), (b), (c) and (d) shows that the framers of the Land Improvement Loans Act considered that there was some substantial difference between a sale for arrears of land revenue of the land on which the arrears accrued and, a sale for the same purpose of other lands, whether belonging to the...
Tag this Judgment!A. Cunniah Mudaly Vs. A. Rangaswami Mudali and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-1918
Reported in: (1918)35MLJ361
1. This is a suit for partition. The plaintiff and the 1st defendant are the sons of one Cunniah Mudali and the 2nd and 3rd defendants are the sons of the 1st defendant. When the suit first came on for hearing, the learned Judge referred the question regarding the extent of the family property to a commissioner. The commissioner sent in his report in April. Mr. Justice Wallis, as he then was, differed from the commissioner on one point, namely, that the Royapettah garden which was held to belong to the wife of the 1st defendant by the commissioner was family property. The learned Judge passed a preliminary decree to the effect that the Royapettah garden should go to the plaintiff on his paying Es. 600 to defendants Nos. 1 to 3 and that items Nos. 1 to 3 should go to the 1st to 3rd defendants who were ordered to pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 3,800 and odd within a month. There was a further direction that if the said sum of Rs. 3,800 and odd was not paid in a month, the plaintiff wa...
Tag this Judgment!Ratha Pillai and ors. Vs. Kanaka Sundriam Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-1918
Reported in: 45Ind.Cas.423
1. The order before us is one granting leave to plaintiff to sue as representing those of his fellow Mirasidars, who have not opposed his application, and il was passed under Order I, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. The proposed suit is brought by plaintiff as a leading Mirasidar and as trustee in management of certain forest land on behalf of the other Mirasidars, alleging that defendants, some of the Mirasidars, have trespassed on it and removed a quantity of forest produce. The reliefs claimed are declarations, an injunction, damages measur ed by the value of the produce removed and, if necessary, a scheme for future management.3. The main objections to the lower Court's order are that Order I, Rule 8, deals only with representative suits, and that (1) as the plaint refers to the forest as the common property of the Mirasidars, their interest in it should be protected by a suit framed in accordance with Order I, Rule 1, with all the individuals concerned as parties, not by ...
Tag this Judgment!P.L.T.L. Lakshumanan Chetty Vs. NA. Su. PA. Subramanian Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-1918
Reported in: 50Ind.Cas.69
1. In this case the defendant had been held liable on a contract, Exhibit A, which he made with the plaintiff, to purchase a house for T.P.N.P. Pallaniappa Chetty. Exhibit I is the counterpart executed by the plaintiff, in which he says that the defendant has agreed to purchase this house for T.P.N.P. Pallaniappa Chetty and undertakes to pay Rs. 5,000, in case he, the vendor, makes default, as damages. By Exhibit A the defendant binds himself before the 30th of this month to take a conveyance of the house in favour of Palaniappa Chetty for Rs. 23,950, and to pay it through a Madras hundi, and that 'in case of default by me before the said date, I shall pay you Rs. 5,000.' Now on the face of it, that is a contract by the defendant on his own behalf. He does not say that he is making this contract on behalf of Palaniappa Chetty, or that Palaniappa Chetty is to be liable for damages. In a case of this sort, the presumption is that the party is personally liable, unless there are some grou...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »