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.
Kadirvelu Nainar Vs. Kuppuswami Naicker
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-13-1918
Reported in: 45Ind.Cas.774; (1918)34MLJ590
1. In Venkatappa Naick v. Subba Naick I.L.R. (1905) M. 179 the Court decided that a suit could be instituted to set aside a decree on the ground that it had been obtained by false evidence tendered at the trial and by the suppression of evidence. On reference to the printed papers it appears that the alleged suppression of evidence consisted in the non-production of a promissory note the very existence of which the defendant denied when giving evidence in the case. There has been considerable difference of opinion in England as to whether an action would lie to set aside the judgment of an English Court on the ground that it had been obtained by perjured evidence. In India the weight of authority appears to be in favour of holding that such a suit will not lie for the reasons given by Sundara Ayyar, J. in Chinnayya v. Ramanna I.L.R. (1912) Mad. 203 by the Calcutta Court in Munshi Mosuful Huq v. Surendra Nath Ray 16 C.W.N 1002 and by the Allahabad Court in Janki Kuar v. Lachmi Narain I....
Manavikraman Tirumalpad Vs. the Collector of the Nilgiris
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-13-1918
Reported in: (1918)ILR41Mad943
Abdur Rahim, J.1. Under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, an appeal from the award of the District Court of Coimbatore was heard by a Bench consisting of Ayling and Sadasiva Ayyar, JJ., Both the learned Judges differed, generally speaking, from the Land Acquisition Judge and among themselves on some questions relating to the principle on which the value of the property was to be assessed. The total amount claimed by the owner was eight lakhs. The Land Acquisition Judge, confirming the valuation of the Collector, made an award of one lakh and seventy-two thousand rupees in round figures. Ayling, J., on the basis on which he proceeded held that the amount of the award should be enhanced by Rs. 7,000 and Sadasiva Ayyar, J., on the method of valuation adopted by him was for awarding on the whole an additional sum of about Us. 56,000. We understand that a question was then raised before the learned Judges as to what should be the order of the High Court under such circumstances. The l...
Kozhikot Kizhakka Kovilagath Sri Manavedan Alias Valia, Kunhunni Rajah ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-1918
Reported in: (1919)36MLJ103
1. The party who alleges that an alienation by a stani is valid beyond the life-time of the grantor, that is, that it is binding on his successor, ought to prove that the alienation was for the benefit of the estate or (to put it in a different way) was such as would be binding on the other members of a Joint Hindu family if made by a manager of the family (who was not also the father of the other members).2. The defendant in this case did not take any steps to discharge the burden of proof and the disputed alienation was a lease for 72 years by an old gentleman almost' on his deathbed in favour of a near relative. We therefore hold that the lower court rightly decided that the alienation was not binding on the successor of the grantor. The Letters Patent-appeal must be dismissed with costs....
Arumugham Chetty Vs. Muthu Koundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-10-1918
Reported in: (1919)37MLJ166
Wallis, C.J.1. This reference raises the question whether the rule as to the validity of a father's alienation for an antecedent debt is inapplicable where the antecedent debt itself has been contracted on the security of the family property, as held in Badagala Jogi Naidu v. Bendalam. Papiah Naidu : (1918)35MLJ382 on the authority of certain observations of the Privy Council in Sahu Ram Chandra v. Bhup Singh I.L.R. (1917) All. 437 : 33 M.L.J. 14 : 44 I.A. 126. The question is of great importance owing to the far reaching consequences of our decision, and has received our anxious consideration.2. The Appeal to the Privy Council was filed to challenge the decision of the majority of the Allahabad High Court in Chandradeo Singh v. Mata Prasad I.L.R. (1909) All. 176 dissenting from the view taken in Khalil-ul-Rahman v. Govind Pershad I.L.R. (1892) Cal. 328 and in Chidam-bara Mudaliar v. Koothaperumal I.L.R. (1903) Mad. 326 and agreeing with the later Madras decision in Venataramanaya Pant...
Sankara Kylasa Mudaliar and anr. Vs. Kuthalinga Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-1918
Reported in: 47Ind.Cas.877
ORDEROldfield, J.1. The dispute between the parties in this case' is regarding the rights of respondents to lay their warps in a certain street in their village, petitioners claiming the exclusive right to do so and respondents alleging that they are entitled also. The lower Court, holding what it refers to as joint user established, has, under Section 140 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, forbidden petitioners to interfere with the joint enjoyment of the street by respondents in the manner in question.2. Petitioners have objected to this order on the ground that it was passed after admissible evidence, oral and documentary, had been excluded. But the view I take involves consideration only of two more substantial objections that (1) Sections 145 and 146 authorise no recognition of joint possession, (2) the lower Court did not decide, as the former section directs, which party was in possession on 23rd June 1917, the date of the preliminary order. The first of these objections is just...
Cheruthazhath Abdulla Haji Vs. Cheriyandi Ibrayan Kutti and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-1918
Reported in: 50Ind.Cas.959
Abdur Rahim, J.1. Defendants No's. 1 and 2 were doing some business and got into embarrassed circumstances about the date of the transaction in question. That transaction is a mortgage of Rs. 5,000 executed by the 2nd defendant on certain proper-ties belonging to him in favour of the plaintiff, the 1st respondent before us. The 5th defendant in the suit, the appellant in this appeal, is a purchaser of some of the properties at a sale held in execution of decrees obtained against the 2nd defendant by defendants Nos. 3 and 4, The plaintiff preferred a claim before the executing Court and that Court held in favour of the appellant. The finding of the executing Court was that the mortgage was a colourable transaction intended to save the 2nd defendant's private properties in the calamity that was in view. The plaintiff has filed the present suit in order to have it declared that the mortgage is a valid and binding transaction and that the sale to the 5th defendant is valid only subject to ...
Vatavatta Nair Vs. Kenath Puthen Vittil Kuppassan Menon and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-08-1918
Reported in: 51Ind.Cas.740; (1919)36MLJ630
Abdur Rahim, J.1. The plaintiff in the suit from which this appeal has been preferred is the senior anandravan of the tarwad of which the 2nd defendant is the karnavan. The 1st defendant holds a kanom, Ex. II in the case, executed on the 24th August 1914. The object of the suit is to have that kanom set aside on the ground that it was an imprudent transaction and was injurious to the interests of the tarwad. The 1st defendant who is the karnavan of a rich tarwad has had dealings with the 2nd defendant's tarwad for a long time prior to the suit. He holds kanoms and melcharaths on large properties belonging to the 2nd defendant's tarwad including the property in dispute.2. In order to understand the questions arising in the case it is necessary only to go back to Ex. XX which is a melcharath in favour of the 1st defendant in respect of the property comprised in Ex. II executed in May 1916. The melcharath therefore, which is a sort of second charge, would expire in 1908. In 1902 the 2nd d...
The Official Assignee of Madras and as Such the Assignee of the Proper ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-1918
Reported in: (1918)35MLJ473
SJohn Wallis, C.J.1. I agree with my learned brothers that on the facts of this case the business must be taken to have been started by the 1st defendant as the joint family business of himself and his minor son, the 2nd defendant who subsequently attained majority before the date of the insolvency. This raises the important question whether the 2nd defendant was liable to be adjudicated an insolvent in respect of debts incurred for the purposes of the business during his minority and after he attained majority. As regards debts incurred during his minority the first question is, can he be made liable under Section 248 of the Indian Contract Act which makes a minor who has been admitted to the benefits of a partnership within the meaning of Section 247 liable on attaining majority for all obligations incurred by the partnership since he was so admitted unless he gives public notice within a reasonable time of his repudiation of the partnership. It has often been pointed out that this s...
T. Manavikraman Tirumalapad Vs. the Collector of the Nilgiris
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-1918
Reported in: (1918)35MLJ110
Abdur Rahim, J.1. Under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, an appeal from the award of the District Court of Coimbatore was heard by a Bench consisting of Ayling and Sadasiva Iyer, JJ. Both the learned Judges differed, generally speaking, from the Land Acquisition Judge and among themselves on some questions relating to the principle on which the value of the property was to be assessed. The total amount claimed by the owner, was 8 lakhs. The land acquisition judge confirming the valuation of the Collector made ah award of one lakh and seventy two thousand rupees in round figures. Ayling, J. on the basis on which he proceeded held that the amount of the award should be enhanced by Rs. 7,000 and Sadasiva Aiyar, J. on the method of valuation adopted by him was for awarding on the whole an additional sum of about Rs. 56,000. We understand that a question was then raised before the learned judges as to what should be the order of the High Court under such circumstances. The learned Ju...
Mangeshwar NaraIn Rao Vs. S. Shiva Rao and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-1918
Reported in: (1918)35MLJ414
Phillips, J.1. Plaintiffs sue to redeem a usufructuary mortgage of 1868 for Es. 1,650. In the mortgage-deed there is a provision that the mortgagor is to take back possession and pay a stipulated rent. In default of payment of this rent, the mortgagee was to recover possession and the mortgagor was to pay a sum equivalent to 12 per cent. on Rs. 1,650 as rent from, the date of the mortgage-deed until the mortgagee got back possession. The mortgagor failed to pay rent as stipulated and the mortgagee obtained a decree in 1873 for possession and for Rs. 200 odd claimed as rent and for future rent. It does not appear that this decree was ever satisfied, and the mortgagee now claims to add the decree amount and subsequent interest to his mortgage money. Under the mortgage-deed the payment to be made by the mortgagor was made a charge on the property and there was an undertaking to pay it back together with the mortgage amount. The question for consideration is whether the mortgagee is entitl...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »