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.
Vaitheeswara Iyer Vs. Srinivasa Raghava Iyengar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-1919
Reported in: 50Ind.Cas.309; (1919)36MLJ296
1. We think that this question must be considered to have been settled by the recent pronouncement of the Privy Council in Choudhri Gur Narayan v. Sheo Lal Singh (1918) 36 M.L.J. 68 The respondents were not represented, but the report of the argument shows that the divergent decisions of the Courts in India were placed before their Lordships by Mr. De Gruyther who appeared for the appellants. Mr. Amir Ali dealt with the point in the following very general terms. 'As already observed, the benamidar has no beneficial interest in the property or business that stands in his name; he represents, in fact, the real owner, and, so far as their relative legal position is concerned he is a mere trustee for him. Their Lordships find it difficult to understand why, in such circumstances, an action cannot be maintained in the name of the benamidar in respect of the property although the beneficial owner is no party to it.' These very general observations appear to us to be conclusive of the questio...
Arunachala Velan Vs. Venkatarama Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-1919
Reported in: (1920)38MLJ93
Oldfield, J.1. I concur with conclusion reached in the judgment, which my learned brother is about to deliver, Each case, as I understand him to hold, must be decided on its own merits; and it is sufficient here that appellant, who by his own choice has proceeded and obtained a decree against a portion only of the mortgaged property, has suggested no reason whatever for exempting the remainder. That is a sufficient ground of decision in the present case: and whilst I agree that special circumstances may conceivably justify the grant of a personal decree, before the whole property comprised in the mortgage has been exhausted, I do not feel called on to attempt any definition of those circumstances or any estimate of the degree of difficulty in proceeding against the remaining profits, which would entitle the mortgagee to other relief.2. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. Seshagiri Aiyar, J.3. This appeal can be disposed of on a short point. The respondent executed a mortgage ...
Arunachala Velan Vs. Venkatarama Ayyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-1919
Reported in: 51Ind.Cas.84
Oldfield, J.1. I concur with the conclusion reached in the judgment, which my learned brother is about to deliver. Each case, as I understand him to hold, must be decided on its own merits; and it is sufficient here that appellant, who by his own choice has proceeded and obtained a decree against a portion only of the mortgaged property, has suggested no reason whatever for exempting the remainder. That is a sufficient ground of decision in the present case: and whilst I agree that special circumstances may conceivably justify the grant of a personal decree, before the whole property comprised in the mortgage has been exhausted, I do not feel called on to attempt any definition of those circumstances or any estimate of the degree of difficulty in proceeding against the remaining profits, which would entitle the mortgagee to other relief.2. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.Seshagiri Aiyar, J.3. This appeal can be disposed of on a short point. The respondent executed a mortga...
Velayuda Chetty Vs. Kumaraswami Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1919
Reported in: 52Ind.Cas.700
1. We think this is a perfectly clear case. The evidence entirely supports the finding of the learned trial Judge that the defendants Nos. 1 to 4 had agreed to sell the land in dispute to the plaintiff on the 10th August 1916 for Rs. 7,000 and that they actually sold the land to the 5th defendant, the appellant before us, on the 23rd August 1916, for Rs. 10,000 but that, before the execution of the sale-deed, the plaintiff, having some to know of the contemplated sale, went to the Sub-Registrar's office when the sale deed was actually being written on the 23rd August 1916, and read out his agreement Exhibit B. The evidence in the case and the probabilities all bear out the finding of the learned District Judge.2. The appeal must be dismissed with costs.3. The memorandum of objections must be allowed. The 5th defendant was undoubtedly a necessary party to the suit, having attempted to purchase the property with notice and knowledge of the agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiff The...
Rethamali Servai and anr. Vs. Ramasami Servai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1919
Reported in: 51Ind.Cas.53
1. It is clear from the plaint that the suit is to file the award under Section 20 of the Second Schedule to the Civil Procedure Code and to direct payment of the money decided by the arbitrators as payable to the plaintiff by the defendants. The Subordinate Judge has in his judgment refused to file the award.2. The award, after directing the defendants to pay plaintiffs Rs. 427-1.7 with interest at 6 per cent. per annum, declares the dissolution of the marriage between the 2nd plaintiff and the 2nd defendant. The arbitrators decide that the marriage between the parties has been dissolved pursuant to the custom in vogue amongst the members of the caste and state that 'henceforth there shall be no manner of connection between the 2nd plaintiff and 2nd defendant and that 'as sanctioned by the custom of the caste each party shall be at liberty to marry according to his or her pleasure.'3. I do not think the Small Cause Court has jurisdiction to file an award which, though it directs payme...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›