Chennai Court February 1918 Judgments
Sivanarasa Reddi and anr. Vs. Doraiswami Reddi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-1918
Reported in: 45Ind.Cas.463; (1918)35MLJ272
Oldfield, J.1. 1st and 2nd plaintiffs, appellants, with 3rd plaintiff, sued the defendant to recover the share of the peishkush they had paid on the mitta, which all own in common, defendant's interest being one-fourth. The defence was that plaintiffs had collected from the tenants sufficient to cover what they paid for defendant in addition to what they were entitled to retain as their own share of the collections; and the issue between the panties relates to the manner in which the collections should be apportioned, plaintiffs contending that, as co-owners, they are entitled to all they may collect up to a sum equal to three quarters of the total demand of the estate; defendant, as his case was put forward in the Lower Appellate Court and finally here, that they are entitled to retain only three quarters of their total actual collections and must hold the balance in trust for him and credit it against the amount they have paid out on his behalf.2. Of these methods of calculation that...
Tag this Judgment!Parvataneni Venkataramayya and ors. Vs. Lanka Rambrahman and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1918
Reported in: 47Ind.Cas.924; (1918)35MLJ124
1. The 1st defendant sold the property in suit to the plaintiff on the 8th of December 1906. The document purports to convey both the melvaram and kudivaram rights in the property. It is common ground that possession of one of the items, namely, a house site was delivered to the plaintiff. He was unable to get physical possession of the rest of the property as the tenants asserted occupancy right. Thereupon, he sued the tenants in the District Munsif's Court. He obtained a decree in ejectment on the 30th of December 1909. There was an appeal by the tenants. The lower appellate' court reversed the Munsif's decision and dismissed the plaintiff's suit on the 13th of September 1910. The High Court confirmed that decree on 23-8-12. The present suit was instituted on 22-8-15 for cancellation of the sale or for damages in the alternative.2. The Subordinate Judge has dismissed the suit on the ground that the cause of action arose on the date of the sale and that as the suit was filed more than...
Tag this Judgment!Pandiri Veeranna Vs. Grandhi Veerabhadraswami Alias Veerabhadrudu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1918
Reported in: 45Ind.Cas.18; (1918)34MLJ373
1. In this case the two defendants carried on the business of timber merchants as a family business, they being father and son in an undivided Hindu family. They are sued on a debt which would be statute-barred in the absence of an acknowledgment sufficient, within Section 19 of the Limitation Act, to take it out of the statute. There is such an acknowledgment, but it is only signed by the 1st defendant, the father, and the question is whether it can operate as against the son, the co-defendant also.2. The learned Judges who referred the case have propounded a question about the answer to which we feel no hesitation, but it is obviously referred to us because they felt a doubt as to whether the decisions in Valasubramania Pillai v. S.V.R.R.M. Ramanathan Chettiar I.L.R. (1908) Mad. 421 and Skaik Mohideen Sahib v. The Official Assignee of Madras I.L.R (1911) Mad. 142 did not preclude them from arriving at the conclusion which they clearly thought to be the right one.3. The exact question...
Tag this Judgment!Chidambara Pillai Vs. Subbayya Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1918
Reported in: (1918)34MLJ381
Ayling, J.1. I have had the advantage of perusing the judgment which my learned brother, Seshagiri Aiyar, J. is about to pronounce; and I agree in the conclusion arrived at by him. It is impossible to contend that the power of appointing a testamentary guardian is supported by anything in the ancient texts; and the attractive doctrine that anything which is not expressly forbidden should be held lawful, if expedient, seems to me one, which has its dangers, and requires careful consideration before application, In the present case, the power claimed seema to run counter to the conception of a Hindu joint family in which every member obtains an interest at birth. I can only agree with Sadasiva Aiyar, J's remark in Chidambaram Pillai v. Vecrappa Chettiar (1917) 6 L.W. 640 in which that learned Judge says,On principle I find it difficult to hold that a man who cannot deal with a particular species of property by will can make arrangements for the management of that property by will after h...
Tag this Judgment!Ponnusami Pillai Vs. Singaram Pillai (Minor by Father and Next Friend ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1918
Reported in: (1918)34MLJ526
1. Appellant in this case takes the preliminary ground that the judgment cannot be supported in view of the provisions of Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act.2. The suit was brought under Section 77 of the Registration Act to enforce registration of a will which both the Sub-Registrar and District-Registrar had declined to register. The Subordinate Judge says (paragraph 4 of his judgment)...'The parties filed the evidence adduced before the registering authorities as evidence in this case by mutual consent. None of them wanted any further evidence to be adduced in this Court. They were content to argue the case on the evidence adduced before the registering authorities.'3. The evidence in question on a consideration of which the case was decided included the statements of 9 witnesses for plaintiff and 8 witnesses for defendant recorded by the Sub-Registrar. These statements could duly become relevant evidence in the present case, if the conditions prescribed by Section 33 of the Ind...
Tag this Judgment!Ponnuswami Pillay Vs. Singaram Pillay
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1918
Reported in: (1918)ILR41Mad731
Ayling, J.1. Appellant in this case takes the preliminary Ayling, J. ground that the judgment cannot be supported in view of the provisions of Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act.2. The suit was brought under Section 77 of the Registration Act to enforce registration of a will which both the Sub-Registrar and District Registrar had declined to register. The Subordinate Judge says (paragraph 4 of his judgment):The parties filed the evidence adduced before the registering authorities as evidence in this case by mutual consent. None of them wanted any further evidence to be adduced in this Court. They were content to argue the case on the evidence adduced before the registering authorities.3. The evidence in question on a consideration of which the case was decided included the statements of nine witnesses for plaintiff and eight witnesses for defendant recorded by the Sub-Registrar. These statements could only become relevant evidence in the present case, if the conditions prescribed ...
Tag this Judgment!Chidambara Pillai and ors. Vs. Rangasami Naicker and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1918
Reported in: 45Ind.Cas.905
Ayling, J.1. I have had the advantage of perusing the judgment which my learned brother, Seshagiri Aiyar, J., is about to pronounce; and I agree in the conclusion arrived at by him. It is impossible to contend that the power of appointing a testamentary guardian is supported by anything in the ancient texts; and the attractive doctrine that anything which is not expressly forbidden should be held lawful, if expedient, seems to me one which has its dangers and requires careful consideration before application. In the present case, the power claimed seems to run counter to the conception of a Hindu joint family in which every member obtains an interest at birth. I can only agree with Sadasiva Aiyar, J.'s remark in Chidambaram Pillai v. Veerappa Ohettiar (1917) M.W. 744 in which that learned Judga says,On principle I find it difficult to hold that a man who cannot deal with a particular species of property he Will can make arrangement for the management of that property by Will after his ...
Tag this Judgment!T.V. Sankaranarayana Aiyar Vs. Alagiri Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1918
Reported in: (1918)35MLJ296
Oldfield, J.1. The question is whether the adjudication as insolvent referred to in Section 36, Provincial Insolvency Act, is to be treated as made on the actual date of the order of adjudication or with reference to Section 16(6) on the date of the presentatior of the petition in which the insolvency originated. I have had the advantage of reading my learned brother's judgment and I can give my reasons for agreeing with him shortly. 2. The important point is, I think, that the application of Section 16(6) is not subjected to any explicit restriction. It no doubt stands as part of the section relating to the order of adjudication and its immediate consequences not as a separate provision, like S.43 of the English Act of 1883 and Section 51 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act. But neither that nor the detailed comparison relied on by respondents between the provisions of the Provincial Act inter se and with those of the other Acts referred to goes far towards supporting their content...
Tag this Judgment!The Midnapore Zemindari Company, Limited Through Its Duly Authorized M ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1918
Reported in: (1918)34MLJ563
1. This is an appeal from the decree of the District Judge of Madura in a suit brought by the plaintiff as heir of the late Zemindar of Kannivadi to recover the Zemindari from the first defendant, the Midnapore Zemindari Company, and the 2nd defendant claiming under it. The defendant company acquired the zemindari for more than thirteen lakhs of Rupees from the Liquidator of the Commercial Bank of India, which in December 1895 had advanced money on a mortgage to which the plaintiff's grand-father, the then zemindar and his son, the plaintiff's father were parties, and had subsequently obtained a consent decree for sale, and brought the zemindari to sale and purchased it after the death of the plaintiff's grand-father and the succession of his father to the estate. At the date of the Court sale in 1900 the zemindari was an unsettled palayam, but in 1905 the Bank succeeded in obtaining a permanent sannad under Regulation XXV of 1802 at the same peishcush as had been paid without alterati...
Tag this Judgment!The Midnapore Zemindari Company Limited Vs. Appayasami Naicker and anr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1918
Reported in: (1918)ILR41Mad749
John Wallis, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from the decree of the District Judge of Madura in a suit brought by the plaintiff as heir of the late Zamindari of Kannivadi to recover the zamindari from the first defendant, the Midnapore Zamindari Company, and the second defendant claiming under it. The defendant company acquired the zamindari for more than thirteen lakhs of rupees from the Liquidator of the Commercial Bank of India, which in December 1895 had advanced money on a mortgage to which the plaintiff's grandfather the then zamindar and his son the plaintiff's father were parties, and had subsequently obtained a consent decree for sale, and brought the zamindari to sale and purchased it after the death of the plaintiff's grandfather and the succession of his father to the estate. At the date of the Court sale in 1900 the zamindari was an unsettled palayam, but in 1905 the Bank succeeded in obtaining a permanent sanad under Regulation XXV of 1802 at the same peshkash as had been p...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »