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.
P.S.K. Haji Sena Muhammad Abdul Gaffur Rowthar and anr. Vs. Hamida Bee ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-16-1919
Reported in: 52Ind.Cas.505
1. This is a suit by a Mahommedan 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 No. 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 befo...
Ranganayaki Ammal and anr. Vs. Parthasarathy Ayyangar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-16-1919
Reported in: 54Ind.Cas.503
1. It is contended for appellants that plaintiff's suit is not maintainable, as it is based on a mortgage dead Exhibit A which has not been registered and it is inadmissible in evidence. Plaintiff, however, recognised his difficulty and has treated Exhibit A in his plaint as a simple bond and has further asked for the enforcement of his vendor's lien for unpaid purchase money which formed the consideration for Exhibit A. There being these specific prayers in the plaint, the suit is certainly maintainable.2. It is further urged that plaintiff gave up his vendor's lien by taking the bond Exhibit A. It must, however, be treated merely as a simple money bond not affecting immoveable property and as such does not in itself form a contract to the contrary within the meaning of Section 55(4), Transfer of Property Act. If Exhibit A could take effect as a mortgage as intended by the parties to it, it might well be that it constitutes a contract to the contrary : but inasmuch as it cannot take e...
In Re: Nalluri Chenchiah and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-16-1919
Reported in: 50Ind.Cas.987; (1919)36MLJ296a
ORDERSadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The petitioners in revision are the four accused in P.R.C. No. 4 of 1918 on the file of the Stationary 2nd Class Magistrate, Ongole. An enquiry for the purpose of commitment or discharge, as the case may be, was made in this case by the said Stationary 2nd Class Magistrate, the complaint against the 1st accused being under two sections 471 and 193, Indian Penal Code, and against the other accused under Section 193, Indian Penal Code, alone. The charge under Section 193 relates to the depositions Exhibits K, L, M and N given by the four accused before the District Munsif of Ongole, in Original Suit No. 47 of 1913, to the effect that the complainant executed a promissory note, for Rs. 500 in favour of the 1st accused's father. The Stationary Sub-Magistrate discharged all the accused under Section 209, Criminal Procedure Code. He consider ed that Exhibits K, L, M and N were not admissible in evidence as the legally correct record of the statements given by the ac...
Lala Kirat Chund Singh Vs. the Maharaja of Jeypore
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-15-1919
Reported in: 52Ind.Cas.694
1. Mr. B.N. Sarma objects that the petition cannot be heard because it is presented as authorised by Agency Rule '20. But that rule deals only with petitions for an order directing the Agent to review his own judgments: and we do not see how we can treat the judgment of an Assistant Agent as passed by the Agent for this purpose. The appeal in which that judgment was passed was transferred to the Assistant Agent under Agency Rule 19, and the only course open under the rules for any party dissatisfied with an appellate judgment passed in these circumstances appears to be under Rule 17 to appeal to the Agent, not to move this Court, as petitioner prefers to do. We are, therefore, constrained to dismiss the petition with costs. We observe that in case an appeal is presented to the Agent, he will be well advised to consider the propriety of excluding the time taken in the present proceedings in dealing with the limitation applicable....
Mooriath Variath Karnavan and Manager, Sankunni Variar Vs. Meledath K. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1919
Reported in: (1919)37MLJ206
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The contentions as to the 1st defendant's (appellant's mortgagee's) right to addition compensation for improvements, (that is, in additional to what has been awarded to him by the lower court) raise questions of fact which we cannot entertain in second appeal.2. The Subordinate Judge, however, was wholly unjustified in assuming that the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act were not in the minds of the Benches of this court which decided Chami v. Anu Pattar (1916) 1 M.W.N. 160 and Parameswara Ayyan v. Kittunni Valia Mannadiar (1917) 38 M.L.J. 591 and in awarding mesne profits to plaintiff after the date of the tender made in court by the respondent under Section 83 of Act IV of 1882. Mr. Justice Seshagiri Aiyar does refer to Section 83 of that Act in his judgment in the former case. Section 76(i) refers to Section 83 by using the words ' in manner hereinafter provided ' and the language of the two sections (one speaking of ' the amount for the time being due o...
Mooriath Variath, Karnavan and Manager Sankunn Variar Vs. Meledath K. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1919
Reported in: 52Ind.Cas.834
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The contentions as to the 1st defendant's (appellant mortgagee's.) right to additional compensation for improvements (that is, in addition to what has been awarded to him by the lower Court) raise questions of fact which we cannot entertain in second appeal.2. The Subordinate Judge, however, was wholly unjustified in assuming that the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act were not in the minds of the Benches of this Court which decided Chami v. Ana Pattar 32 Ind. Cas. 861 : (1916) 1 M.W.N. 162 : L.W. 246 and Parameswara Ayyan v. Kittunni Valia Mannadiar 43 Ind. Cas. 173 : 33 M.L.J. 591 and in awarding mesne profits to plaintiff after the date of the tender made in Court by the respondents under Section 83 of Act IV of 1882. Mr, Justice Seshagiri Aiyar does retei' to Section 83 of that Act in his judgment in the former case. Section 76(i) refers to Section 83 by using the words ''in manner hereinafter provided' and the language of the two sections (one speaking...
Chakravarthi V. Jagannatha Chariar and anr. Vs. Seenu Bhattachariar Al ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1919
Reported in: 51Ind.Cas.869
Krishnan, J.1. In the suit from which this second appeal has arisen, plaintiff sued to recover the office of hereditary Archaka in the temple of Sri Sarangapani in Kumba-konam, which he alleged he was entitled to, and to restrain the defendants from obstructing him in the discharge of his duties and in the enjoyment of the emoluments appertaining to his office and to obtain damages for his wrongful suspension from it by the trustees, which resulted in loss of emoluments to him. Defendants Nos, 1 to 5 were the trustees and the remaining defendants were the plaintiff's co-Archakas. The trustees denied plaintiff's claim to his Archakaship being hereditary, but the lower Courts have found as a fact that he is an hereditary Archaka and we must accept the finding in second appeal.2. The suspension complained of, was by an order of the trustees, Exhibit O, made in September 1910 and served on the plaintiff, which stated on account of the imputations made in the petition concerning you receive...
Anikaden Manappatti Kanari, Karnavan and Manager of the Tarwad and anr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-1919
Reported in: 52Ind.Cas.622
1. We accept the findings. Following Ramakrishna Kukkilaya v. Nekkar Kuppanna 43 Ind. Cas. 286 : 6 L.W. 621 : 33 M.L.J. 581 : 23 M.L.T. 422 : (1918) M.W.N. 75 we consider that plaintiffs were under no obligation to redeem the time barred hypothecation deeds. The second appeal is dismissed with costs.2. Time for redemption is extended for three months....
In Re: Kamatchinatha Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-1919
Reported in: 50Ind.Cas.175; (1919)36MLJ201
1. This is an appeal by a process-server of the court of the District Munsif of Dindigul who was convicted of forgery for the purpose of cheating and using as genuine a forged document and sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment under Sections 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The document in question is the attakshi Ex. H purporting to have been signed by the two karnams, Sivagurunatha Pillai (Prosecution 5th witness) and Athinarayana Mudali (Prosecution 6th witness) certifying that the appellant was ill of fever and cholera in prosecution 5th witness's village and between 23rd and 30th November 1917 and that the two karnams had him treated with medicines. The body of the attakshi is in the appellant's writing. The evidence including the depositions of prosecution 5th and 6th witnesses clearly establishes that prosecution 5th and 6th witnesses did not sign the attakshi Ex. H, that the peon was not in prosecution 5th witness' village between the 23rd and 30th November 1917...
Krishna Shetti Alias Krishnayya (Deceased) and anr. Vs. Gilbert Pinto ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-1919
Reported in: 50Ind.Cas.895; (1919)36MLJ367
John Wallis, C.J.1. This is a Letters Patent appeal from the decision of Sadasiva Aiyar, J., who held (Bake-well, J. dissenting), that the court has power to relieve against a provision in a mulgeni or permanent lease, a form of agricultural lease in use in South Canara for re-entry by the landlord on breach of a covenant or condition against any alienation by the lessee of his mulgeni right except in the manner therein provided. The lease, which is inartistically drawn, provides in substance that, if the lessee or his representatives have to sell or mortgage their mulgeni right, they are first to give a written notice to the lessor or his heirs, and, if they fail to act on it or to reply thereto, the lessee is to be free to make the alienation, but that alienations in contravention of these provisions are to be void, and the lessor is to be at liberty to re-enter and enjoy the land inclusive of improvements. This we read as meaning that the lessee is to give notice to the lessor of th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »