Chennai Court April 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.
In Re: N.N. Krishnaswami Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1918
Reported in: (1918)35MLJ251
1. In this petition, which comes before me for admission, I am asked to revise that order of the District Judge, South Malabar, dissolving an injunction granted by the District Munsif, Palghat, restraining the Palghat Municipal Council from making a certain payment from its fund pending decision of a suit for a permanent injunction in the same terms.2. The first objection to this petition is that if discloses no ground for revision, fulfilling the requirements of Section 115, Civil Procedure Code, The District Judge undoubtedly had the jurisdiction, which he exercised, to set aside the District Munsif's order, and no argument has been based on his commission of any material irregularity in that exercise. If, as is alleged, he erred in law or fact in his appreciation of the merits, that is not material Amir Hasan Khan v. Sheo Baksh Singh I.L.R. (1884) Cal. 6 On this ground alone the petitioner must fail.3. But further the learned District Judge does not appear to me to have erred in law...
Subbaraya Pillai Vs. Sathanatha Pandaram
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1918
Reported in: 48Ind.Cas.940
Napier, J.1. The sole question raised in this second appeal is whether Section 145 of the Code of Civil Procedure applies to surety bonds taken by the judgment-creditors outside Court. The counter-petitioner in the case executed a surety bond ' in favour of the plaintiff in Original Suit No. 110 of 1913 in the Court of the District Munsif of Tirutnraipundi, in consideration for which the plaintiff-petitioner stayed execution of his decree against the defendant. He now seeks execution of the decree against the surety and objection is raised that Section 145 does not apply. The District Munsif held that Section 145 applies to cases in which the surety bond was put into Court before final orders were passed on the prior execution petition. The District Judge, on appeal, held that the section is of general application and allowed execution to proceed. It is somewhat remarkable that the exact point has not been decided before now and it seems to be generally admitted that the proceedings un...
Yegnarama Dikshadar and ors. Vs. Gopala Pattar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1918
Reported in: 47Ind.Cas.548
John Wallis, C.J.1. The ease made in the plaint was that the villagers, including the plaintiffs and defendants, are the owners and Uraliars or managers of the suit temple situated in their village, that is to say, that it was a private endowment; and this was not contested on the other? side. Dealing with, the ease on this footing we agree with the lower Courts , and the learned Judges, in holding that the villagers, acting by a majority, were entitled to make the reference to arbitration, Exhibit A, for the purpose of settling a scheme of management and that the award made by the arbitrators, Exhibit B, was afterwards properly filed under Section 526 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the 116 Urallars who joined in the petition being entered as plaintiffs and the 46 counter-petitioners being entered as defendants, and thereupon became enforceable as a decree. The order, Exhibit C, recites that some of the counter-petitioners had withdrawn their objections and that some had been removed ...
N. Ranga Rao Vs. Ranganayaki Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1918
Reported in: (1918)35MLJ364
Phillips, J.1. Plaintiff's suit is brought to set aside an alienation made by 1st defendant widow of one Krishna Iyer, plaintiff being the nearest reversioner. Krishna Aiyar sold the property in 1883 to his concubine and another and they executed a hypothecation deed in favour of one Rama Rao in 1885. In a suit by the widow this mortgage was recognised as valid and in another suit by a subsequent mortgagee it was again held to be valid against the widow. A decree was obtained against Rama Rao, and in execution his mortgage deed was sold and purchased by one Rama Aiyar, who brought a suit upon it. The widow at first contested the suit, but abandoned her defence. The mortgaged property was therefore brought to sale and purchased by 2nd defendant in October 1902. It is contended for appellant that this sale in 1902 amounted to an alienati m by the widow and that this suit brought in 1913 is within time.. The only question that need be considered now is whether the facts of the case establ...
Badagala Jogi Naidu Vs. Bendalam Papiah Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1918
Reported in: (1918)35MLJ382
Spencer, J.1. We must accept the learned District Judge's findings of fact (1) that Exhibits B and C are genuine, (2) that family necessity has not been proved for the debts secured by Exhibit A apart from the fact that there was a prior debt due to the plaintiff secured by the previous instruments (Exhibits B and C) executed by the 1st defendant and 3rd defendant and their fathers which mortgaged the family property.2. On the question of law, which is whether a prior mortgage over joint family property created by a father can be treated as an antecedent debt for the purpose of binding his sons' interest in co-parcenary property in a subsequent mortgage between the same parties, I think we are bound to give the fullest effect to the words of Lord Shaw in Sahu Earn Chandra v. Bhup Singh (1917) 33 M.L.J. 14 If the arguments advanced before their Lordships are read with what preceded and followed this expression of the Judicial Committee's opinion, there cannot be any doubt as to what was...
Narayanaswamy Mudali Vs. Gangadhara Mudali and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1918
Reported in: (1919)37MLJ353
1. The suit in terms is one for dissolution of partnership. The court below has come to the conclusion that it is barred by limitation, applying Article 106 of the Limitation Act.2. Two points have been raised before us by the learned vakil for the appellant. One is that in the reference to the arbitrators there was a request to settle the accounts, that is equivalent to an acknowledgment of liability and that, consequently, the suit is not barred by limitation. The other is that to the suit as framed Article 120 applies. As regards the first of these points, the question is as to whether Ex. D dated the 1st December 1912 contains an acknowledgment of liability. It is true that the document says that the account should be looked into, the loss and profits between the parties should be ascertained and that the parties will be bound to take whatever may be settled by the arbitrators. But the reference never fructified into an award. Some of the arbitrators died and as a result the refere...
Nadhamuni Iyyan (Deceased) and anr. Vs. Appu Odayan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1918
Reported in: 48Ind.Cas.799
1. The District Judge has based his decision largely on Court Exhibits I and II, which he admitted as evidence produced on the Court's own motion. He states that these documents are conclusive on the point of fact.2. Order XL, Rule 27, of the Code of Civil Procedure makes it imperative that an Appellate Court should record its reasons for admitting additional evidence whenever additional evidence is allowed to be produced.3. Apart from the irregularity arising from the omission to comply with this rule, we think that in fairness these documents should not have been relied on for the purpose of proving that the properties attached by the 3rd defendant (plaintiff in Original Suit No. 133 of 1909) were treated as the joint properties of defendants Nos. 1 and 2 in this case (defendants Nos. 1 and 2 in Original Suit No. 138 of 1909) without giving the 3rd defendant, Who was examined as 1st defence witness at the original trial, an opportunity of explaining the circumstances under which he m...
N. Ranga Row Vs. Ranganayaki Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1918
Reported in: 47Ind.Cas.578
Phillips, J.1. Plaintiff's suit is brought to set aside an alienation made by 1st defendant, widow of one Krishna Ayyar, plaintiff being the nearest reversioner, Krishna Ayyar sold the property in 1883 to his concubine and another and they executed a hypothecation deed in favour of one Rama Rao in 1885. In a suit by the widow this mortgage was recognised as valid and in another suit by a subsequent mortgagee it was again held to be valid against the widow, A decree was obtained against Rama Rao, and in execution his mortgage-deed was sold and purchased by one Rama Ayyar, who brought a suit upon it. The widow at first contested the suit, but abandoned her defence. The mortgaged property was, therefore, brought to sale and purchased by 2nd defendant in October 1902. It is contended for the appellant that this sale in 1902 amounted to an alienation by the widow and that this suit brought in 1913 is within time. The only question that need be considered now is whether the facts of the case...
Sundaram Iyengar Vs. Ramaswami Iyengar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1918
Reported in: (1918)35MLJ177
1. In this case a revenue sale was held, in which 1st defendant's land was sold under Revenue Recovery Act (Act II of 1864). A petition under Section 37 A of that Act to set aside the sale was dismissed and also a petition under Section 38(1) of Act II of 1864. These two orders were passed by the Deputy Collector, and his order of confirmation of sale was approved by the District Collector under the powers conferred on him by Section 3 of the Madras Regulation VII of 1828. By this confirmation the order of confirmation under Section 38(3) of Act II of 1864 became final. Later on however, the Board of Revenue directed the Collector to cancel the sale and he cancelled it accordingly. Plaintiff's suit, to set aside this last order and to recover possession of the property purchased by him at the revenue sale has been decreed by the Subordinate Judge. The first objection taken is that under Madras Regulations I and II of 1803 which gave the Board of Revenue power of general superintendence...
Alla Pichai Rowthan Vs. Pappathiammal Alias Ammal Bibi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1918
Reported in: 51Ind.Cas.748; (1919)36MLJ184
1. Two Muhammadan brothers Sanjiappa Row-than and Sheik Muhammad Rowthan acquired considerable properties. Sheik Muhammad died in 1894 and Sanjiappa Rowthan in 1901. The three plaintiffs are the widow, the son and daughter respectively of Sanjiappa. The 2nd and the 3rd defendants are the widow and daughter of Sheik Muhamad. The 1st defendant is the husband of the 3rd defendant.2. The case for the plaintiffs is that after the death of Sanjiappa Rowthan the properties were entrusted to the management of 1st defendant on behalf of the members of the Muhammadan family, that during the management the 1st defendant misappropriated the properties, that thereupon certain mediators interceded and obtained the transfer of some of the properties to the plaintiffs and that the 1st defendant is still retaining monies belonging to the plaintiffs. The 1st defendant denied his agency and his liability to account.3. The Subordinate Judge in an unnecessarily long Judgment has come to the conclusion that...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »