Chennai Court February 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.
The Secretary of State for India in Council, through the Collector of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1919
Reported in: (1919)36MLJ436
1. The result of the evidence is, as found by the Subordinate Judge, that the annual rent value of the estate was not fixed for the purpose of the Act by the Revenue Officer in charge of the Division as provided in Section 22 of the Madras Proprietary Village Service Act, but by his Subordinate, the Deputy Tahsildar, nor is there any evidence to show that the Deputy Tahsildar's calculation was adopted by the Revenue Officer in charge of the Division as his own.2. The Deputy Tahsildar's demand was made in Exhibit C-1, dated 18th April 1913, and the money was paid by the Rajah under protest on 4th and 6th August 1915, and he now sues to recover it back on the ground among others, that the demand was illegal owing to the failure of the Officers of Government to comply with the provisions of the section. We agree with his contention and dismiss the appeal on this ground with costs....
imbichi Beevi Umma Vs. Eranhipurath Raman Nair Karnavan and Manager of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1919
Reported in: (1919)37MLJ220
1. Plaintiff sues as Karnavan of Eranhipurath tarwad to recover the plaint properties from the 8th defendant. The plaint property was acquired in the names of Ooli Amma and Kelu Nair who is her eldest son by her second husband. Ooli Amma married twice and had some children by her first husband Rarappan Nair who divorced her. She afterwards married Raman Nair by whom she had a son Kelu Nair and other children.2. The real question for decision is whether the plaint property belonged to Ooli Amma and all her children by both the husbands or whether it belonged to her and her children by her second husband alone. The main contention for the respondents is that there could be no separate tavazhi consisting of children by one husband alone. The facts as found are as follows :--The plaint property was acquired in the names of Ooli Amma and Kelu Nair, the son of Raman Nair. The learned Subordinate Judge does not believe plaintiff's evidence that the property was given to Ooli Amma by her first...
Kadiri Kanakkapillantapath Abdur Raheman Kutti Haji, managing Partner ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1919
Reported in: (1919)37MLJ316
Abdur Rahim, J.1. The main question in these appeals is as to the liability of the Kochipalli Tarwad, of which the 1st defendant Kochipalli Ussain Kunhi Haji is the Karnavan, for debts incurred on hundis drawn in the course of a trade which he carried on along with Kotti Kollone Muhammad Kunhi alias Mamu Haji the 2nd defendant in Original Suit No. 15 of 1914 (Appeal No. 417 of 1917) now deceased and represented in the suits subsequently filed, by the present Karnavan of Kotti Kollone tarwad, Kotti Kollone Pallikunyi. The claim against the latter tarwad has not been pressed.2. The business was conducted in the firm name of 'Kochipalli Ussain Kunyi Haji Muhammad Kunyi' the names of the two defendants abovementioned, and the hundis were signed in the name of the firm. As found by the Subordinate Judge trade is the chief occupation of the male members of this tarwad as it is, I may observe, of many Moplas, and the proper-ties belonging to it were acquired by Kunyi Kuttiali Haji who was Kar...
Gangamirtham Pillai, Minor, by His Guardian, Chidambaram Pillai Vs. Ra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1919
Reported in: 53Ind.Cas.555
Abdur Rahim, J.1. The first question raised in the appeal relates to the effect of a compromise in a previous proceeding between the 2ad defendant, the widow of Krishnaswami Konar, his father, Karuppanna Pillai, his brother, Perumal, and the 1st defendant. Krishnaswami Konar who died in 1907 had, by his first wife, two daughter?, the plaintiff, and another daughter now deceased. After the death of his first wife he married the 2nd defendant, Muthukannammal. Karuppanna, his father, died in 1912 and Perumal, his brotner, died in 1910. The first defendant is the son of Perumal. It is not necessary to refer to the other defendants, for these are the principal parties concerned.2. It would appear that, on the death of Krishnaswami Konar, his father and brother laid claim to the properties standing in his name as belonging to the joint family They applied for succession certificate and the 2nd defendant, the widow, apparently acquiesced at that time in their claim and made no objection to th...
Subrahman Iyer Vs. Siva Subrahmanya Iyer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1919
Reported in: 52Ind.Cas.931
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. I am unable to agree with the contention of Mr. Govindaraghava Aiyar that the father or managing member of a Hindu family loses his capacity to solely represent the family in a suit, if the transaction out of which the litigation arose was embodied in a deed in which a junior member of the undivided family had joined with the managing member as obligor or obligee. The addition of the name of a junior member is sometimes made in a document for the avoidance of dispute in future with the person whose name is so added where the added name is that of an adult, and for the perpetuation of testimony that the act is done by the manager as such where the added name is that of a minor represented by the manager as guardian. Such addition does not make the document legally more valid than if it had been executed by the managing member alone for purposes binding on the family, whether he describes himself as manager or not in the document. I am unable to see how an unnecessar...
R.V.Srinivasaayyangar Vs. Kottappakki Johnsa Rowther
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1919
Reported in: 51Ind.Cas.939
1. It is not disputed that, if the covenant or condition which gives plaintiff a cause of action were a covenant to be implied under Section 119 of the Transfer of Property Act, the Article of limitation applicable would be 143. Even if the covenant in the present case amounts to a contract to the contrary within the meaning of Section 119, as was held of a similar covenant in Second Appeal No. 663 of 1916, the period of limitation would appear to be the same, for the contract to the contrary in this case merely limits the option provided by Section 119 and is in effect a specific contract of the same nature as one of the contracts implied in Section 119. We do not think this question was considered in S.A. No. 1663 of 1916, to which one of us was a party, for it appears to have been assumed in that case that if there was a specific contract of any kind, Article 113 would apply. The covenant in this case is in the nature of a condition subsequent and the action is based on a breach of ...
Secretary of State for India in Council through the Collector of Ramna ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1919
Reported in: 50Ind.Cas.613
1. The result of the evidence is, as found by the Subordinate Judge, that the annual rent value of the estate was not fixed for the purposes of the Act by the Revenue Officer-in-charge of the Division as provided in Section 22 of the Madras Proprietary Estates Village Service Act, but by his subordinate, the Deputy Tahsildar, nor is there any evidence to show that the Deputy Tahsildar's calculation was adopted by the Revenue Officer-in-charge of the Division as his own.2. The Deputy Tahsildar's demand was made in Exhibit C-1, dated 18th April 1913, and the money was paid by the Rajah under protest on 4th and 6th August 1915, and he now sues to recover it back on the ground, among others, that the demand was illegal owing to the failure of the Officers of Government to comply with the provisions of the section. We agree with his contention and dismiss the appeal on this ground with costs....
K.A.M.A.K. Kaliyappa Nadar Vs. G.N. Grigori Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1919
Reported in: 50Ind.Cas.916
Oldfield, J.1. It is not disputed that a demand must be made by plaintiff, before he can sue. The only question is whether he is entitled to postpone the starting point, from which time runs, indefinitely by postponing his demand. The decisions in Mackenzie v. Tiruvengadathan 9 M.P 271 : 3 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 585 and Lachakkammal v. Sokayya Naick 48 Ind. Cas. 191 : (1918) M.W.N. 583 conclude the matter. The civil revision petition is dismissed with costs.Seshagiri Aiyar, J.2. I feel no hesitation in agreeing with the conclusion of the Court below. The bond was executed in 1901 and the monthly instalments which would exhaust the loan would have come to an end in 1910. This suit was brought in 1917, within three years of a demand made for payment. The learned Vakil for the petitioner contends that although the whole of the amount had become payable in 1910, it is open to him any time after that date to make a demand and to sue within three years of such a demand. In my opinion the provision...
Umma Venkataratnam and Co. Represented by Umma Venkata Ratnam Vs. Meth ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1919
Reported in: 50Ind.Cas.925
Oldfield, J.1. The fund in dispute in this case represents property originally attached by one of the present respondents before judgment. But we have not been shown that this fact in any way improves his claim or that of the others. None of them had even obtained decrees, when appellant secured his attachment. They applied in execution only after he did so; and the question is whether his application for payment out being (for whatever reason) still pending, when their applications were made, the whole fund should be distributed rateably.2. The lower Court quite properly followed Suikenna Katun v. Mahomed Abdul Aziz 29 Ind. Cas. 239 : 38 M.P 221 and passed an order in respondents' favour. But that case was decided by a Single Judge and we are, therefore, not concluded by it. I deal with it and not with the decisions in Bisheshar Das v. Ambika Pershad 28 Ind. Cas. 622 : 37 A.P 575 : 13 A.L.J. 732 and Thakurdas Moti Lal v. Joseph Iskender 41 Ind. Cas. 516 : 21 C.W.N. 887 : 25 C.L.J. 595...
Muthirulandi Poosari and anr. Vs. Muthandi Poosari and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1919
Reported in: (1919)36MLJ356
1. Assuming that in this case the boundary was disputed and the dispute was the subject of an order by the Survey Officer under Section 11 of Madras Act IV of 1897, we think that order, if not reviewed by the appellate authority or questioned by suit as provided in the section was conclusive as to the rights of the parties, and none the less so because the unsuccessful party who was in possession at the date of the order was not subsequently ousted from possession. In Krishnamma v. Achayya I.L.R. (1879) Mad. 306, there does not appear to have been any order under Section 25 of the Boundaries Act of 1860, which corresponds to Section 11 and 12 of the present act. The suit had been treated in the District Court as a suit governed by Article 16 to Schedule II of the Limitation Act of 1871 'to set aside any act of an officer of Government in his official capacity, not herein otherwise expressly provided for.' The official' act appears to have been the actual demarcation of the land by fixi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »