Chennai Court December 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.
S. Krishna Murthi Iyer Vs. the Taluq Board of Mayavaram Represented by ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1918
Reported in: 50Ind.Cas.809
1. This is a suit for an injunction against the Taluk 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 dismissed the suit as 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 defendants 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 Taluk 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 Taluk Board is under a liability to see that the results of that act do not injuriously affect private rig...
Ookerjee Cowasjee Oomrigar Vs. P.V. Sabhapathy Mudaliar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1918
Reported in: 51Ind.Cas.908
1. This is an appeal from the judgment of Mr. Justice Courts Trotter in a suit brought by the plaintiffs on a contract by the defendant to purchase from them their claim against the estate of a deceased person for Rs. 2,225. Under the agreement executed by the defendant the plaintiffs were restored to their right to sue the estate of the deceased debtor when the defendant failed to pay at the due date, but they did not do so and their claim had become barred when the present suit was instituted. In these circumstances the learned Judge, following Jatindra Nath Basu v. Peyer Deye Debi 34 Ind. Cas. 69 ; 18 Bom. L.B. 509 ; 31 M.L.J. 248 ; 43 I.A. 108 has held that the plaintiffs had disentitled themselves to specific performance of the contract by their failure to keep alive the claim against the estate of the deceased, which they agreed to sell to the defendant. Apart from this, the claim is not one which could be specifically enforced, as it falls under Clause 21(a) of the Specific Reli...
K.T.V.R.T. Veerappa Chetty Vs. Vellayan Ambalam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1918
Reported in: 52Ind.Cas.370
Abdur Rahim, J.1. The suit which we are dealing with in this appeal was instituted with respect to a Hundi drawn by the 1st defendant, the appellant, on S.R.M.S. Ranganathan Chetty in Rangoon in favour of the 2nd defendant, who assigned it to 3rd defendant and the 3rd defendant assigned it to the 4th defendant's father, who assigned it to the plaintiff. Several defences were raised but we need not deal with all of them. We wish to deal with the questions of fact whether there was presentment of the Hundi and in due time, whether there was dishonour and notice of dishonour, if any, given to the drawer as required by law. The question whether the Hundi was discharged by payment has also been argued before us. The learned Advocate-General has also raised a rather interesting question of law based on the provisions of Sections 61 and 74 of the Negotiable Instruments Act read with Sections 91, 92, 93, and 94. The case cannot be said to have been tried as satisfactorily as it might have been...
Sri Rajah Kandana Venkata Varadaraja Sobanadhri Row Bahadur Zemindar a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1918
Reported in: 52Ind.Cas.414
1. The question of authorisation is res judicata against plaintiff by reason of the decision in Appeal Suit No. 22 of 1910. The Subordinate Judge holds that there was subsequent ratification, but there is nothing in the facts found by him to justify such a conclusion. All that is shown is that plaintiff in Exhibit I reported to defendants' father the fact that he had borrowed the money and asked pardon for having done so without authority, and wanted orders to pay it back. No reply appears to have been sent to this, and ' there is no evidence of defendants' father having done or said anything in ratification of plaintiff's action. It cannot be said that he ratified it simply by failing to repudiate it in terms.2. In the absence of authority or ratification it must be held that plaintiff's cause of action arose when he paid to the creditors 'of defendants' father the money which he (plaintiff) had borrowed. The Article applicable is Article 61, Indian Limitation Act, and the suit is cle...
Sarvothama Row Vs. Chinnasami Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1918
Reported in: (1919)36MLJ157
1. The managing member of a joint Hindu family consisting of himself and his brother sold the suit properties to a stranger on 22nd December 1908. The younger brother sold his share alone to the plaintiff on 12th January 1909. There was also a mortgage outstanding on the property. When the plaintiff attempted to take possession he was resisted by the purchaser from the manager. Thereupon he sued for possession of the half share sold to him. He succeeded in the first court. The Lower Appellate Court held that the sale by the manager was binding on the plaintiffs' vendor and dismissed the suit. In Second appeal, this decree was confirmed; an application to review the judgment also failed. The decision of the High Court in the Second appeal was given on the 18th February 1915. This suit for refund of the sale price and for the expenses of the costs incurred in the unsuccessful litigation was instituted within three years of the judgment of the High Court. The Courts below have held that t...
Sujir Raghunathaiya Vs. Sobina Saldanha Alias Rebelle
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-1918
Reported in: (1919)36MLJ161
1. Although a large number of decisions were quoted before us, we think that on a question of construction we should be guided in the first instance by the language of the instrument and by the facts of the particular case. There are circumstances in this case which justify the view taken by the courts below. In the first place, the conveyance is not an absolute one. The document begins and ends by saying that it is a conditional sale : Secondly there is a provision for payment of interest and the loan is spoken of as principal. Thirdly, the mortgagor is asked to pay the premia. Further there is no provision for reconveyance even, and lastly there is a provision for obtaining a receipt on payment of the loan. All these circumstances indicate that there is the relationship of creditor and debtor and also that of accountability between the parties. We think the courts below held rightly that the Ex. A was a mortgage.2. Mr. Sitarama Row then raised an interesting question on which there i...
N. Sethuramaswami Nayani Varu Vs. Sowear Syed Mir HussaIn Sahib and an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-1918
Reported in: (1919)36MLJ298
1. This is an appeal against the order of the Subordinate Judge of Chittoor rejecting an application by the judgment-debtor under C). XXI, Rule 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Act V of 1908). The facts are these : The properties of the judgment-debtor were sold in court-auction on the 16th of April 1917. On the 22nd of June 1917 the judgment-debtor' executed a sale-deed to a third party. On the 25th. of June, he applied to the Court to set aside the sale and deposited the requisite amount. The conveyance of the 22nd of June was not registered. A fresh sale-deed was executed to the same third party on the 20th of August 1917, The Subordinate Judge disposed of the application on the 11th of January 1918. He held that as the conveyance of the 22nd of Julie was capable of being registered and as when registered, it would confer title as on the date of the sale, the judgment-debtor had no locus standi on the 25th of June to present the application. He has relied upon Subbarayadu v. Laksh...
Chockalinga Nayakan Vs. Arunachalam Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1918
Reported in: 52Ind.Cas.239
1. One Kolandaiswamy Devar obtained a lease for 30 years of the village in dispute from the Zamindar of Sivaganga in 1882. In 1886 he executed Exhibit I to the defendant. Exhibit F is the muchilika from the defendant to Kolandaisawmy. In March 1887 the suit village and other villages were permanently assigned to Kolandaisawmy by the Zemindar. The right of the assignee was purchased in Court-auction by the present plaintiff and he sues to recover arrears of rent from the defendant. The defendant pleaded that under Exhibit I he was bound to pay only the rent provided in the document and that plaintiff was not entitled to demand waram.2. The main issue in the case was whether Exhibit I conferred a permanent right on the defendant. Both the Courts below were of opinion that it was not a permanent patta and that it was open to the plaintiff to revert to waram.3. We are unable to agree with this con-elusion. The document on the face of it fixes a permanent rate of rent for all time to come. ...
Mangalathammal Vs. Veerappa Goundan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1918
Reported in: 52Ind.Cas.813
Spencer, J.1. The question raised in this appeal is one of res judicata. The contesting parties are the plaintiff and his sister, the 3rd defendant. The District Munsif dismissed the suit, holding that it was barred by reason of the decision in Original Suit No. 129 of 1913 by the Appellate Court. The Subordinate Judge, who was the same Judge who decided the appeal in the other suit, held that his decision did not operate as res 'judicata in this suit and sent the case back to the District Munsif for deciding the other issues.2. In Original Suit No. 129 of 1913 (587 of 1912) the plaintiff sued as lessor to recover rent and to obtain possession of the suit house from the 3rd defendant, setting up (1) an arrangement whereby his own mother Nagammal and his two aunts Almelu and Mariayee, being unable to discharge the debts of their mother Chellayee and aunt Minakshi, agreed to let 1st plaintiff have the exclusive possession of the suit property on condition of his discharging those debts, ...
The Official Assignee of Madras Vs. T.B. Mehta and Sons
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-1918
Reported in: (1919)36MLJ190
John Wallis, C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order of Coutts Trotter, J., dismissing the Official Assignee's application by notice of motion for a declaration that the sale of diamonds by the insolvent on and after the 19th May 1917 to the garnishees T.B. Mehta and Sons, was void as a fraudulent preference under Section 56 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act or in the alternative under Section 55 as the sale was not bona fide and for valuable consideration. In my opinion the decision of the learned Judge was right on both points. We are not now concerned with the propriety or morality of the insolvent's conduct in obtaining large quantities of diamonds on credit from various firms and pledging them for advances to Nattukottai Chetties and in persisting in this course when he was clearly in insolvent circumstances and had no prospect of paying for them. These are matters to be taken into consideration at another stage. In the middle of May 1917 the insolvent was in very embarassed c...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »