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.
Ammalu Achi, by Her Authorised Agent, G. Venkatachalam Pillai Vs. Ponn ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-1918
Reported in: (1919)36MLJ507
1. The finding is that the testator intended to make an independent gift of Rs. 800 to the plaintiff by his will. The testator was the divided brother of the plaintiff's father; and managed, the properties which she inherited, during her minority. Before his death, the testator bequeathed a portion of the properties which he was then managing to the 2nd defendant; by the same instruments he gave the plaintiff Rs. 800. She now sues to recover the devised inherited property and also the legacy of Rs. 800, The 8th issue in the case raises the question of election. In our opinion, the doctrine is applicable to the present case. The weight of authority in England is to regard the doctrine as based on the principle of compensation and not on that of forfeiture. See Ker v. Wauchope (1819) 1 Bligh H.L. 1 : 4 L.R. 1 and Rancliffe (Lord) v. Parkyns (1818) 6 Dow. 149. The fact that the 2nd defendant may be compelled at the instance of the reversioners to give up the property after the life-time o...
iyathurai Aiyer and anr. Vs. Kuppamuthu Padayachi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-1918
Reported in: 49Ind.Cas.416
1. Plaintiff, the father, and his son gave a usufructuary mortgage of certain properties. Subsequently there was a division between father and son. The father redeemed the whole of the properties and leased them to the present defendant, who in Court-sale purchased the son's share since his lease. The suit was to recover possesaion based on the lease.2. The District Munsif decreed the suit. The Subordinate Judge, we think very properly, directed a partition of the property between the plaintiff and the defendant. The real question before us is whether the plaintiff is entitled to anything more than interest from the defendants on the moiety which he paid to the mortgagee. Mr. Purushothama Aiyar relies on Asansab Ratuthan v. Vamana Rau 1 Ind. Dec. 427 and Nainappa Chetti v. Chidambaram Chetti 7 Ind. Dec. 369 for the proposition that a party redeeming the whole property is entitled to stand in the shoes of the mortgagee. But Section 95 of the Transfer of Property Act is clear that the pe...
Ayya Krishnaswami Thathachariar Vs. Veeraswami Mudali and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-1918
Reported in: (1919)36MLJ93
1. In this second appeal, the question which arises is whether plaintiffs, who according to the finding were at one time hereditary archakas of the suit temple but had been out of possession and enjoyment of that office for about 60 years, were barred under Article 124 of the Limitation Act, when they brought this suit against the 5th defendant, the archaka in possession, and the 1st to 4th defendants, the trustees of the temple by whom this archaka and the preceding archakas for many years have been appointed. In the plaint the plaintiffs claimed to recover possession of the office of archaka from the 5th defendant, and they claimed an injunction restraining defendants 1 to 4, the trustees, from causing any obstruction to them or to any one else who performed the duties of archaka on their behalf.2. Under Article 124 of the Limitation Act, for possession of an hereditary office, time runs against the plaintiff from the time when the defendant, takes possession of the office adversely ...
Kunhi Coya Haji Vs. Panikka Vittil Assan Bava Haji and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-1918
Reported in: (1919)36MLJ188
1. The suit is based upon the promissory notes executed at Mecca in favour of the plaintiff. The Subordinate Judge has held that they are inadmissible in evidence He has not referred to any authorities in support of his position. Apparently what he had in mind was Section 19 of the Stamp Act. It was pointed out in Simulu Ebrahim Rowthan v. Abdul Rahiman Mahomad : (1898)8MLJ182 and Mahomad Rowthan v. Mahomad Husin Rowthan I.L.R. (1899) Mad. 337 : 9 M.L.J. 135 that it is not necessary before suit to affix a British stamp on documents executed outside British India unless it be for the purposes of acceptance, payment, endorsement, transfer or negotiation It is argued for the respondent that filing a suit comes under one of these categories. I am unable to agree with this suggestion. If a document is valid according to the law of the place where it was executed, it can ordinarily be sued upon in India without affixing any Indian stamp on the document. Probably the suggestion of Shephard, J...
Marudai Muthirian Vs. Chinnakannu Muthirian
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-1918
Reported in: 52Ind.Cas.243
Seshagiri Aiyar, J.1. I am unable to agree with the learned Small Cause Court Judge on the question of limitation. The facts are not in dispute. The plaintiff and the defendant had jointly executed a deed of mortgage to one Appaniengar. The amount secured by the mortgage was Rs. 300, which came to nearly Rs. 533 with interest thereon. The plaintiff paid admittedly Rs. 303 and the defendant only Rs. 227. This is a suit to recover from the defendant contribution for the amount which the plaintiff had paid in excess of the amount due from him. There were various pleas in the lower Court and I need not refer to all of them now. The only point is whether this suit was within time as one for contribution. The last payment by the plaintiff was made in January 1914 and the suit was instituted on the 2nd July 1917. Prima facie, it was more than three years since the accrual of the cause of action. The learned Judge in the Court below was of opinion that as the defendant made payment under the b...
Chidambaram Pillai Vs. Meenakshiammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-1918
Reported in: 52Ind.Cas.842
Spencer, J.1. The facts necessary to be stated for the disposal of the question of law raised in this petition are these. One Nella-yappa Pillai died in January 1915 leaving a widow and a daughter born of a former wife; also about Rs. 25,000 assets. The widow was a creditor of her husband's estate to the extent of Rs. 473 which he owed her for her stridhanam. In January 1916 the widow made a Will devising this debt of Rs. 473 to the plaintiff and died- shortly after. The plaintiff brought this suit to recover the amount from the daughter, who succeeded to the estate of her father after the widow's death. The Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit, holding that it was not maintainable on the ground that, by the widow becoming possessed of assets whereby she could have paid off her own debt, the debt became extinguished. For this proposition he ralied upon certain observations occurring in Husainara Begum v. Rahmannessa Begum 8 Ind. Cas. 837 and in chitty on Contract, page 774 (4th Edition...
Gopalasami Naick and anr. Vs. Nammalwar Naick
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-09-1918
Reported in: (1919)36MLJ175
Phillips, J.1. Appellants' chief contention is that plaintiff can have no cause of action until money has been recovered from him in execution. In Viraraghava Reddi v. Subbakka I.L.R. (1882) M. 397 a similar suit was held by the majority of this Court to be one to recover damages for the breach of the implied promise to certify the payment to the Court and thereby make it effectual in execution. The third Judge, no doubt, based the right of suit on the failure to discharge a statutory duty. The two views are very similar, but the former is, I think, more accurate, for the duty of certifying satisfaction imposed by the Code of Civil Procedure can be performed at any time, and no period is prescribed for its performance, whereas if the cause of action be held to be the breach of an implied covenant not to execute the decree, any application for execution would be a breach of the covenant, and would give a right to sue for damages. I think therefore that plaintiff had a cause of action, w...
Nanikutti Alias Narayani Kutti Amma and ors. Vs. Kotale Patnihare Puth ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-09-1918
Reported in: (1919)36MLJ529
1. In view of the findings of the Lower Appellate Court in these cases Mr. C. Madhavan Nair, who appears for the appellants, has only questioned the decision as regards the partition deed, Exhibit C. This raises a question of Malabar Law of some importance on which we have derived much assistance from his argument, and those of Mr. K.P.M. Menon and Mr. C.V. Ananthakrishna Aiyar for various respondents. The division under Exhibit C, is a division of the tarwad properties per stirpes, that is to say, allotting an equal share to each strip or tavazhi. It is of course well settled in Malabar that there can be no partition at all, except by the consent of all the adult members. As regards the minor members of the tarwad it was observed by Sankaran Nair, J., in Veluthakal Chirudevi v. Veluthakal Tarwad Karnavan : (1916)31MLJ879 'such a partition would ordinarily be binding on the minors, but if on attaining majority they are able to show that they have been prejudiced, that partition could b...
Addaganti Chinna Venkata Subba Row Minor, by Mother and Next Friend Na ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-09-1918
Reported in: 53Ind.Cas.161
1. This is an appeal from the judgment of the District Judge of Cuddapah in a suit brought by the plaintiffs, who were the registered holders of the Karnam's office in this particular Inam Village, to recover from the Shrotriemdars certain lands which, they contend, were emoluments of the Karnam's office. The District Judge has found, and his finding has not been and could not be seriously disputed, that these lands were Karnam's Inam and that they were excluded from the Shrotriem lands when the Shrotriem Inam was confirmed by the Inam Commission. Prima facie, the title to these lands was undoubtedly before the enfranchise merit in the holders of the Karnam's office for the time being. The Karnam's office was a hereditary office, and these lands were annexed to the office for its emoluments and the holders of the office for the time being were entitled to them. The District Judge has, however, found in this casa that the plaintiffs' suit is barred by limitation on the ground that these...
Nani Kutti Alivs Narayani Kutti Amma and ors. Vs. Kotthale Patinhare P ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-09-1918
Reported in: 51Ind.Cas.10
1. In view of the findings of the lower Appellate Court in these cases, Mr. C. Madhavan Nair, who appears for the appellants, has only questioned the decision as regards the partition deed, Exhibit C. This raises a question of Malabar Law of some importance on which we have derived much assistance from his argument and those of Mr. K.P.M. Menon and Mr. C.V. Ananthakrishna Aiyar for various respondents. The division under Exhibit C is a division of the Tarwad properties per stirpes, that is to say, allotting an equal share to each stirpe or Tavazhi. It is, of course, well settled in Malabar that there can be no partition at all, except by the consent of all the adult members. As regards the minor members of the Tarwad, it was observed by Sankaran Nair, J. in Parakutti v. Kelapan Nair 34 Ind. Cas. 818'such a partition would ordinarily be binding on the minors, but if on attaining majority, they are able to show that they have been prejudiced, that partition could be re opened so far as t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »