Chennai Court March 1918 Judgments
Vanamati Sattiraju Vs. Ballapragada and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1918
Reported in: (1918)35MLJ87
1. In this case the plaintiff sued for a decree for the dissolution of his partnership with the defendants, and the learned subordinate judge dismissed plaintiff's suit on a point taken for the first time in his court namely, that the suit was not maintainable as assuming the facts alleged in the plaint to be true, there was in law, no partnership.2. These facts are contained in the 3rd, 4th and 5th paragraphs. Paragraph 3 says that the plaintiff and the 1st defendant entered into an agreement in or about December 1907 to construct at their joint expense a boat and another smaller boat attached to it, the plaintiff making certain advances towards it. Among certain other stipulations which need not be gone into in detail, and agreeing that the licences, when the boat was completed, should be taken in the name of the 1st defendant, that the boats should be plied for hire, that the 1st defendant should keep the accounts and that the net profits and losses derived from the use of the boats...
Tag this Judgment!Komu Kutti Vs. Kumara Menon and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1918
Reported in: (1918)35MLJ692
Abdur Rahim, J.1. As regards the objection to the registration of the sale-deed Exhibit A on the ground that item No. 17, plot C, which was situated in the jurisdiction of the Sub-Registrar was not in fact sold, I do not think that there is any substance in this objection. The District Judge has found otherwise and that finding is prima facie correct.2. The next question depends primarily upon the interpretation of the sale-deed Ex. A. It provides that as regards the purchase money, 'the said sum of Rs. 10,237-8-0 as has been received by us by way of the Rs. 9,086-2-10 reserved with you, it being settled that' the Kudicadan (encumbrance) Rs. 1,237-8-0 due to the aforesaid persons on properties items 10 to 16 should be paid by you and the properties should be recovered possession of, and that the previous debts Rs. 7848-10-10 which were incurred for our tarward necessities * * * should be paid off by you * * *, and by way of the balance amount Rs. 1,151-5-2 which was obtained by us in r...
Tag this Judgment!Vanamatti Satteraju Vs. Bollapragada Pallamraju and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1918
Reported in: 47Ind.Cas.640
1. In this case the plaintiff sued for a decree for the dissolution of his partnership with the defendants and the learned Sub-Judge dismissed the plaintiff's suit on a point taken for the first time in his Court, namely, that the suit was not maintainable as, assuming the facts alleged in the plaint to be true, there was, in law, no partnership.2. These facts were contained in the 3rd, 4th and 5th paragraphs, Paragraph 3 says that the plaintiff and the 1st defendant entered into an arrangement in or about December 1907 to construct at their joint expense a boat and another smaller boat attached to it, the plaintiff making certain advances towards it, among certain other stipulations which need not be gone into in detail, and agreeing that the licenses, when the boat was completed, should be taken in the name of the 1st 'defendant, that the boats should be plied for hire, that the 1st defendant should keep the accounts and that net profits and losses derived from the user of the boats ...
Tag this Judgment!Duddampudi Venkatrayudu (Dead) and ors. Vs. Bikkina Subbarayudu and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-1918
Reported in: 46Ind.Cas.179
Abdur Rahim, J.1. This second appeal is by the 3rd defendant in the suit. The plaintiff 1st respondent as found by both the lower Courts is purchaser of the rights of defendants Nos. 1 and 2 in the lands in question amounting to 18 and odd acres, and be seeks to recover possession of the property from the 3rd defendant. The Kinds were granted as a 'Nimebadi' Inam by the Rajah of Pittapur more than 100 years ago, but after the Permanent Settlement, to the ancestors of defendants Nos. 1 and 2, and both the District Munsif and the Subordinate Judge agree that the grant must be taken to have been of the Melvaram atone. The point for determination before us is whether the 3rd defendant is entitled to the benefit of Section 6, Madras Estates Land Act, and that depends upon the further question (a) whether the possession of the 3rd defendant on the date of the passing of the Act was or was not in the character of a mortgagee and if it was not, (b) whether the 3rd defendant had possession, of ...
Tag this Judgment!Chokkalingam Chettiar Vs. Kurunthappan Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-1918
Reported in: 47Ind.Cas.764
1. Objection is taken to the dismissal of plaintiff's suit on the ground that the Subordinate Judge, having found that the Sattur District Munsif had no jurisdiction, was bound to return the plaint to be presented in the proper Court and had no power to decide the case on the merits. Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, however, says that 110 Appellate Court shall allow an objection to the place of suing to be taken unless it was taken before the settlement of issues and unless there has been a consequent failure of justice. These conditions were not present, and so the Subordinate Judge should not have allowed the objection to be taken. We must, therefore, set aside his finding as to jurisdiction and on the finding as to consideration the second appeal fails. As respondents Nos. 1 to 3 took the objection as to jurisdiction in the lower Appellate Court we disallow their costs here. Second and 6th defendants not having appealed against the decree to the lower Appellate Court and h...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Pusapati Venkatapathiraju Garu and ors. Vs. Sri Raja Vatsavaya Ven ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1918
Reported in: 47Ind.Cas.563
1. This is an offshoot of the suit for Vizianagaram Zemindari, namely Original Suit No. 18 of 1903, on the file of the District Court, Vizigapatam. The present defendants were the plaintiffs in that suit, and it was instituted to recover the Zemindari of Vizianagaram. That suit was dismissed by the Court of first instance in 1908. An appeal was preferred to the High Court wbich was disposed of by a compromise in March 1913. The present suit is by the widow of the Zemindar of Tuni, who financed that litigation on behalf of the plaintiffs (the present defendants), for a sum of nearly two lakhs of rupees. The Subordinate Judge decreed the claim.2. The negotiations which led to the contract need not be gone into in any detail. Up to May 1906 the expenses of the litigation were borne by the present defendants from their own pocket. On the 22nd May 1906 the first agreement Exhibit A was executed by the 2nd defendant and his sons, the 3rd and 4th defendants, to the then Zemindar' of Tuni, by ...
Tag this Judgment!A. Venkatarama Aiyar Vs. E. Venkatarama Aiyar (Dead) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1918
Reported in: 50Ind.Cas.969
1. This case raises a question as to the ownership of certain lands in a village in the Tanjore District. The 1st plaintiff was the Village Munsif of the Tillage, the 2nd plaintiff is his son, and the 1st defendant is his son-in-law. Some years ago, the 1st plaintiff who apparently was an old man--he has died since the institution of the suit--wished, to relinquish his position as Village Munsif. His son was in the Revenue Department and did not wish to succeed him. So he desired the appointment for his son in law, the 1st defendant, and be applied to the Deputy Collector to appoint his son-in-law in his place. Apparently the Deputy Collector raised the point that the son in-law must, be a Pattadar in the village in order to have the office of Village Munsif. The 1st plaintiff thereupon said that the 1st defendant bad not any lands standing in his name but that he, the 1st plaintiff, would transfer his Patta to the 1st defendant and requested the Deputy Collector to carry out the trans...
Tag this Judgment!Munnavaru Begam Sahibu Vs. Mir Mahapalli Sahib and Two ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1918
Reported in: (1918)ILR41Mad1033
Abdur Rahim, J.1. The appeal is by the third plaintiff, daughter of the first plaintiff who died since the institution of the suit; The suit was to recover certain lands which are attached to what is described in the plaint as the Astana Bara Imam at Inuguduru, a suburb of Masulipatam, from the defendants who are in possession. The third plaintiff's case is that she is entitled to the office of Head Mujavar of the Astana in succession to her mother, the first plaintiff. What the nature of the institution is one of the important questions we have to consider in the appeal.2. There was a grant made by Nizam-ul-Mulk, Nizam of Hyderabad, in 1725 which is the root of the title of the parties, and one of the questions for consideration is as to the true interpretation of that document. The grant is in Persian, and when properly translated the material portions of it are to this effect.--It purports to confirm previous grants by ancient rulers made by way of Madad-Mash, or (literally translat...
Tag this Judgment!Munnavaru Begam Sahibu Vs. Mir Mahapalli Sahib and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1918
Reported in: 51Ind.Cas.489
Abdur Rahim, J.1. The appeal is by the 3rd plaintiff, daughter of the 1st plaintiff who died since the institution of the suit. The suit was to recover certain lands which are attached to what is described in the plaint as the Astana Bara Imam at Inuguduru, a suburb of Masulipatam, from the defendants who are in possession. The 3rd plaintiff's case is that she is entitled to the office of Head Mujavar of the Astana in succession to her mother, the 1st plaintiff. What is the nature of the institution is one of the important questions we have to consider in the appeal.2. There was a grant made by Nizam ul-Mulk, Nizam of Hyderabad, in 1725, which is the root of the title of the parties, and one of the questions for consideration is as to the true interpretation of that document. The grant is in Persian, and when properly translated the material portions of it are to this effect. It purports to confirm previous grants by ancient rulers made by way of Madad Mash, or (literally translated) s...
Tag this Judgment!Subraya Bhatta Vs. Srinivasa Shanbhaga and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1918
Reported in: 49Ind.Cas.800
1. This was a suit brought by an Archaka against the Moktessors of a certain temple for damages. The allegation was that the Moktessors had failed in the first place to pay the Archaka for services which he duly performed and the second head of the damages was, to' quote the words of the learned Judge's judgment,--'Damages for loss sustained! owing to the non performance of ceremonies, the allegation being that certain ceremonies which were usual and customary' and which ought to be performed by the Moktessors, or rather, I should say, orders were not given by the Moktessors for their, carrying out and the Archaka's case is that, owing to that donations and gifts which would have come to him from the worshippers if the ceremonies had been performed, had not come to him and there was a loss to him in this respect and in respect of that the claims damages to the extent of Rs. 300.'2. That is the description of the nature of the claim which is given by the learned Judge in his judgment an...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »