Chennai Court February 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.
P. Narayan Nair and ors. Vs. A.P.M. Cheria Kathiri Kutty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1918
Reported in: 45Ind.Cas.89; (1918)34MLJ397
1. The plaintiff, respondent, first filed his plaint in the District Munsif's Court. When it was returned, he filed it in the Subordinate Court and it was returned again. He appealed to the Lower Appellate Court against the order of return by the District Munsif; and the first question is whether by electing to file his plaint in the Subordinate Court, he forfeited his right of appeal. It has been held that he could do so in Beni Madhab Das v. Jotendra Mohan Tagore (1907) 5 C.L.J. 580. But that decision was doubted in Baikunta Naih Dey v. Nawab Salimulla Bahadur (1908) 7 C.L.J. 547 and was dissented from by one of us and another learned judge of this Court in A.A.O. No. 403 of 1914. We do not find in Order XLI or XLIII of the Civil Procedure Code any recognition of the principle that any such election as may have taken place in the case before us affects the right of appeal, We therefore hold that an appeal lay to the Lower Appellate Court.2. On the merits the question is whether a sui...
P. Narayanan Nair and Five ors. Vs. A.P.M. Cheria Kathiri Kutty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1918
Reported in: (1918)ILR41Mad721
Oldfield, J.1. The plaintiff, respondent, first filed his plaint in the District Munsif's Court, When it was returned he filed it in the Subordinate Court and it was returned again. He appealed to the lower Appellate Court against the order of return by the District Munsif and the first question is whether by electing to file his plaint in the Subordinate Court he forfeited his right of appeal. It has been held that he could do so in Bend Madhub Das v. Jotendra Mohan Tagore (1907) Cri.L.J. 580. But that decision was doubted in Backunta Nath Dey v. Nawab Salimulla Bahadur (1907) Cri.L.J. 547; at p, 556 and was dissented from by one of as and another learned Judge of this Court in Chidambaram Chetty v. Karuppan Chetty Appeal against Order No. 403 of 1914. We do not find in Order XII or XIII of the Civil Procedure Code any recognition of the principle that any such election as may have taken place in the case before us affects the right of appeal. We therefore hold that an appeal lay to t...
S.T.N. Raman Chetty and anr. and R.M.M.L. Lakshmanan Chetty Vs. K.G. P ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1918
Reported in: 49Ind.Cas.41
1. The Subordinate Judge was wrong in holding that the previous decision of this Court disposed of Issue No. 1. The first part of the latter runs thus ' Whether Nachiappa Chetty and 8th defendant executed plaint promissory note and received consideration from plaintiff: 'and the question of whether the promissory note was supported by consideration was not considered at all by the learned Judges.2. We must, therefore, call for a finding on the evidence on record on the question of whether the plaint promissory note was or was not supported by consideration. The finding should be submitted in two months from this date, and seven days will be-allowed for filing objections.3. In compliance with the order contained in the above judgment, the Judge of the Temporary Subordinate Court of Ramnad at Madura submitted his finding that no consideration was paid by the plaintiff and that, therefore, nothing was due to him thereunder.4. These appeals and the memorandum of objections filed by the 1st...
Vythinathien Vs. Padmanabha Pattar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1918
Reported in: 45Ind.Cas.659
1. In these cases the question is of the validity of the two Melcharths in plaintiff's favour, executed by some of defendants on behalf of the Devaswom, of which they had control.2. The lower Appellate Court's main ground of decision against plaintiff is that the Melcharths are unenforceable, because their execution with recitals in them regarding the nature of the executant's control over the Devaswom was a step towards carrying out a scheme for their aggrandisement by setting up the private nature of their trust and was, therefore, a breach of that trust. We have not been shown authority, which would justify sueh a decision; and we cannot accept it especially as, in our opinion, defendants' further case also, that plaintiff acted in bad faith, is not supported by evidence.3. As regards the last mentioned point, the lower Appellate Court found that consideration passed for the Melcharths. But it held that such consideration 'was not utilised for the benefit of the Devaswom and that pl...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›