Chennai Court October 1918 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.
Vaithilinga Mudaliar and ors. Vs. Srirangathanni and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-22-1918
Reported in: (1919)36MLJ119
ORDER1. In this case the plaintiffs sued as next reversioners on the death of the widow of the alleged last male holder, and joined various defendants who were in possession of properties which, they alleged, formed part of the estate of the last, male owner. These were really different causes of action against the defendants, but they were allowed, according to a well established practice, to be joined in the same suit. The Subordinate Judge passed a decree in favour of the plaintiffs against the alienees of the several items of property. These alienees and the other defendants filed separate appeals in the High Court, and the appeals of some of the defendants alienees were allowed on the ground that the items in question were not shown to have formed part of the estate of the last male owner. Although several separate appeals were filed, in accordance with Rule 105 of the Civil Rules of Practice only one appellate decree was drawn up. Some of the appeals of the defendants-alienees wh...
T. Venkatakrishnama Charlu Vs. Karnam Arunachalam Pillay
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-22-1918
Reported in: 51Ind.Cas.857
1. It is found by the District Munsiff that the payment of a quit-rent by the plaintiff was made for the benefit of the defendant, who was liable for the quit-rent. At the same time he has found that the payment was not made at the request of the defendant. The Munsif, however, finds upon the facts, and no doubt rightly, that the plaintiff did not intend to make the payment gratuitously. Under Section 70 of the Indian Contract Act, where a person lawfully does anything for another person or delivers anything to him, not intending to do so gratuitously, and such other person enjoys the benefit thereof, the latter is bound to make compensation to the former in respect of, or to restore, the thing so done or delivered.' The wording of the section, as has been observed in a number of cases, is very wide and is wider than the rule of the English Common Law. But there are cases in which a narrow interpretation has been placed on the word lawfully.' For instance in Chedi Lal v. Bhagwan Das (1...
T.V. Seetharama Aiyar Vs. Muniswami Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-1918
Reported in: (1919)37MLJ613
Seshagiri Aiyar, J.1. The case has been very fully argued by the learned vakils who appeared for the petitioner and the counter petitioners. I shall therefore proceed to give judgment at once.2. The suit is for instalments due in respect of a chit fund. The plaintiff calls himself the agent and proprietor of the fund. The 1st defendant was a subscriber in it. He obtained the price in the raffle and received the full amount. Thereupon Exhibit A was executed by him and his surety to the plaintiff. One sentence in it which has given rise to much comment is this: 'We shall severally or jointly without setting up proportionate liability pay in lump on demand the balance due with interest at one per cent per mensem from the date of default.' After the execution of the bond, the 1st defendant paid sums of money although he did not pay them on the due dates according to the rules of the fund. The present suit was brought for the balance. It is admitted that if the claim is made for the subscri...
T.V. Seetharamayyar Vs. Munisami Mudaliar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-1918
Reported in: 50Ind.Cas.87
Seshagiri Aiyar, J.1. The case has been very fully argued by the two learned Vakils who appeared for the petitioner and the counter-petitioners. I shall, therefore, proceed to give judgment at once.2. The suit is for instalments due in respect of a Chit fund. The plaintiff calls himself the agent and proprietor of the fund. The 1st defendant was a subscriber in it. He obtained the prize in the reffle and received the full amount. Thereupon Exhibit A was executed by him and his surety to the plaintiff. One sentence in it which has given rise to much comment is this: 'We shall severally or jointly without setting up proportionate liability pay in lump on demand the balance due with interest at one per cent, per mensem from the date of default.' After the execution of the bond, the 1st defendant paid sums of money although he did not pay them on the due dates according to the rules of the fund The present suit was brought for the balance.3. It is admitted that, if the claim is made for th...
Gulusam Bivi Vs. Ahmadsa Rowther and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-1918
Reported in: 51Ind.Cas.140
Ayling, J.1. This appeal relates to appellant's claim to future mesne profits on the property awarded to her by the decree in a partition suit in which she was 10th defendant. The preliminary decree in the suit is silent on the subject of future mesne profits on appellant's share and the question is whether she is entitled to ask that they should be determined and included in the final decree.2. In my opinion she is not. We are not now concerned with the decision of the Full Bench in Doraisami Aiyar v. Subramania Aiyar 42 Ind. Cas. 929 that where the decree in a suit for possession leaves a claim to mesne profits undecided, a fresh suit for the mesne profits will lie. What we have to determine is the extent to which the final decree in a partition suit can provide for matters which are not settled or directed to be enquired into by the preliminary decree. The relevant provisions of law are Rules 12 and 18 of Order XX, which have to be read together, and in my opinion their effect is ag...
Badmi Seshiah Vs. Katti Chinna Marippa and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-1918
Reported in: 52Ind.Cas.928
1. Plaintiff is not a judgment-debtor; and Order XXI, Rule 103, of the Code of Civil Procedure specially gives him a right of suit. This rule is not, in our opinion, restricted by the general provisions of Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The decision in Ramaswami Sastrulu v. Kameswaramma 10 M.L.J. 126was passed under the old Code; and we may respect, fully add, does not consider the distillation between a party to the suit and judgment debtor as defined in the Code. The appeal is dismissed with costs....
Samayan Servai and anr. Vs. P.K. Kadir Moideen Rowthen and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-1918
Reported in: 51Ind.Cas.899
1. So far as defendants Nos. 1 and 5 are concerned the appeal is dismissed with costs, as they are unnecessary parties or respondents.2. This second appeal again came on for hearing on the 2nd October 1918.3. Mr. K. Srinivasa Aiyangar, for the Appellants.--The land is Zemindari land and a Zemindari ryot is only entitled to water being made available for irrigating his fields. Beyond that, he is not entitled to insist upon a particular source of supply.4. Then, the old source of supply, the Athan Odai, having become obliterated, the plaintiffs have no right to ask that water be stored in this tank for their use.5. There is no damage caused to plaintiffs by the acts of the defendants in cutting up the channel. The plaintiffs have a copious supply of water for their fields from the new Periyar channel. The maintenance of this tank for storing water is no longer necessary. The Zemindar's discretion should not be fettered where it does not collide with the interests of the public.6. Mr. Nar...
NA. Pe. Rm. Le. Si. ThA. Lakshumanan Chetty and ors. Vs. Se. Ve. NA. S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-1918
Reported in: 49Ind.Cas.758
John Wallis, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs from the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Sivaganga in a suit for an account against their agent, the defendant, in so far as it dismisses the suit in respect of transactions with two persons, E, S. Attia and S. Clifford, which are the subject of the fifth issue. The Subordinate Judge found that in these transactions the agent exceeded his authority and that his action was not ratified expressly or impliedly by his principals, but held that the fact that the principals took over from the agent certain securities which he had obtained from these two debtors and dealt with some of them amounted to a ratification. Before us Mr. A. Krishnaswami Aiyar, who appeared for the respondent, endeavoured mainly to support the Subordinate Judge's finding on the ground that ratification was proved independently of the subsequent dealings with the securities, and this question has been most elaborately argued before us. The principals are Nattu...
In Re: P. Varadarajulu Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-1918
Reported in: 51Ind.Cas.343; (1919)36MLJ64
ORDERPhillips, J.1. The only point argued before us among the many objections taken in the revision petition, is that the complaint was filed without the authority of Government. A telegram was sent by Government to the District Magistrate (Ex. A) and it expressly authorised the Public Prosecutor to file a complaint against Varadarajulu Naidu under Section 124-A, Indian Penal Code. It further authorises him to act immediately if the District Magistrate thinks it advisable after consulting him, and this consultation does not refer as suggested by Mr. Srinivasa Aiyangar to the actual filing of the complaint. The last sentence of the telegram enjoins the District Magistrate to submit the complaint prepared ' for issue of supplemental sanction.' It is contended that these words modify the previous portion of the order and render the authority invalid. I, however, agree with the Sub-Divisional Magistrate that this last sentence must be read apart from the rest of the order, and does not int...
Kumarappa Chettiar and ors. Vs. Saminatha Chettiar Alias Avatha Chetti ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-1918
Reported in: (1919)36MLJ612
John Wallis, C.J.1. I have had the advantage of reading the judgment prepared by Seshagiri Aiyar, J., and will state my conclusions very briefly. If the property was undivided and Article 127 is applicable, I entirely agree with him that to bar the plaintiff there must be exclusion from the whole of the joint family property and that exclusion from the suit property only will not do. The decision in Vishnu Ramachandra v. Appaji Chaudhari I.L.R. (1895) Bom. 325 appears to me to be opposed to the decree of the Privy Council in the Balgaum case I.L.R. (1897) M. 256 and to the other cases cited by my learned brother as well as to the language of the article and I am unable to follow it. Assuming however that a division must be presumed to have taken place, it is said that Article 127 does not apply because the plaintiff is not a person excluded from joint family property within the meaning of the article but only a tenant in common excluded from the common property. The words 'Joint family...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »