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.
Muthuvenkatanarayanan Chetti Vs. Athipandurenga Naidu, Minor, by His N ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-03-1918
Reported in: 51Ind.Cas.217
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The 2nd defendant is the appellant. He purchased the plaint house from the 1st defendant, who is the plaintiff's father. The plaintiff is the son of the 1st defendant by the 1st defendant's deceased first wife. The 1st defendant made a gift of the house in November 1903 to his first wife (that is, plaintiff's mother) by Exhibit I. The plaintiff was born after the date of the gift deed and he claims the property as the heir of his mother and seeks to recover possession of it from the purchaser, the 2nd defendant, after declaring that the sale-deed by the 1st defendant in September 1908 in favour of the 2nd defendant is not binding on the plaintiff. The defendants' contentions were that the gift deed to plaintiff's mother was a nominal transaction which was never acted upon and that the sale to the 2nd defendant, by the first defendant acting for himself and as guardian of the plaintiff, was made for proper purposes binding on the plaintiff. When this suit was brough...
Sri Rajah Rao Venkata Mahipati Gangadhara Ramarao Bahadur Garu and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-02-1918
Reported in: (1919)36MLJ169
John Wallis, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order striking out the name of the 1st defendant on a petition under Order 1, Rule 10 for the amendment of the plaint. No separate appeal is provided under the Code from orders passed under this rule, but in this case the Subordinate Judge decided to strike out the 1st defendant's name on the ground that the plaint disclosed no cause of action against him and ordered the suit to be dismissed as against him. In these circumstances I think the order comes within the definition of a decree and is appealable as such. The facts are these : The 4th defendant is the widow of a junior member of the Pittapur family, and the Rajah of Pittapur the 1st defendant has recently brought a suit as next reversioner of the property in her enjoyment for a declaration that an adoption made by her is invalid. The widow, as one of the defences, contested the Rajah's claim to be the next reversioner and denied that he was related to her deceased husband. The ...
C. Venkatachariar Vs. C. Rangasami Aiyar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-02-1918
Reported in: (1919)36MLJ532
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. He purchased the plaint village of Bojinaickampatti (or Posinaickanpatti) from Narasimhalu Naidu who acted on behalf of himself and his brother. They made the said sale as Mittadars in 1901 under Ex. III. Plaintiff had formerly brought a suit for rent against the defendants, who had obtained a kayam saswatam lease in 1839 from the original mittadars. The suit for rent was O.S. No. 988 of 1904. In that suit, the defendants (the kayam saswatham lessees) denied that the plaintiff was the owner of the mitta and denied also the title of the plaintiff's vendors, Narasimhalu Naidu and his brother, to. sell the property to the plaintiff. They set up the title of Venkatarama Naidu, (the father of the plaintiff's vendors) who had parted with his rights in favour of his sons in 1897. The first court decreed that su t of 1904 brought for rent overruling the lessees' objections and establishing the title of the plaintiff as landlord. The lessees ...
Pamireddi Sambayya and ors. Vs. Nimmagadda Nagayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-02-1918
Reported in: 52Ind.Cas.540
William Ayling, J.1. The circumstances of the case out of which these petitions arise are somewhat extraordinary, and as the course we propose to take is one which we should be sorry to see misquoted as a precedent, I deem it best to set them out in detail. The appellants in Appeal against Order No. 228 of 1917 and petitioners in Civil Revision Petition No. 553 of 19J7 (whom we shall henceforward refer to as appellants) were appellants in Appeal Suit No. 11 of 1903 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Masulipatam. They succeeded, the decree of the Original Court being reversed. The Other side preferred a second appeal to this Court (Second Appeal No. 1983 of 1913). This Court set aside the decree of the Sub-Court and remanded the appeal to the Subordinate Judge of Masulipatam for disposal according to law. This was on 5th January 1916. Meantime certain changes had taken place in the Courts of the Kistna District. The Sub-Court of Masulipatam, which had disposed of this appeal, was d...
C. Venkatachariar Vs. C. Rangaswami Ayyangar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-02-1918
Reported in: 51Ind.Cas.709
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. He purchased the plaint village of Bojinaickampatti (or Posinaickenpatti) from Narasimhalu Naidu who acted on behalf of himself and his brother. They made the said sale as Mittadars in 1901 under Exhibit III. Plaintiff had formerly brought a suit for rent against the defendants, who had obtained a Kayam Saswatham lease in 1839 from the original Mittadars. That suit for rent was Original Suit No. 988 of 1904. In that suit, the defendants (the Kayam Saswatham lessees) denied that the plaintiff was the owner of the Mitta and denied also the title of the plaintiff's vendors, Narasimhalu Naidu and his brother, to sell the property to the plaintiff. They set up the title of Venkatarama Naidu (the father of the plaintiff's vendors) who had parted with his rights in favour of his sons in 1897. The first Court decreed that suit of 1904 brought for rent, overruling the lessees objections and establishing the title of the plaintiff as landlord....
Sambasiva Aiyar Vs. Thirumalairamanujathathachariar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-01-1918
Reported in: (1919)37MLJ356
1. This appeal arises in execution of a mortgage decree for sale for Rs. 1,800 and odd obtained by the plaintiff-appellant against the defendants-respondents. The 3rd defendant one of the respondents pleaded that the decree had ceased to be executable by reason of an oral agreement between him and the plaintiff, the conditions . of which on his part he had performed. The District Munsif disallowed his plea as not properly pleadable in execution and took no evidence as to the existence of the agreement which was denied by the other side or of its terms or of its alleged performance by him. The District Judge reserved that decision and remanded the case for disposal on the merits. The Appeal to us is against his decision.2. The question to be considered is whether the defendant is barred from setting up his plea in execution; and it has to be decided on the allegations made by him as no evidence has yet been taken, He alleges in his counter-petition that at the request of the plaintiff h...
Virupakshi Gowd Vs. Bandappa
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-01-1918
Reported in: 50Ind.Cas.327; (1919)37MLJ59
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. The only question is whether a party can apply for a review of judgment under Order 47, Civil Procedure Code, when his suit has been dismissed for default under Order 9, Rule 8 and he does not apply under Rule 9 to set aside the order.2. There is so far as I can see nothing in Order 47, which prohibits a party from applying for a review in cases where he has another remedy provided for him in the Code.3. In Raj Narain Purkait v. Ananga Mohan Bhandari I.L.R. (1899) C. 598 it was held that a plaintiff whose suit was dismissed under Section 102 of the Code of Civil Procedure was entitled to apply for review without applying for restoration under Section 103. In Lalachet Narain Sahi v. Ratnpal Manjhi 16 C.W.N. 643 it was held that a defendant against whom an ex parte decree has been passed can apply for review without proceeding under Order 9, Rule 13, Civil Procedure Code. I have been referred to Deodip Singh v. Gopal Singh (1916) 1 Pat. L.J. 547 where a contrary ...
Maharajah Sri Maharajah Sahib Maharban Dostan Maharajah Sri Rao Sir Ve ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-01-1918
Reported in: 49Ind.Cas.750
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. The District Munsif found that the value of the suit was beyond the pecuniary limits of his jurisdiction and returned the plaint for presentation to the proper Court. He took all the evidence that was tendered before him. On appeal, the District Judge was of opinion that the evidence of the Commissioner which was acted upon by the District Munsif was unreliable owing to his want of experience of the forests on the suit estate and that 'it was desirable to get a valuation made by some officer of experience who has also knowledge of local conditions or is in a position to ascertain them.' He, therefore, reversed the order of the District Munsif and remanded the suit for disposal.2. Objection is taken to the procedure adopted by the District Judge on the ground that he has no power to reverse and remand the suit.3. I am of opinion that the objection is sound. Ail the evidence that was tendered was taken by the District Munsif and he dwelt with the question of the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›