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.
Putti Sesha Aiyar and ors. Vs. Kuppachar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-09-1918
Reported in: 49Ind.Cas.699
John Wallis, C.J.1. I see no reason to differ from the conclusion of the District Judge in this case that the sale deed, Exhibit F, executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiffs was not a Benami transaction. The evidence shows that it was executed pursuant to an agreement, Exhibit G, by which the suit properties were to be sold to the plaintiff for Its. 6,000. of which Rs. 5,000 was to be paid into Court by the plaintiff, as was actually done, to set aside the Court sale of the properties. It is also the defendants' own case, and has been found to be true, that there was a contemporaneous unregistered agreement for reconveyance, Exhibit XIII, executed by the plaintiffs in favour of the defendants on the same day. These and other facts in the case sufficiently negative the defendants' case that the transaction was Benami.2. A suit for specific performance of the contract to reconvey was barred at the date of the present suit, and in these circumstances the defendants raised the...
Brahmandam Venkata Lakshmi Narayana Row Vs. Allamaneni Venkayya and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-09-1918
Reported in: 49Ind.Cas.466
1. As the Subordinate Judge has dismissed the plaintiff's suit on the preliminary ground that it is barred by Section 11 and by Section '47 of the Civil Procedure Code, it is not necessary to state all the facts of the case which are a little complicated. The question arises in these circumstances. Plaintiff's father, as puisne mortgagee, was made a party to each of the two suits of the prior mortgagees, 17th and 18th defendants, brought to enforce their mortgages by sale of the hypotheca. He did not appear and raise any pleas; decrees were passed in both' suits in the usual form under Section 88, Transfer of Property Act which was then in force, and naturally the decrees made no mention of the puisne mortgagee's right to redeem ; as to the surplus sale-proceeds, if any, the order was that they were to be paid to defendant or other persons entitled to them.' Orders absolute were subsequently obtained but before any sale in Court-auction took place, the mortgaged properties were sold by...
Bachu Soorayya and anr. Vs. Toomuloori Chinna Anjaneyalu, Minor by His ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-1918
Reported in: (1919)36MLJ106
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. Defendants 3 and 4 are the appellants in this second appeal. The 4th defendant is the purchaser in court-auction sale of the plaint property which belonged to the plaintiff's father who died before 1913. The decree in execution of which the sale took place, was a Small Cause decree passed in a suit of 1913 brought against the plaintiff's father's brother as 2nd defendant, he being impleaded as the legal representative of the plaintiff's father Seethayya who was then dead. The 2nd defendant was divided from plaintiff's father and he was not the real legal representative of plaintiff's father, the minor plaintiff being such representative. The question is whether the court-auction sale is binding on the plaintiff.2. In paragraph 6 of the plaint, it is alleged that the 2nd defendant was not only not the heir of the ' plaintiff's father, but that the plaint property was never in the possession of the 2nd defendant after the plaintiff's father's death. These allegations...
Wallace Sitha Boi Vs. Wallace Radha Boi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-1918
Reported in: (1919)36MLJ189
1. In this petition we are asked to interfere in revision with the proceedings of the District Judge of Tanjore requiring a de facto guardian (grand-mother) of a minor under Section 41(3) of the Guardians and Wards Act to hand over a house as one belonging to the minor. We can find no ground for interference. The term 'guardian' in the sections must be understood in the light of the definitions in Section 4(2) and would include the present petitioner. The latter was ipso facto removed from guardianship under Section 7(2) by the court's order appointing the minor's mother to be guardian. The District Judge has not exceeded his jurisdiction and petitioner must be referred to a suit to establish if she can, her title to the house. We may remark that Section 48 of the Guardians and Wards Act which refers to 'orders made under the Act' would not cover the case of a 'requisition' under Section 41(3) of the Act; vide reference to the latter in Section 45(1)(c).2. The petition is dismissed wit...
Muhammad Esuf Sahib and anr. Vs. Moulvi Abdul Sathar Sahib and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-1918
Reported in: (1919)36MLJ262
Ayling, J.1. The 1st question for consideration in this case is obviously the nature of the original grant which it is common ground was made by the Nawab of the Carnatic in 1798; and 1 have no hesitation in agreeing with my lord the Chief. Justice that it was of the nature of a public trust for the benefit of a mosque founded, endowed and dedicated for public worship. In the absence of the parvana, we have to look to the record in the Inam Register, Ex. A, and to the evidence of user. Both are strongly in plaintiff's favour. I attach no importance to the statement of D. W. 3 that the mosque is not called a Jamma Masjid in the face of the evidence that it has always been used for public worship. Ex. A shows clearly that the inam was a religious endowment for the establishment and up-keep of a mosque and various services therein, and that the persons named in columns 16-20 as ' present holders' are so treated as managers of the masjid and not in their individual capacity.2. Indeed the o...
A.N.A. Ramachandra Rao Vs. T.B. Ramachandra Rao and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-1918
Reported in: 52Ind.Cas.94; (1919)36MLJ306
John Wallis, C.J.1. Construing this very deed in Appeal Suit No. 74 of 1896, Collins, C.J., and Shephard, J., observed: There being no indication of intention to give a larger estate we must assume that the husband intended that a widow's estate only should pass.' The trend of the later decisions in this Court beginning with Sambasivi Ayyar v. Venkataswara Ayyar 3 M.L.T. 369 is against making any such assumption, and they appear to be supported by the judgment of the Judicial Committee in Surajmani v. Rabi Nath Ojha 5 A.L.J. 67 10 Bom. L.R. 59, which cites with approval a ruling of Mitter, J., in Musammat Kollany Kooer v. Luchmee Pershad 24 W.R. 395 that there is no presumption that a gift to a widow means a limited gift.2. We must, I think, lake it to be now settled, at any rate so far as this Court is concerned and until the decisions to which I have referred are overruled by higher authority, that the rule laid down by the Judicial Committee in Moulvi Mohamed Shumsool Hooda v. Shewu...
Kurichetti Venkatasubbayya Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-1918
Reported in: 49Ind.Cas.492
ORDERKumaraswami Sastri, J.1. The plaintiff (petitioner) filed a suit on a promissory note. He got an ex parte decree which was set aside. He did not proceed with the suit and the District Munsif, on the plea of the defendant that the endorsement of payment was a forgery and that the amount of the note was altered, dismissed the suit. On the date of dismissal, 5th February 1917, the District Munsif instituted proceedings under Section 476 of the Criminal Procedure-Code. He took evidence and reserved passing orders, but did not pass any orders though the enquiry was closed on 6th September 1917. He handed charge to his successor on 1st February 1918 and order was passed on the 2nd March 1918 directing petitioner's prosecution.2. Various objections have been taken to the legality of the order. The first is that the successor of the Munsif who passed orders had no jurisdiction to do so. There is nothing in the Criminal procedure Code limiting the power to direct prosecution under Section ...
S.D.S.N. Firm, Represented by Managing Partner S.D.S.N. Sankararama Iy ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-1918
Reported in: 49Ind.Cas.273
1. In this case the Subordinate Judge, who heard the case in the first instance, allowed a very extraordinary course to be adopted and one which could only lead to subsequent difficulties. The suit was filed against the 1st defendant for a debt and against the 2nd defendant on a gurantee. There was no plea that this gurantee was obtained by misrepresentation of any kind and no issue was raised as to whether there was any misrepresentation of any kind. In the cross-examination of the plaintiff's witnesses, again, there was no suggestion that there was misrepresentation of any kind. When the 2nd defendant, who was the sole witness on his side, came into the box, he at once was allowed to start off with a story that he had been misled by a misrepresentation, when he gave the letter of guarantee, that there were no pre-existing debts due by the debtor to the plaintiff. On that both the Subordinate Judge and the District Judge have recorded a finding that the plaintiff obtained the guarante...
P.K. Nanjundasamy Chetty Vs. Kanagaraju Alias Subbarayalu Chetty and a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-03-1918
Reported in: (1919)36MLJ242
1. The only question argued in the Appeal is as to the 3rd issue. That issue raised the question whether the alienation in favour of the 4th defendant was valid The 4th defendant is the daughter of the divided brother of the 1st defendant, now dead. The plaintiff is the adopted son of the 1st defendant, and he sued for partition and accounts and for similar other reliefs. The 14th defendant, the appellant before us, is the husband of the 4th defendant The fourth defendant whose heir is the 14th defendant, being her husband, died since the institution of the suit. The alienation in question was made by a document, Exhibit III, dated 19th May 1909. By it the 1st defendant purports to settle some of the property in dispute on the 4th defendant, and the validity of that settlement, according to the case of the appellant, would depend on whether it was made in consideration of the 14th defendant marrying the 4th defendant. The property would belong to the joint family, and the 1st defendant...
Srimath Deivasikamani Nataraja Desikar, Madathipathi of Thiruvannamala ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-03-1918
Reported in: 52Ind.Cas.914; (1919)37MLJ231
Spencer, J.1. This suit was brought by the Mahant of the Thiruvannamalai Mutt to recover possession of certain lands sold by his predecessor in 1895 to the father of defendants Nos. 1 and 2. He alleged that the sale was for no necessity and that it was not binding on the Mutt. The suit was decreed in the Court of the District Munsif but, on appeal, the Subordinate Judge dismissed it as barred by limitation.2. The questions raised in the second appeal are, first, whether the Mahant of a Mutt is a trustee or a life-tenant; secondly, whether Article 134 of the Limitation Act applies to this case; and thirdly, whether the alienation was void or voidable, it being suggested that if it was only voidable, the cause of action to set it aside would only arise on plaintiff's accession to the headship of the Mutt. On the first point, in Ram Pathash, Das v. Anand Das (1916) 1 M.W.N. 406and Basudeo Roy v. Jugalkishwar Das 45 Ind. Cas. 818 the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council have laid it dow...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »