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.
Kulasekara Naicker and ors. Vs. Jagadambal Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1919
Reported in: 50Ind.Cas.14; (1919)36MLJ351
1. Accepting the interpretation put upon the word 'judgment' in Clause 15 of the Letters Patent in Tuljaram Row v. Alagappa Chettiar 8 Ind. Cas. 340 : 35 M.P 1 : 21 M.L.J. 1 : 8 M.L.T. 453 (1910) M.W.N. 697 the most recent decision on the subject of a Full Bench of this Court, we think that an order as to costs is not the less a judgment within the meaning of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, because it relates to costs only. We do not think that the observations of White, Chief Justice, in the later case in Numberumal Chettiar v. Krishnaji 22 Ind. Cas. 919 : 26 M.L.J. 356 : 15 M.L.T. 263 : (1914) M.W.N. 310 are opposed to this view. The one earlier decision of the Full Bench in Saravana Mudaliar v. Rajagapala Chetty 17 M.L.J. 569 was binding on the Bench in that case and the learned Chief Justice merely distinguished it by showing that it was inapplicable to the facts of that case. We answer the question in the affirmative....
Muthirulandi Poosari and anr. Vs. Sethurama Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1919
Reported in: 50Ind.Cas.43
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 partial, and nonetheless 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 2 M.P 306 : 4 Ind. Jur. 284 : 1 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) there does not appear to have been any order under Section 25 of the Boundaries Act of 1860, which corresponds to sections 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 demarca...
A.T.S. Valasubramania Pillai Vs. T.A.B Chit Company Yela Nidhi, Limite ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1919
Reported in: 52Ind.Cas.765
Oldfield, J.1. The execution application before us was so far from being in the proper form when it was presented, that after eight months the petitioner appellant here crossed it out and amended it byre-writing it as a whole. The interval had been spent almost entirely in appellant's Vakil asking for and the lower Court mechanically granting extension of time in instalments of two weeks. The case is not creditable either to the Vakil or the Court.2. The first point taken is that for purposes of limitation the date on which the application was finally admitted, not that on which it was first presented, is the starting point, because appellant's interest is to put that starting point as late as possible. Order XXI, Rule 17 (2), of Schedule I of the Code of Civil Procedure, however, lays down that an amended application shall be deemed to have been presented on the date on which it was first presented. It is suggested that this provision does not abrogate the law, as it stood before its ...
Navunni and ors. Vs. Ramasawmy Patter and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1919
Reported in: 52Ind.Cas.738
1. The argument addressed to us is that the suit should have been dismissed, because it offended against Section 42, Specific Relief Act, in that plaintiff could have claimed further relief than be did by suing either for redemption or for payment to him of the amount by which he alleged that the consideration already paid was deficient. The answer as regards redemption is that the term fixed in the suit mortgage had not elapsed. The answer as regards the deficient amount is that, as pointed out by Kumaraswami Sastri, J., in Abdul Hashm Sahib v. Kader Batcha Sahib 48 Ind. Cas. 370 : 42 M.P 20 : 35 M.L.J. 740 : 8 L.W. 543 : (1918) M.W.N. 769 : 24 M.L.T. 478 plaintiff cannot be compelled to receive or claim the balance payable, if he prefers to do without it, the amount eventually recoverable on the mortgage being only that actually advanced. The second appeal is dismissed with costs....
Venkata Lakshmi Narasayya and anr. Vs. Meenakshi Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1919
Reported in: 52Ind.Cas.992
1. It is found by the lower Appellate Court that the purchaser was fully aware of the interest of the co-widow of his vendor at the time of the purchase and that, accordingly, there was no erroneous representation to the purchaser that his vendor was authorized to transfer the interest of her co-widow.2. The purchaser, therefore, accepted a sale-deed which he was aware did not transfer the interest which it purported to deal with. He was, therefore, not misled in any way and Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act, which is founded on the principles of estoppel, does not apply. Pandiri Bangaram v. Karumoory Subbaraju 8 Ind. Cas. 388 : 8 M.L.T. 285 The decision in Adikesavan Naidu v. Gurunatha Chetti 39 Ind. Cas. 358 : 40 M.P 338 : 32 M.L.J. 180 : (1917) M.W.N. 171 : 5 L.W. 425 : 22 M.L.T. 300 does not in any way affect Jandir Bangarnm v. Katumoory Subbraju 8 Ind. Cas. 388 : 34 M.P 159 : 8 M.L.T. 285.3. The second appeal is dismissed with costs....
In Re: Padmanabha Hebbara
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1919
Reported in: 50Ind.Cas.485; (1919)36MLJ352
John Wallis, C.J.1. In this case time facts first came to the notice of the Court after the judicial proceedings before it had terminated, but that I think is not enough to take the case out of the authority of the Full Bench decision of five Judges in Aiyakannu Pillai v. Emperor 1 Ind. Cas. 597 : 4 M.L.T. 404 : 9 Cri. L.J. 41 which confirmed the earlier ruling in Rahimadulla Sahib v. Emperor 31 M.P 140 : 7 Cr.L.J. 54 : 17 M.L.J. 584 : 3 M.L.T. 79 I would answer the question in the negative.Ayling, J.2. If the matter were res integra, I should concur in the view expressed by Miller, J., in Rahimadulla Sahib v. Emperor 31 M.P 140 : 7 Cri. L.J. 54 : 17 M.L.J. 584 : 3 M.L.T. 79 and Aiyakannu Pillai v. Emperor 1 Ind. Cas. 597 : 32 M.P 49 : 19 M.L.J. 42 : 4 M.L.T. 404 : 9 Cri. L.J. 41 But, sitting as a member of the present Bench, I feel bound by the opinion of the Full Bench of five Judges in the last named case. I do not think the order in the present case can be treated as a valid one wi...
Kalavoor Chembazhi Govindan Nayar Vs. Kunju Nayar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1919
Reported in: (1919)36MLJ565
Oldfield, J.1. I agree unreservedly with the conclusion of my learned brother in the judgment, which he is about to deliver, that a person claiming, like the plaintiff, the appellant, separate maintenance must show some good cause for doing so and that a claim to menchilavn is on the same footing as a claim to maintenance.2. The more difficult question is whether the plaintiff's desire to live with his wife (for that is the real justification which he can allege for his claim) is such good cause; and I have felt great doubt whether the reasoning by which corresponding claims by female members have been countenanced in Marudevi v. Pammaka I.L.R. (1911) M. 203 Kunchi v. Ammu I.L.R. (1912) M. 691 and Muthn Amma v. Gopalan I.L.R. (1912) M. 593 should be extended. For those decisions involve, with all due difference, a radical departure from the view taken by earlier authorities. They have, however, been acquiesced in, so far as we have been shown, for over five years; they proceeded from l...
Kalavoor Chembazhi Govindan Nair Vs. Kunja Nayar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1919
Reported in: 51Ind.Cas.326
Oldfield, J.1. gree unreservedly with the conclusion of my learned brother in the judgment, which he is about to deliver, that a person claiming, like the plaintiff, the appellant, separate maintenance must show some good cause for doing so and that a claim to menchilavu is on the same footing as a claim to maintenance.2. The more difficult question is whether the plaintiff's desire to live with his wife (for that is all the real justification which he can allege for his claim) is such good cause; and I have felt great doubt whether the reasoning by which corresponding claims by female members have been countenanced in Maravadi v. Pamakkar 14 Ind. Cas. 383 ; 22 M.L.J. 309; Kunhi Amma v. Ammu Amma 16 Ind. Cas. 178 ; (1912) M.W.N. 1233 ; 24 M.L.J. 559 and Muthu Amma v. Vellathumkara Gopalan 16 Ind. Cas. 895 ; 36 M.P 593 ; 23 M.L.J. 496 ; 13 M.L.J. 120 should be extended. For those decisions involve, with all due deference, a radical departure from the view taken by earlier authorities. T...
P.R. Ayya Pattar Vs. Attupurath Manakkal, Karnavan and Manager, Vasude ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-1919
Reported in: 52Ind.Cas.938
Abdur Rahim, J.1. The case arose out of a kuri transaction. The kuri was started by the 1st defendant, 1st respondent in the appeal, for Rs. 10,500 divided into 21 tickets of Rs. 500 each. One Narayanan Somayajipad had one ticket. He paid in 5 instalments and purchased the kuri amount at the 6th instalment sometime in 1913. His bidding was for a sum of Rs 6,565, He was entitled to get that amount on furnishing security for future instalments, that is, for 15 more instalments, amounting altogether to Rs. 7,500. It appears that he could not find security and he pledged his kuri receipts for the amounts which he had already paid, it may be also what he was to get by his purchase; which is the correct interpretation of the transaction does not make any difference as to the point we have to decide. The present plaintiff appellant who advanced money to Narayanan Somayajipad, afterwards instituted a suit in order to realise the money and before judgment attached the money which, according to ...
T.K. Vasudeva Kamath and ors. Vs. Nattoji Lakshminarayana Row and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1919
Reported in: (1919)36MLJ453
1. The question in this appeal is whether, after the making of an order of adjudication under Section 16 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1907, a creditor of the insolvent is prevented by the provisions of Sub-section (2)(b) of that section from suing under Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act to set aside a transfer made by the insolvent without first obtaining the leave of the Court. There appears to be a curious absence of authority as to the effect of the corresponding provision in the English Bankruptcy Acts with respect to actions by creditors under the Statute of Elizabeth which corresponds with Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act. The nature of the suit under the English and Indian Acts has recently been discussed in this Court in Palaniandi Chetti v. Appava Chettiar (1916) 80 M.L.J. 565 Subramania Ayyar v. Muthiah Chettiar I.L.R. (1917) Mad. 612 : 33 M.L.J. 705 and Pokker v. Kunhama I.L.R. (1918) M. 149 : 36 M.L.J. 231 : 9 L.W. 138. It appears that in England, wh...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »