Chennai Court January 1919 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.
Guruswami Nadar and ors. Vs. T.S. Gopalasami Odayar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1919
Reported in: (1919)36MLJ568
1. This is a suit by the members of a temple committee to recover temple funds which were originally lent on two promissory notes Exhibits E and J dated 10th January 1893 executed by the late Ratnaswamy Nadar, brother of the 1st defendant father of defendants 2 to 4, and uncle of defendants 5 to 10. Several promissory-notes were executed in renewal of Exhibits E and J by Rathaswamy Nadar, the last of which were Exhibits A and A1. The only question is whether there is sufficient evidence to support the Subordinate Judge's finding that these debts are binding on the joint family of the defendants of which the deceased Rathnaswamy Nadar was the managing member. In 1893, when the loan was contracted his brothers were minors and there is evidence that he was carrying on the business of an abkari contractor and that the business was a joint family business'.2. The family have been engaged in the business for a great many years, and indeed for a long time were the best known abkari contractor...
Magadhu Pillai Rowther Vs. Asan Muhammadhu Rowther
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1919
Reported in: 51Ind.Cas.38
1. The question for our decision in this second appeal is whether the certificate of conformity, Exhibit I, granted to the defendant, who is the appellant before us, by the District Court of Colombo under Section 124 of the Ceylon Insolvency Ordinance, VII of 1853, is a valid defence to the plaintiff's suit for money.2. The facts may be shortly stated as follows: Plaintiff and defendant were traders in Ceylon in 1914 and previously. They had dealings with each other and as the result of them the defendant became indebted to the plaintiff. In March 1914 they settled the amount due at Rs. 1,000 and entered into a contract, Exhibit A, which provided that defendant was to go to India by the 30th of May and execute and register a deed of othi of certain lands of his in India in favour of the plaintiff for Rs. 2,000 and deduct the Rs. 1,000 and interest from the amount payable to him by the plaintiff for the othi and receive the balance before the Sub-Registrar and deliver the deed to him. I...
Gopisetti Narayanaswami Naidu Garu and ors. Vs. Chodavarapu Kamanna an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1919
Reported in: 51Ind.Cas.318
1. We deal at present only with the objection to the jurisdiction and with one ground on which appellants have attempted to support that of the Civil Court, that the suit land is tank-bed within the meaning of that expression as used in Section 3(16) of the Estates Land Act. No doubt, if the land is tank-bed, it follows from that provision that it is not ryoti and the lower Appellate Court's finding at the conclusion of the 7th paragraph of its judgment that it is ryoti and the acquisition of ryoti right in it, in spite of the proprietor, possible, is unsustainable.2. The lower Appellate Court's use of language is not clear. But we understand it to hold that the land lost the character of tank-bed at some date not specified, and was cultivable waste at the date of suit, because of its cultivation for fourteen years. It is not, in our opinion, clear that this fact alone is a satisfactory ground of decision.The Act contains no definition of 'tank-bed.' But the lower Appellate Court has p...
Vaniyankandi Thazha Kuniparambil Parkum Ponmani Chintagath Koyyomma an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1919
Reported in: 50Ind.Cas.291; (1919)37MLJ28
Abdur Rahim, J.1. The plaintiffs in this suit claimed an easement of light and air acquired by prescription over the premises in occupation of the defendants. The dominant tenement is a warehouse and the lower appellate court has found that with respect to the windows 11 to 16 in the plan, Exhibit B, the plaintiffs who are in the occupation of the warehouse had been in unobstructed enjoyment of light and air since the year 1877 until the defendants threatened to obstruct the access of such light and air by building a two storeyed warehouse on their land shortly before the institution of this suit in 1913. From 1877 to 1887 the land was in the possession of a tavazhi to whom the Orkatteri tarwad had made a grant of it for maintenance. In 1887 the defendants obtained the land from the tavazhi on a kanom of 12 years. On its expiry in 1899 they continued in' possession without any lease until 1905 when they obtained a fresh kanom for another term of 12 years. Neither the tavazhi, the lesso...
Jekkam Reddi Seshadri Reddi and Two ors. Vs. Sir S. Subramania Aiyar K ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1919
Reported in: (1920)ILR43Mad720
Phillips, J.1. One of the plaintiffs in this suit which was instituted under Section 92, Civil Procedure Code, was found to have no interest such as that required by this section. Thereupon, two other men who had the requisite interest applied to the Collector and obtained sanction to institute this very suits, They were then added as third and fourth plaintiffs. Objection was however, taken by the defendants, to the effect that the suit was bad as laid and must be dismissed and that the requirements of Section 92 were not satisfied by adding the third and fourth plaintiffs in the same suit. The learned Subordinate Judge heard the objection, discussed it and came to the conclusion that the suit was not properly instituted and dismissed it. There is a ruling of this Court in Ramayyangar v. Krishnayyangar I.L.R. (1887) Mad. 185, which would cover the present case, but it was argued that in the old Code no such clause as that in sub-paragraph (2) of Section 92 occurred in Section 539 and ...
Chinna Venkatasami Naicken Vs. Venkatasami Naicken and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1919
Reported in: 51Ind.Cas.827; (1919)36MLJ291
Seshagiri Aiyar, J.1. The suit was for money due upon a mortgage-bond. After the examination of some witnesses the parties agreed to refer the questions of facts and of law arising in the case to the decision of three persons, namely the Subordinate Judge and two friends of the parties. An award was made by the majority. Thereupon an application was presented by the defendant to set aside the award on various grounds. The Subordinate Judge overruled the objections and passed a decree. On this a Civil Revision Petition was filed in the High Court, mainly on the ground that the reference to the Subordinate Judge as one of the arbitrators was illegal and that the whole award was vitiated thereby. Mr. Justice Ayling rejected this contention and dismissed the petition. This Letters Patent appeal is against the learned Judge's judgment.2. In my opinion the conclusion of the learned Judge is right. I may at the outset say that it is undesirable that a Judge before whom a case is pending shoul...
Jagannatha Ayyangar Vs. Narayana Ayyangar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1919
Reported in: 52Ind.Cas.761
Oldfield, J.1. An attempt has been made to support the lower Court's order without reference to its merits, on the ground that it should not have been passed and the proceedings should not have been regarded as validly instituted on the Official Receiver's report without any regular petition. This objection is justified by Rule 2 (7) of the rules passed by this Court for Official Receivers. But, it has, so far as appears, never been relied on either in the lower Court or when the case was heard here at an earlier stage We are not prepared in these circumstances to treat the proceedings as invalid in toto. They will be allowed to go on conditionally on the Official Receiver converting his report into a properly stamped petition in proper form. '2. On the merits we read the report as embodying a request to the Court to avoid the transfers evidenced by two documents, referred to by the Official Receiver as Exhibits III and IV. Exhibit III is a transfer by the debtor to one Thiruvengadatha...
Yuna Ramanayakudu and ors. Vs. Boya Pedda Basappa and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-1919
Reported in: 50Ind.Cas.261; (1919)36MLJ284
1. Section 64 of the Code of Civil Procedure says that 'where an attachment has been made, any private transfer or delivery of the property attached or of any interest therein and any payment to the judgment-debtor of any debt, dividend or other monies contrary to such attachment, shall be void as against all the claims enforceable under the attachment.' The only question for decision in this case is whether on the date of plaintiff's lease the attachment had been made. No doubt an order had been passed a few days before the lease ordering attachment, but Order XXI Rule 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure lays down the manner in which an attachment of an immoveable property has to be made, and those provisions were not complied with until long after the lease was executed. It is contended that the mere writing of an order to attach is sufficient to constitute attachment, but the rule says that the order must be one 'prohibiting' the judgment-debtor and we think that in order to make an o...
Gaffur Rowther and anr. Vs. Hamida Beevi Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-16-1919
Reported in: (1919)36MLJ456
1. This is a suit by a Mahomedan co-sharer for recovery of her share of her father's property from her brothers and sisters. The right of the plaintiff, who was a minor, to sue was denied in the court-below but has not been pressed before us. The only two points which Mr. T. Rangachariar argued were : (1) whether the plaintiff is entitled to mesne profits of the immoveable property, and (2) whether she is entitled to interest upon her share of the assets of the partnership carried on by her father. On the first question it was pointed out to us that in the court below there was no allegation that mesne profits were not payable. There is no issue upon the point and there is no discussion in the judgment of the Court below about it. Issue 6 assumes that the plaintiff was entitled to mesne profits, and only raises the question of the deductions claimed by the defendants in their written statement. Under these circumstances we refused to allow the learned vakil to argue that point before u...
Segu Rowthen and ors. Vs. Muthu K.R.V. Alagappa Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-16-1919
Reported in: 22Ind.Cas.834; (1914)26MLJ269
Charles Arnold White, Kt., C.J.1. This is a suit for rent. The claim is in respect of 2 faslis before the Madras Estates Land Act 1908, came into operation, and one after. The question is, is the defendant liable to pay rent in respect of the entire area of his holding or is he only liable to pay rent in respect of so much of his holding as was in fact cultivated during the period for which rent is claimed by the plaintiffs. The patta which is in evidence bears date the 30th June 1907 a date prior to the coming into operation of the Madras Estates Land Act. It is not clear whether there has been any formal acceptance of the patta by the defendant--it is not suggested by him there has not been, and the plaintiff's case is that the patta has been accepted. The plaintiffs do not suggest that the patta is not binding on them. In paragraph 2 of the patta we have a provision that for the lands whether cultivated or left waste by the defendant's default, rent at a certain rate has to be paid....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »