Chennai Court November 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.
Kalianarama Aiyar Vs. Sivarama Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-1918
Reported in: 51Ind.Cas.439
1. The 3rd defendant's husband, one Ramaswami Chetti, brought a suit in 1907 against defendants Nos. 1 and 2, who were the sons of his nephew, for partition. The 2nd defendant was then a minor. Eventually, Ramaswami Chetti was allowed to withdraw the suit as against the 2nd defendant with liberty to bring another suit and the suit was compromised between him and the 1st defendant, and a decree was passed in terms of the compromise. Under this compromise, the 1st defendant took a certain share of the family property and separated himself from the family. This was on 17th November 1908. In 1912 the 1st defendant sold certain properties which were the subject matter of this suit to the plaintiff, these properties being certain properties which belonged to the family of Ramaswami Chetti and defendants Nos. 1 and 2 but which were alleged in the prior litigation by Ramaswami Chetti to have been dedicated to charity. The question we have to consider now is whether the 1st defendant at the dat...
Rajah Ramachandra Suru Harischandra Deo Garu (Dead) and ors. Vs. Akell ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1918
Reported in: 50Ind.Cas.577; (1919)37MLJ65
Abdur Rahim, J.1. The 1st defendant, the Zemindar of Tarla, who died during the pendency of this suit, has been succeeded by the 2nd defendant who is the son of the 1st defendant's deceased eldest son. The other defendants are the sons and grandsons of the Zemindar. The suit was instituted on a mortgage executed on 3rd October 1903 by the 1st defendant. The other defendants were made parties on the allegation that they were interested in the right of redemption and also that they were benefited by the debts contracted by the 1st defendant who was the head and managing member of the family.2. The 2nd defendant and defendants 3 to 7 alleged that there was no necessity either for the mortgage or for the previous promissory notes which were merged in the mortgage, and that the 1st defendant had no right to create a mortgage and that it did not bind the estate. It appears however that the suit was compromised, the razinamah being to the effect that the 1st defendant should pay the sum agree...
Mahbool Bi (Died) and ors. Vs. Sherifa Bi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-1918
Reported in: (1919)36MLJ28
1. At the time Mr. Justice Kumaraswami Sastri passed his present order, no formal order had been drawn up on the minutes of his previous order, and we think that, as a Judge sitting on the Original Side of the court, he had jurisdiction to modify the minutes before the formal order was drawn up. See In re Suffield and Watts: Ex parte Brown (1888) 20 Q.B.D. 698 and Preston Banking Co. v. William Allsup and Sons (1895) 1 Ch. 141.2. The appeal is dismissed....
The Municipal Council of Cocanada Vs. the clan Line Steamers, Limited
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-1918
Reported in: 51Ind.Cas.692
John Wallis, C.J.1. The question in this appeal is whether the Clan Line of Steamers, who have their registered office in Glasgow, are liable under Section 53 of the Madras District Municipalities Act, 1884, to pay profession tax in Cocanada on the ground that they are persons exercising within that Municipality one of the professions, trades or callings specified in the schedule, which includes persons 'carrying on business as a company' and also 'ship-owners,' The Clan Line Steamers call at Cocanada to take in cargo for Europe and also unload there any cargo consigned to Cocanada, of which there is very little. They are represented in various matters by Messrs. Ripley and Co, sub-agents engaged by Messrs. Gordon Woodroffe and Co., the Clan Line's Agents at Madras. Messrs. Ripley have no authority to contract with shippers for the allotment of cargo space under letters of engagement such as are now common. Shippers apply direct to Gordon Woodroffe and Co, if they apply to Messrs. Ripl...
Nallaya Naick and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-1918
Reported in: 51Ind.Cas.847
ORDERSadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The Convictions and sentences cannot be upheld. The Amin (6th accused) has to obey the clear directions found in hid delivery warrant and not to be looking in to Exhibit C offered for his inspection and then to slolve a diffcult question of law, Whether his superior officer might not have committed a mistake in issuing a delivery warrant in wider terms than was legally justifiable.2. The other accused assisted the Amin in doings his duty and could not be convicted of criminal trespass or charged with illegal and dishonest intentions.3. The convictions are set aside and the fines, if paid, will be fefunded....
Mahboob Bi (Dead) Vs. Sherifabi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-1918
Reported in: 49Ind.Cas.373
1. At the time Mr Justice Kamaraswami Sistri passed his present order, no formal order had been drawn up on the minutes of his previous order, and we think that, as a Judge sitting on the Original Side of the Court, he had jurisdiction to modify the minutes before the formal order was drawn up. See In re Suffield and Watts, Ex parte Brown (1888) 20 Q.B.D. 693 : 5 Morrell 83 and Preston Banking Co. v. Allsup (1895) 1 Ch. 141.2. The appeal is dismissed....
Children Thankammal Vayamkaramma and Ors. Vs. Mullatha Meenakshi Amma' ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-1918
Reported in: (1919)37MLJ369
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. Defendants 2, 3 and 4 are the petitioners in revision. They are junior members of a tavazhi, of which the 1st defendant was the manager. As such manager, she borrowed Rs. 100 in cash for tavazhi expenses and executed a promissory note in her own handwriting to the plaintiff on the 18th February 1914. A suit was brought against her and the other members of the tavazhi, the plaint alleging that the money was borrowed under the promissory note for the necessities of the tavazhi. The Subordinate Judge on the Small Cause side gave a decree against the 1st defendant and also against the other defendants to the extent of their interest in the tavazhi properties. Defendants 2 to 4 urge in their grounds of the revision petition (1) that under the ruling in Govinda Nair v. Nana Menon : AIR1915Mad618 the lower court erred in giving a decree against the Tavazhi as the suit was solely based on the promissory note (2) that the lower court has not found that the tavazhi had a nec...
Mariappa Pillai Vs. L.R. Raman Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-1918
Reported in: 52Ind.Cas.519
Spencer, J.1. The plaintiff is the wife of the 2nd defendant. She purchased the suit property from him on 5th August 1912, the consideration for the sale being the debt to her which he had incurred for meeting the expenses of a certain litigation between himself and his father, for which he had pledged his wife's jewels. The 1st defendant was a creditor of the 2nd defendant and brought Original Suit No. 324 of 1913 in the Court of the District Munsif of Tinnevelly against him and got the suit property attached before judgment. The plaintiff put in a claim petition but it was dismissed on 2nd December 1913. On a debtor's petition presented in the District Court on 15th September 1913 the 2nd defendant was on 12th December 1913 declared insolvent. The Official Receiver sold the suit property by auction on 31st July 1914 and the 3rd defendant purchased it.2. The plaintiff brought this suit to establish her title and has been successful in the lower Courts in obtaining a declaration of her...
Konima Reddi Subbareddi and anr. Vs. Kollipara Veerayya Tata
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-1918
Reported in: 52Ind.Cas.410
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The security bond given by the appellants does not fall under any of the Clauses (a), (b) or (c) of Section 145, Civil Procedure Code. It is a special kind of surety bond taken by the Court in accordance with Order XX1, Rule 43, Civil Procedure Code, as materially altered by this High Court under its rule-making powers and is concerned with the safe custody of articles which cannot be conveniently removed' from the place of their attachment in execution. It Las nothing to do with Section 145, Civil Procedure Code. Clause (b) of Section 145 refers to restitution of property 'taken in execution,' that is, taken possession of by a party in execution in accordance with the terms of the decree or order in his favour, and not to properties taken possession of by the Court through attachment in execution of a decree.2. The decree-holder cannot execute his decree against a surety who becomes one under Order XXI, Rule 43, in respect of properties taken possession of by the ...
Mahomed Ibrahim Mahomed Jaffir Sahib and Co. Vs. Nalam Lakshmikantam a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1918
Reported in: 53Ind.Cas.125
Coutts Trotter, J.1. This is a suit for damages for non-delivery of certain salt Contracted to be delivered by the defendants to the plaintiffs. The facts of the case have taken some trouble to elucidate, but at the end of the case they were practically not in dispute. The 2nd defendant, Messrs. Hoist and Nathan, were added as parties to the suit on the motion of the 1st defendant, but a perusal of the agreement of the 11th of December 1915 between the 1st and 2nd defendants makes it dear that the 1st defendant was to sell the salt covered by the agreement and that no privity of contract could possibly exist between Messrs. Hoist and Nathan and third parties with whom the 1st defendant entered into contracts.2. The contract sued upon is dated the 30th of November 1916. It recites an advance of Rs. 1,000 by the plaintiffs to the 1st defendant for the supply of 5,000 bags of Covelong salt and is in the following terms: 'Received from Messrs. Mahomed Ibrahim Mahomed Jaffir and Co., Madras...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »