Chennai Court December 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.
Veyindramuthu Pillai Vs. Maya Nadan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1919
Reported in: 58Ind.Cas.501; (1920)39MLJ456
Oldfield, J.1. The opinion of the Full Bench has established that Section 47, C.P.C. is applicable to these proceedings. It is however objected further that they are covered also by Order XXI, Rule 103 and that in accordance with it in the absence of a suit the order of the Lower Court is conclusive. It is to be observed that the reference to ' any party ' in the rule is to any party to the petition, not to the decree under execution. This is clear in view of the form of the provisions in the previous Code and the division of the former Section 335 into two parts, of which the present rule represents the second. The expression ' any party ' being interpreted in the manner suggested, there is no reason for holding as has been held in connection with the similar claim petition procedure that the rule excludes the application of Section 47 to cases, such as the present, between parties or their representatives.2. To turn next to the merits, the material facts are that the appellant is or ...
Kandregula Anantha Rao Pantulu Vs. Kandikenda Surayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1919
Reported in: (1920)38MLJ256
Spencer, J.1. I cannot agree with the learned Subordinate Judge in his view that the plaintiff is debarred from recovering the advance made by him for the mere reason that Ex. A. (the contract deed) and Ex. A. (1) in which the receipt of the advance was acknowledged were written on the same piece of paper and that a material alteration of one would affect the other with the taint of fraud.2. In my opinion the defendant is bound to refund any advance taken by him whether the contract is void or voidable and rescinded. In one case Section 65 of the Contract Act applies, in the other Section 64.3. There is no question now of performing the contract. 1st Defendant does not want to perform it and he may be treated as having rescinded it as he set up in his written statement another arrangement by which the original contract had been superseded. In fact the 1st defendant in his written statement, paragraph 10, did not deny his liability to refund the advance of Rs. 1,200, but he alleged that...
ZamorIn Raja Avergal of Calicut by J.A. Thorne Esquire, I.C.S., Collec ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1919
Reported in: (1920)38MLJ275
Ayling, J.1. We are now in possession of the findings of the Subordinate Judge on the two issues referred to him: and in the light of the recorded evidence, the Subordinate Judge's discussion of the same, and the arguments addressed to us both at this, and the previous hearing I have little difficulty in arriving at the conclusion that the plaintiff appellant has failed to establish his right to resume the grants on alienation by the grantees.2. The Subordinate Judge's finding is so cautiously worded as to be not altogether easy of interpretation. It runs thus: ' My answer to the 1st issue is that with regard to Karamkari and Adimayavana tenures there was a custom of inalienability (involving forfeiture on alienation) up to 1896 and that since then there have been inroads into the custom so as to shake its continuity and uniformity and that the process is going on. On the 2nd issue my finding is, in the affirmative as regards O.S. Nos. 353, 370 and 472 of 1914 and in the negative as re...
idarapalli Dhanushkotirayudu (Dead) and ors. Vs. Vankayala Venkatarath ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1919
Reported in: (1920)38MLJ320
Abdur Rahim, J.1. The facts on which this appeal depends are to be found in para 12 of the judgment of the Lower Court. A woman called Seshamma was in possession of items 1, 2, 4, 8 and 9 for about 30 years prior to 1893 and then she alienated the properties to some third persons. The plaintiffs father setup his right as reversioner in respect of these properties and disputed the alienations. In settlement of that dispute, the alienees executed a deed of settlement in 1900 and that deed expressly recites that the claim was made by the plaintiff's father by virtue of his reversionary right. The Subordinate Judge has found that these lands were originally attached to the karnam's office as service inam; but upon the facts which he has stated he came to the conclusion that the lands became disannexed from the office and that therefore the plaintiff's father acquired an absolute right to them subject only to any right of resumption which the Government may have.2. The argument of Mr. Krish...
Kandregula Anantha Rao Pantulu Vs. Kandikonda Surayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1919
Reported in: 55Ind.Cas.697
Spencer, J.1. I cannot agree with the learned Subordinate Judge in his view that the plaintiff is debarred from recovering the advance made by him for the mere reason that Exhibit A (the contract deed) and Exhibit A(1), in which the receipt of the advance was acknowledged, were written on the same piece of paper and that a material alteration of one would affect the other with the taint of fraud.2. In my opinion the defendant is bound to refund any advance taken by him, whether the contract is void or voidable and rescinded. In one case Section 65 of the Contract Act applies, in the other Section 64.3. There is no question now of performing the contract. First defendant does not want to perform it and he may be treated as having rescinded it, as he set up in his written statement another arrangement by which the original contract had been superseded. In fact the 1st defendant in his written statement, paragraph 10, did not deny his liability to refund the advance of Rs. 1,200, but he a...
Ponnuswami Asari Vs. A.M. Palaniandi Mudali
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1919
Reported in: 56Ind.Cas.612
Oldfield, J.1. The only material facts are that plaintiff obtained a decree against 1st defendant and his sons', 3rd and 4th defendants for the amount of a debt incurred by the first mentioned. Third and 4th defendants appealed not making 2nd defendant, 1st defendant's undivided nephew, a party. Plaintiff, however, here 1st respondent, filed a memo, of objection against him and statedly on account of that memo, had made him a party to the appeal in the lower Appellate Court, A degree was given by the lower Appellate Court against him: and he now appeals, the only ground of appeal argued being that, as he was not originally a party to the appeal, no memo could be filed to his prejudice.2. The Full Bench decision in Munisamy Mudaly v. Albu Reddy 27 Ind. Cas. 323 : 38 M.P 705 : (1915) M.W.N. 45 : 27 M.L.J. 740 has placed beyond doubt the right of one respondent to proceed against another by memo of objection and the only question, therefore, is whether the one is entitled to have the othe...
Gokarakonda Narasimha Rao Vs. Gokarakonda Pappanna and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-1919
Reported in: (1920)38MLJ327
1. We must accept the finding of the Subordinate Judge that the one cent. of land in Amalapur was included in the sale-deed Exhibit A purely for the purpose of getting the deed registered by the Sub-Registrar of that place without any intention of passing title in it to the vendee. That finding is supported by the evidence and no valid objection has been urged against it. On that finding we must hold following the case in Rama Naik v. Nagamuthu Nachiar 43 Ind.Cas. 315 : 22 M.L.T. 516 that the present case falls within the principle enunciated by the Privy Council in Harendra Lal Roy Chowdhuri v. Hart Dasi Debt I.L.R. (1914) C. 972 . The action of the parties in this case was a fraud on the registration law. The fact that there was land corresponding to the one cent. included in the deed, belonging to the vendor is not sufficient to take it out of that principle as the finding is that it was not intended that the deed should affect the land in any way.2. On this view the sale-deed, Exhi...
Gokarakonda Narasimha Rao Vs. Gokarakonda Papunna and Eight ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-1919
Reported in: (1920)ILR43Mad436
Krishnan, J.1. We must accept the finding of the Subordinate Judge that the one cent of land in Amalapur was included in the sale-deed, Exhibit A, purely for the purpose of getting the deed registered by the Sub-Registrar of that place without any intention of passing title in it to the vendee. That finding is supported by the evidence and no valid objection has been urged against it. On that finding we must hold, following Rama Naik v. Nagamuthu Nachiari 43 Ind.Cas. 515; 22 M.L.T. 516, that the present case falls within the principle enunciated by the Privy Council in Harendra Lal Roy Chowdhuri v. Haridasi Debi I.L.R. (1914) Cal. 972. The action of the parties in this case was a fraud on the registration law. The fact that there was land corresponding to the one cent included in the deed, belonging to the vendor is not sufficient to take it out of that principle as the finding is that it was not intended that the deed should affect the land in any way.2. On this view the sale-deed, Ex...
Gokarakonda Narasimha Rao Vs. Gokarakonda Papanna and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-1919
Reported in: 56Ind.Cas.519
1. The objection to the sale under Section 21 of the Registration Act, based on the vagueness of description of the property sold (see paragraph 4 of the Appellate Court's judgment), is not sustainable. On the question of the validity of the registration of the deed, the Temporary Subordinate Judge's judgment has been so expressed that was are unable to discover whether he meant that in his opinion the parties did or did not intend that property in the one cent of land in R.S. No. 236/2 should pass by the sale deed.2. In the first part of paragraph 5, the Subordinate Judge says 'it does appear that (he parties did not really intend to sell or to purchase the said one cent of land.' Later on be says that 'it cannot be said that it is so patent that the parties intended that the property should not pass in the one sent.'3. Finally he concludes this paragraph by finding the let point in the affirmative, that point being itself worded in a negative form.4. We call on the present Subordinat...
Jambagathachi Vs. a Male Child Not Named Minor by Guardian Rajamannasw ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1919
Reported in: 57Ind.Cas.678
Spencer, J.1. In these suits an attempt was made to make the minor defendant responsible upon promissory notes executed by his father during the father's minority. It is found that, at the date of execution, the father was between 18 and 21 years of age but his minority was extended by the appointment of a guardian of his persons under the Guardians and Wards .Act. Prima facie as a minor is incompetent to contract, the promissory notes represented void contracts. See Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose 30 C.P 539 : 30 I.A. 114 : 7 C.W.N. 441 : 5 Bom. L.R. 421 : 8 Sar. P.C.J. 3742. But it is argued (1) that the defendant is estopped from raising the defence of minority as his father being at the time of execution between 18 and 21 and having shown to the payee, plaintiff, a partition deed to which he was a party and having been dealing with his' property as if he was a major, induced the plaintiff to believe that he had attained majority, (2) that the order appointing a guardian of a junior...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »