Chennai Court December 1918 Judgments
P.S. Krishna Aiyar Vs. Savurimuthu Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-1918
Reported in: 50Ind.Cas.584; (1919)36MLJ376
Abdur Rahim, J.1. I have come to the conclusion that the plaintiff--respondent had no cause of action against the 2nd defendant in the suit. The 1st defendant obtained a decree against one Antonia Pillai whose executor is the present plaintiff.2. The decree amount was paid out of court by the judgment-debtor. The payment however was not certified as required by the law by the decree-holder whose duty it was to do so in the first instance nor did the judgment-debtor inform the Court of the satisfaction as he was entitled to do in default by the decree-holder. The decree was afterwards assigned to 'he 2nd defendant. A question was raised in the execution of the decree as to whether it had been adjusted, and, if so, whether the adjustment could be recognized. The executing Court held that in the absence of a certificate or record of satisfaction as required by Order 21, Rule 2, it remained an executable decree and it also found that adjustment had not been proved. The 2nd defendant then p...
Tag this Judgment!C.V.C.T. Venkatachalam Chetty and ors. Vs. Aiyamperumaul Tevan and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1918
Reported in: (1919)37MLJ248
1. These Second Appeals are filed against two batches of appeals of the Ramnad District Court which were decided by two District Judges who have not taken altogether identical views on all points. In Second appeal, there are to main points for consideration.(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to charge Sarasari or average paddy varam for dry lands irrigated by plaintiff's water. (2) what cesses the plaintiff is entitled to charge. 2. On both these points, there have in the past been a number of suits between some of the same parties-one batch of suits in the Manamadura Munsif's Court-a second batch before the special Deputy Collector of Ramnad and the third before the Deputy Collector of Devakotta. It is contended for the appellants that the decisions in all these suits constitute res-judicata so far as the parties and property concerned are the same. In the Manamadura suits there was no appeal beyond the District Court except in two cases which came to the High Court and in those tw...
Tag this Judgment!Koyittal Parambil Parkum Chirathodi Vazha Valappil Cheeru and ors. Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1918
Reported in: (1919)36MLJ295
1. The learned District judge has found that one of the co-uralas did not give his consent to the grant of the kanam in question. But it is argued that nevertheless the act of one trustee, if he has consulted the other trustee as to the grant of a mortgage or any similar transaction and that trustee wrongly refused to join in the act, was valid. There is no express authority dealing with the case of two trustees, though there are a number of cases in which it has been held that where there are a number of trustees the act of the majority will be binding and valid if they had given a proper opportunity to the other trustees to consider the advisability of the act in question. But those decisions are based on the principle that unless the act of the majority was upheld in many cases the trust estate would suffer. In the case of two trustees however this principle will not apply because there is no majority. That is what is practically indicated in Savitri Antarajanam v. Raman Nambudri I....
Tag this Judgment!V. Ramamurthi Ayyar and anr. Vs. Parasaram Mangayacharyulu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1918
Reported in: 52Ind.Cas.609
1. The pleadings clearly state that the second defendant the Sub Magistrate, was acting under Sections 190 and 65 of the Criminal Procedure Code in respect of a complaint under Section 448 of the Indian Penal Code, when he went to the temple and found the plaintiffs barricading themselves inside and refusing to open the door, and then arrested them, releasing them immediately after on their recognizance to appear to answer a charge under Section 443 of the Indian Penal Code. His acts and those of the 1st defendant, the Inspector or Police, were perfectly legal. The Subordinate Judge has misread the evidence of the Sub-Magistrate, who does not say that he had disposed of the occurrence report which reached him on the previous day. As he has passed no final order on the report, it was open to him to take action upon it next day, and further under Section 190 (1) (c) the facts which he saw at the temple were sufficient to justify him in taking action independently of the occurrence report...
Tag this Judgment!The Corporation of Madras by Its President, T.C. Molony, E.Q.i.C.S. Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1918
Reported in: 50Ind.Cas.247
Wallis, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a decree of the City Civil Court dismissing a suit brought by the Madras Corporation under Section 443 of the Madras City Municipal Act, III of 1904, to recover the costs of executing certain works which the defendants had been directed to execute. Section 224 requires the owner or occupier of any building within fourteen days after receiving notice from the President to alter any existing latrine in. accordance with such notice. The notice called on the defendants to alter the existing latrine into a flush but one of a design approved by the President. The plaint claimed to recover Rs. 1,647 paid to the contractor, Rs. 106-10 for connecting drains, Rs. 438-7-4 for supervision and Rs. 91-0-10 the cost of fixing a meter, and it was admitted that the Corporation took four months to-execute the work. It was argued for the defendants that the word latrine' did not include water closet and that the owner or occupier could not be required to convert a la...
Tag this Judgment!Koyittal Parambil Parkum Chirathodi Vazha Valappil Cheeru and ors. Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1918
Reported in: 50Ind.Cas.371
1. The learned District Judge has found that one of the co-uralans did not give his consent to the grant of the kanom in question. But it is argued that nevertheless the act of one trustee, if he has consulted the other trustee as to the grant of a mortgage or any similar transaction and that trustee wrongly refused to join in the act, was valid. There is no express authority dealing with the case of two trustees, though there are a number of cases in which it has been held that where there are a number of trustees the act of the majority will be binding and valid if they had given a proper opportunity to the other trustees to consider the advisability of the act in question. But those decisions are based on the principle that unless the act of the majority was upheld in many cases the trust estate would suffer. In the case of two trustees, however, this principle will not apply because there is no majority. That is what is practically indicated in Savitri Antarjanam v. Raman Nambudri ...
Tag this Judgment!Palani Goundan and anr. Minors by their Next Friend Maniam Karichi Gou ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1918
Reported in: 50Ind.Cas.552
Abdur Rahim, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit for partition instituted by two minors through their maternal grandfather as the next friend. The 1st defendant, who is the main respondent in the appeal, is the father of the plaintiffs. The only question for consideration is whether upon the facts proved and found, the lower Appellate Court was justified in refusing to pass a decree for partition. It is settled law that a Court is not bound to grant a decree for partition of joint family property as a matter of course in a suit instituted on behalf of minors: see Chelmi Chetty v. Sub-banna 42 Ind. Cas. 860 : 34 M.L.J. 213 : 41 M.K 442. following Bachoo v. Mankorebai 31 BB. 373 : 9 Bom. L.R. 646 : 11 C.W.N. 769 : 6 C.L.J. 1 : 17 M.L.J. 343 : 2 M.L.T. 295 : 34 I.A. 107 and Kamdkshi Ammal v. Chidambra Reddi 3 M.H.C.R. 94. So far the law is not disputed but there has been much discussion as to the nature of the grounds which would justify the Court in decreeing partition at the in...
Tag this Judgment!C. Cunniah, Proprietor of the Sri Krishna Vinodha Sabha Dramatic Compa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1918
Reported in: 52Ind.Cas.879
John Wallis, C.J.1. In this case the defendant borrowed money from a Chetty on a promissory note secured by a deposit of title deeds. The Chetty endorsed the promissory note to the plaintiff for collection and at the same time gave him the title-deeds, and the plaintiff sued on the equitable mortgage. Bakewell, J., has given him a decree holding that, under section 8 of the Transfer of Property Act, the security passed to the plaintiff with the debt and that the objection that the transfer of the mortgage interest was a sale and required registration under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act did not arise. In this he was clearly right. He also referred to my decision in Dwarka Doss v. Danakoti Ammal 23 Ind. Cas. 129, following Subramaniam v. Perumal Reddi 5 M.L.J. 92 that even if there had been consideration for the transfer of the debt, the mortgage security would have passed with it, although that decision had been questioned obiter by Bhashyam Aiyangar, J., in Ramasami Pattar...
Tag this Judgment!S. Krishnamurthi Aiyar Vs. the Taluq Board of Mayavaram Represented by ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1918
Reported in: (1919)36MLJ372
1. This is a suit for an injunction against the Taluq Board of Mayavaram directing it to lop off all the branches of certain trees which have spread over the land of the plaintiff. Both the courts below have dismissed the suit holding that such a suit is not maintainable. Before us, it was argued by the learned Vakil for the appellant that the burden of proving due care and caution in the exercise of public duties, is on the defendant's and that the Board should so exercise its powers as not to interfere with private rights. Section 95 of the Local Boards' Act (Act V of 1884) directs the Taluq Board to plant trees on the sides of roads and to preserve them. It is not disputed that the trees complained of, were planted on the sides of the road. There is no allegation that there was any negligence in the doing of this act, The main argument for the appellant was that although the original act was done properly, the Taluq Board is under a liability to see that the results of that act do n...
Tag this Judgment!Sivasubramania Mudamar and ors. Vs. R.S.A. Lakshmanaier and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1918
Reported in: 52Ind.Cas.697
1. A preliminary objection is taken by Mr. K. Srinivasa Aiyangar to the effect that the appeal being Bled against the preliminary decree alone while before the presentation of the appeal a final decree had also been passed, it is unsustainable. The question is covered by a number of decisions of this Court It, was first considered in Lakshmi v. Marudeni 12 Ind. Cas. 664 and it was ruled that, under such circumstances, an appeal against a preliminary order would be sustainable in spite of the fact that a final order had been passed in pursuance of the preliminary order. This ruling was followed in Ramien v. Veerappudian 14 Ind. Cas. 394: (1912) M.W.N. 117 Kuppusamy Aiyar v. Regmah Boi Ammani 18 Ind. Cas. 730 : (1913) M.W.N. 173 and Cunniah Mudaly v. Rangoswamy Mudaly 48 Ind. Cas 7 No doubt there is a decision Subromania Chettiar v. Balachakropani Chettyar (1913) M.W.N. 140 which, so far as it goes, seems to take a somewhat different view. That is a decision of Sundara Aiyar and Sadasiva...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »