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.
Sundaram Ayyangar Vs. Ramaswamy Ayyangar and the Secretary of State fo ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1918
Reported in: AIR1918Mad92; (1918)ILR41Mad955; (1918)ILR41Mad959
Phillips, J.1. In this case a revenue sale was held in which first defendant's land was sold under the 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 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 give the Board of Revenue power of general s...
Kilaru Kotayya Vs. Polavarapu Durgayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1918
Reported in: 47Ind.Cas.192; (1918)35MLJ451
Abdur Rahim, J.1. The 2nd defendant purchased certain property from the 1st defendant, the father of the plaintiffs, the father and sons belonging to a joint Hindu family. The 1st defendant had instituted a suit previously by which he sought to set aside the alienation on the ground of fraud, undue influence and want of consideration. This Court held that the alienation could not be set aside but though the consideration of Rs. 800 had not been originally paid by the purchaser, yet inasmuch as he undertook to pay that amount the previous suit was dismissed. The plaintiffs were not parties to the suit and no question of necessity was considered or decided by this Court. In fact that was not a question seriously pressed at the trial in that suit. The present suit has been brought by the sons in order to set aside that very sale and the plaintiffs have obtained a decree to that effect.2. It has not been proved that the sale was made for purposes binding the family. The question that is no...
Sundaram Ayyangar Vs. Ramaswami Ayyangar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1918
Reported in: 47Ind.Cas.692
1. In this ease a revenue sale was held, in which 1st defendant's land was sold under Revenue Recovery 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), Act II of 164. 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 become final. Later on, however, the Board of Revenue directed the Collector to cannel the sale and ha 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 over...
Annaya Tantri Vs. Ammakka Hengsu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-1918
Reported in: (1918)35MLJ196
Wallis, C.J.1. It is well settled that the succession to temple offices is governed by user which is taken to represent the intentions of the founder, and it is not disputed that in this part of India the user in the case of temple archakas is that the office is hereditary and descends in the ordinary course of succession to women who are not themselves competent to perform the duties of the office by ministering in the temple and perfom them by deputy. The opinion of the pandits in 1853 in M.S.D.A. 261 shows that this was then the recognised usage. The question appears to have first come before the Court in 1910, but since that time there have been numerous decisions where the user has been recognised and enforced, and all the Hindu members of the Court with one exception have been parties to these decisions which also are conformable with the decisions of other High Courts. The only authority the other way is the judgment of Sadasiva Aiyar, J., in Sundarambal Animal v. Yogavana Guruk...
Eyunni Raghavacharyulu and ors. Vs. Epuri Govindasari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-1918
Reported in: (1918)35MLJ402
1. The suit is by a few sharers of Samudayam or common lands for ejectment against the defendant who has obtained a lease of it from the other share-holders. The lessee is himself a co-sharer and the kurnam of the village. The lease is a permanent one. The extent mentioned is 60 acres, but it has been found by both the lower courts that it comprises nearly 240 acres. There is a clause in the lease to the effect that the property should be regarded as comprising only 60 acres although the actual measurement may be more or less. The District Munsif held that the lease was not binding and decreed joint possession to the plaintiffs with the defendant. On appeal the Subordinate Judge rightly held that the decree for joint possession was wrong. His view was that, as the lease was given by a majority of the shareholders, it is binding on the plaintiffs.2. The principal question argued in second appeal is whether a majority of co-sharers can validly grant a perpetual lease of common property. ...
Nagappa and ors. Vs. Siddalingappa and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-1918
Reported in: 47Ind.Cas.589; (1918)35MLJ372
ORDER6. The lower Court will submit a finding as to how much is payable on account of interest according to the terms of the bond Exhibit A. Fresh evidence may be taken. The finding will be submitted in 8 weeks and the parties will be at liberty to file objections to the same within 10 days after notice of return of the same shall have been posted up in this Court.7. [In compliance with the order contained in the above judgment, the District Judge of Bellary submitted the following:8. I find that the plaintiff is entitled to interest of Rs. 12 12 a year, representing 2 12 palls per year at Rs. 5 per palla. He is therefore entitled to Rs. 50 in all for the four years].9. This Second Appeal coming on for final hearing after the return of the finding of the Lower Appellate Court upon the issue referrred by this Court for trial.The Court delivered the following10. The decree will be varied by allowing interest at Rs. 12-8-0 per annum on Rs. 200 from March 1908 till the time fixed for payme...
Annaya Tantri Vs. Ammakka Hengsu and Two ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-1918
Reported in: (1918)ILR41Mad886
John Wallis, Kt., C.J.1. It is well settled that the succession to temple offices is governed by user which is taken to represent the intentions of the founder, and it is not disputed that in this part of India the user in the case of temple archakas is that the office is hereditary and descends in the ordinary course of succession to women who are not themselves competent to perform the duties of the office by ministering in the temple and perform them by deputy. The opinion of the pandits in 1853 in Seshu Ammal v. Soundararaja Ayyar (1853) M.S.D.A. 261 shows that this was then the recognized usage, The question appears to have first come before the Court in 1910, but since that time there have been numerous decisions where the user has been recognized and enforced, and all the Hindu members of the Court with one exception have been parties to these decisions which also are conformable with the decisions of other High Courts. The only authority the other way is the judgment of Sadasiv...
Pilla Kakkadu Alias Balaji and Vs. Vedula Chendrayya Chandari and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-1918
Reported in: 51Ind.Cas.536
1. The plaintiffs brought these suits for a declaration that the decrees in two other suits were not binding on them and for a permanent injunction restraining the decree holders from executing those decrees. The decrees were passed by a Subordinate Judge and the present suits were filed in the District Munsif's Court. The plaintiffs valued the relief claimed by them under Section 7, Sub-section 4, Clause (c), of the Court Fees Act and filed the suits, as stated, in the District Munsif's Court according to that valuation. It may be mentioned that they had originally filed the same suits in the Subordinate Judge's Court but on insufficiently stamped plaints, and afterwards withdrew the plaints. That does not, however, make any difference in the question we have to consider.2. It has been decided by a Bench of this Court, after a very elaborate discussion of the law, in Arunachellam Chetty v. Sabapathy Chetty 41 Ind. Cas. 937 that a suit to obtain a declaration that a decree passed by a ...
Annaya Tantri Vs. Ammaka Hengsu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-1918
Reported in: 47Ind.Cas.341
John Wallis, C.J.1. It is well settled that the succession to temple offices is governed by user which is taken to represent the intentions of the founder, and it is not disputed that in this part of India the user in the case of temple Archakas is that the office is hereditary and descends in the ordinary course of succession to women, who are not themselves competent to perform the duties of the office by ministering in the temple and perform them by deputy. The opinion of the Pandits in Sheshu Ammal v. Soundaraja Aiyar (1853) M.S.D.A. 261 shows that this was then the recognised usage. The question appears to have first come before the Court in 1910, but since that time there have been numerous decisions where the user has been recognised and enforced, and all the Hindu members of the Court with one exception have been parties to these decisions. Which also are conformable with the decisions of other High Courts. The only authority the other way is the judgment of Sadasiva Aiyar, J.,...
Harry Meredith, the Liquidator Appointed for the Purpose of Winding Up ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-1918
Reported in: (1918)35MLJ184
John Wallis, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff from the judgment of Mr. Justice Coutts Trotter dismissing a suit brought by the plaintiff as liquidator of Messrs. J.H. Elliott & Co., Ltd., to recover damages for breach of certain contracts made with the defendants by which Elliott and Co. undertook to purchase and ship certain goods ' on account and risk of the defendants ', and did ship them under c. i. f. c. i. contracts on board a German ship. War broke out while the goods were still in transit, and the contracts of affreightment between the shippers and the German ship-owners were thereupon dissolved, with the result that, if these were ordinary c. i. f. contracts between vendors and vendees, then, as held by the learned judge in accordance with the decision of the Court of Appeal in England in Arnold Karberg and Go. v. Blythe Green Jourdain & Co. (1916) 1 K.B. 495 the tender of the shipping documents including these bills of lading which had been dissolved as contracts of ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »