Chennai Court October 1919 Judgments
Vittappa Kuda Vs. Durgamma Alias Shithamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-1919
Reported in: 55Ind.Cas.781; (1920)38MLJ190
1. The suit was brought for a declaration that a gift deed executed by 1st defendant to 2nd defendant was not valid or binding on plaintiff and to recover possession of the property on the ground that 1st defendant had forfeited her rights under the mulgeni lease by alienating the property. The property originally belonged to the husband of the 1st defendant who sold it to the plaintiff. Plaintiff granted a Mulgeni lease to the 1st defendant in 1881 under Ex. A. A portion of the property was surrendered by the lessee in 1883 under Ex. B and the deed of surrender expressly stipulates for the rest of the property being enjoyed under the conditions in Exhibit A. The condition with which we are concerned relates to the prohibition of the alienation by the lessee of the property. The document recites that the property is granted to 1st defendant and to her vamshastas and provides as follows. ' I and my descendants shall not alienate the said property, etc., on the strength of this mulgeni. ...
Tag this Judgment!Kalavakolanu Seetamma and ors. Vs. Poduri Narayanamurthi Somayajulu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-1919
Reported in: (1920)43MLJ470
1. The facts are somewhat complicated and therefore we must state them before dealing with the questions of law arising in the case. Defendants 1 and 2 and one Krishnamma were members of an undivided family. Krishnamma died leaving a son Narainaswamy. The first defendant sold his share in the family property to the plaintiff by Exhibit A in 1898. The plaintiff conveyed that share to one Subbarayudu by Exhibit B in 1899. Subbarayudu brought a suit to recover the one-third share belonging to the first defendant. To that suit defendants 1 and 2 and Narainaswamy were made parties. The second defendant in that suit pleaded that as there were family debts without apportioning the debts the share of one of the brothers purchased from the first defendant should not be partitioned. There were other pleas also raised by him. In these circumstances the parties agreed to refer their disputes to arbitration during the pendency of the suit. To this reference the first and second defendants and Naria...
Tag this Judgment!Kolavakolanu Seetanna and ors. Vs. Poddri Narayana Murthi Somayajulu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-1919
Reported in: 57Ind.Cas.982
1. The facts are somewhat complicated and, therefore, we must state them before dealing with the questions of law arising in the case. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and one Krishnamma were members of an undivided family. Krishnamma died leaving a son, Narainswamy. The 1st defendant sold his share in the family property to the plaintiff by Exhibit A in 1898. The plaintiff conveyed that share to one Subbarayudu by Exhibit B in 1899. Subbarayudu brought a suit to recover the one-third share belonging to the 1st defendant. To that suit defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and Narainswamy were made parties. The 2nd defendant in that suit pleaded that there were family debts and without apportioning the debts the share of one of the brothers purchased from the 1st defendant should not be partitioned. There were other pleas also raised by him. In there circumstances the parties agreed to refer their disputes to arbitration during the pendency of the suit. To this reference the 1st and 2nd defendants and Narains...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Kothamidde Ranga Reddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1919
Reported in: (1920)38MLJ97
ORDERSeshagiri Aiyar, J.1. This is an application to revise the order of the District Magistrate of Anantapur confirming the proceedings taken by the Deputy Magistrate of Gooty calling upon the petitioner to enter into a bond for Rs. 5,000 with two sureties in a like sum. The first Magistrate was moved to take action under Section 110(a) and (f) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, He examined a large number of witnesses, 38 for the prosecution and 41 for the defence. He came to the conclusion that the petitioner should be bound over. In confirming that order, the District Magistrate refers to a defect in the procedure of the trial Magistrate, namely, that in recording and reading out the preliminary order under Section 112, there was no attempt made to inform the accused of the substance of the information received which led to the taking of action against him. The District Magistrate says that the accused had ample opportunities in the course of the hearing to know what evidence was be...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Kottamiddu Ranga Reddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1919
Reported in: 55Ind.Cas.722
ORDERSeshagiri Aiyar, J.1. This is an application to revise the order of the District Magistrate of Anantapur, confirming the proceedings taken by the Deputy Magistrate of Gooty calling upon the petitioner to enter into a bond for Rs. 5,000 with two sureties in a like sum. The first Magistrate was moved to take action under Section 110 (a) and (f) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He examined a large number of witnesses, 33 for the prosecution and 41 for the defense. He came to the conclusion that the petitioner should be bound over. In confirming that order the District Magistrate refers to a defect in the procedure of the Trial Magistrate, namely, that, in recording and reading out the preliminary order under Section 112, there was no attempt made to inform the accused of the substance of the information received which led to the taking of action against him. The District Magistrate says that the accused had ample opportunities in the course of the hearing to know what evidence was ...
Tag this Judgment!M.R. Venkatrama Aiyar Vs. the South Indian Bank, Limited, Through Its ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1919
Reported in: (1920)38MLJ108
Burn, J.1. Plaintiffs are creditors of Vynagaram Lakshmana Chetty and Nataraja Aiyar. The former was carrying on money-lending business in the Tanjore District with a head office at Kumbakonam and branches at Mudigondan and Negapatam. The firm also did business in Madras, Calcutta, Singapore and other places. Nataraja Aiyar was associated with the firm, and it is suggested that when its credit was failing, his assistance was sought in-order to improve the financial position. At the time the transaction now in question was entered into, he was a young man of considerable means. Lakshmana Chetty is now an insolvent and the whereabouts of Nataraja Aiyar are said to be unkown. Plaintiffs' witness No. 1 the defendant and Narayana Sastri were respectively the agents of the firm at Kumbakonam, Mudikondan and Negapatam. The plaintiffs have obtained decrees against their debtors and Considerable sums realised in execution were held by the Negapatam Sub-Court. The 1st defendant also obtained a d...
Tag this Judgment!N.M. Firm Vs. M. Venkatagiri Ayyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1919
Reported in: (1920)ILR43Mad361
Abdur Rahim, Officiating C.J.1. Mr. Justice Coutts Trotter, sitting on the Original Side of this Court, in the course of the trial of a civil case proceeded under Section 478, Criminal Procedure Code, and committed a certain witness who gave evidence in that case to the High Court Sessions for trial on charges of perjury. This appeal is filed on the civil side of this Court against the order of commitment as made by Mr. Justice Coutts Trotter.2. A preliminary objection is raised that no appeal lies in such a matter, except under the provisions of Section 215, Criminal Procedure Code. Mr. Govindaraghava Ayyar, who appears for the appellant, admitted before us that he could not impeach the order on the grounds mentioned in Section 215. But he says that, apart from the provisions of that section, an appeal lies on general grounds to this Court, under the provisions of Section 15 of the Letters Patent. We have no hesitation in holding that Section 215 applies to this case, and an appeal is...
Tag this Judgment!M.R. Venkatarama Aiyar Vs. the South Indian Bank, Ltd., Through Its Au ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1919
Reported in: 55Ind.Cas.452
Burn, J.1. Plaintiffs are creditors of Vynagaram Lakshmana Chetty and Nataraja Aiyar. The former was carrying on money lending business in the Tanjore District with a head office at Kumbakonam and branches at Mudikondan and Nagapatam. The firm also did business in Madras, Calcutla, Singapore and other place Nataraja Aiyar was associated with the firm, and it is suggested that when its credit was failing, his assistance was sought in order to improve the financial position. At the time the transaction now in question was entered into, he was a young man of considerable means. Lakshmana Chetty is now an insolvent and the where abouts of Nataraja Aiyar are said to be unknown, Plaintiffs' witness No. 1, the defendant and Narayana Sastri were respectively the agents of the firm at Kumbakonam, Mudikondan and Nagapatam, The plaintiffs have obtained decrees against their debtors and considerable sums realised in execution were held by the Nagapatam Sub-Court. The 1st defendant also obtained a ...
Tag this Judgment!Ayyasami Mudaliar Vs. Appandai Nynar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1919
Reported in: (1920)38MLJ145
1. In this appeal two points are argued for the appellant: (1) that he should be allowed to amend his plaint which as it 'stands, asks for an enforcement of an award of arbitrators, so as to allow him to bring a suit for dissolution of the partnership which subsisted between plaintiff and defendant; (2) that the award is valid even though it is only signed by five out of the seven arbitrators, appointed by the Muchilika (Exhibit I). As to the first point, we are unable to say that such an amendment would not alter the character of the suit and there is also this consideration, namely, that plaintiff had ample opportunity to bring this suit for dissolution in the past, He presented a petition to amend his plaint to enable himself to do this to the District Munsif on 18th June 1917. The issue as to the validity of the award was raised as long before this as 21st July 1916. The petition was rejected on 25th August 1917 and judgment was given in the suit to enforce the award on 1st Novembe...
Tag this Judgment!Ayyasawmi Mudaliar Vs. Appandai Nynan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1919
Reported in: 54Ind.Cas.912
1. In this appeal two points are argued for the appellant: 13 Ind. Cas. 268 : 36 M.P 378 : 22 M.L.J. 139 : 10 M.L.T. 557 that he should be allowed to amend his plaint which, as it stands, asks for an enforce-merit of an award of arbitrators, so as to allow him to bring a suit for dissolution of the partnership which subsisted between plaintiff and defendant, 22 C.P 692 that the award is valid, even though it is only signed by five out of seven arbitrators appointed by the Muchilika (Exhibit 1). As to the first point, we are unable to say that such an amendment would not alter the character of the suit and there is also this consideration, namely, that plaintiff had ample opportunity to bring this suit for dissolution in the past. He presented a petition to amend his plaint to enable himself to do this to the District Munsif on the 18th June 1917. The issue as to the validity of the award was raised as long before this as 21st July 1916. The petition was rejected on 25th August 1917, an...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »