Chennai Court March 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.
T.S. Duraiswami Aiyar and ors. Vs. Krishnier
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1919
Reported in: 54Ind.Cas.318
Abdur Rahim, J.1. The short point regarding limitation which is raised with reference to the liability of the 2nd defendant, the son of the 1st defendant, is this. Both the father and the son executed a promissory note, Exhibit A, in renewal of certain other promissory notes executed by the father alone. Exhibit A is dated 27th April 1914 and the suit is instituted on 10th September 1917. Limitation is sought to be saved by a payment of Rs. 740 made on 6th November 1914 towards principal and interest due on Exhibit A The payment was actually made by one Khadir Moideen Taraganar on behalf of Aiyaswami Pillai. This Aiyasami Pillai had obtained a mortgage on the family property of defendants Nos. 1 and 2 on the 26th October 1914 and one item of consideration for it was the sum of Rs. 740, which he undertook to pay to Krishnaiar, the person in whose favour Exhibit A was executed. The mortgage Exhibit M was written by the 2nd defendant, who also attested it. The respondent's contention is t...
Jogirdar Rama Rao Vs. Kottipi Thimma Reddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1919
Reported in: 54Ind.Cas.331
1. The lower Court's decision is in accordance with Bhimaraja Varadayya v. Manchu Konda Nammalwaru 4 Ind. Cas. 1057 : 20 M.L.J. 88 : 6 M.L.T. 132. It is argued that we should regard the grant to appellant (defendant) as a pension, because it was made, in the words of Section 11, Act XXIII of 1871, for past services, irrespective of its nature. But there is no reason for taking that course and disregarding the distinction drawn in the Act between pensions and grants of money and land revenue, which has been recognised in Subraya Mudali v. Velayuda Chetty 30 M.K 153 : 2 M.L.T. 33 following Secretary of State for India v. Khemchand Jeychand 4 B.K 432 The lower Court was right in relying on that distinction. We dismiss the appeal with costs....
Anantharaju Shetty Vs. Appu Hegade
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1919
Reported in: (1919)37MLJ162
Oldfield, J.1. The only question we have to decide is whether a District Jude can at the instance of a party review an order passed by him under Section 10 of Act XX of 1863.2. The Act contains no explicit provision for a review and petitioner has accordingly supported his claim to one with reference to (1) the Code of Civil Procedure (2) the inherent power of the Court.3. As regards the Code there is nothing in the Act to apply its provisions and they can be applicable, if at all, only with reference to Section 141 of the Code itself. That section however does no nore than provide for the procedure to be adopted by Courts of civil jurisdiction in dealing with matters before them. It does not authorize an appeal, since that would not be a mere matter of procedure, but the recognition of substantive right, which must be conferred in explicit terms. Damodara Menon v. Kittappa Menon I.L.R. (1911) Mad. 16 : 21 M.L.J. 613. And similarly it confers no right to a review. For we have not been ...
Seshappa Heggade Vs. Chandayya Heggade
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1919
Reported in: (1919)37MLJ402
Oldfield, J.1. I do not propose to express any opinion on the question, with which my learned brother has dealt--whether the plaintiff's claim is sustainable. My reason is that there is no decree before us, which we are entitled to test with reference to the considerations arising in connection with that question. The decree was passed by a Small Cause Court without jurisdiction, inasmuch as the claim is a claim for maintenance: See Saminatha Aiyan v. Mangalathammal I.L.R. (1896) M. 29. The only order we can pass in my opinion is that the decree be set aside and that the lower court do return the plaint for presentation to the proper Court. Each party will bear his own costs throughout up to date.Seshagiri Aiyar, J.2. This is a suit for arrears of maintenance by an assignee. The assignor is a member of an aliyasanthana family. The suit was brought in the Small Cause Court for arrears which had already fallen due. The Lower Court dismissed the suit on the ground that the assignment is o...
Venkoba Rao Vs. Krishnaswami Naicker and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1919
Reported in: (1920)39MLJ493
1. This case raises a question under Section 12 of the Madras Estates Land Act which occurs in Ch. II of the Act which is headed 'General rights', the original effect of which is to put the rights of landholders and ryots whether admitted before or after the passing of the Act on a statutory basis. Section 12 which deals with the ryot's rights as regards the trees on his holding makes an exception from this principle in the cases of trees in existence at the date of the passing of the Act, as to which the ryot's rights are made subject to any rights which by custom or by contract in writing executed by the ryot before the passing of this Act are reserved to the landholder, while as regards trees which after the passing of the Act are planted by the ryot or naturally grow upon the holding the ryot's rights are absolute and not to be affected by custom or contract to the contrary. As regards trees in existence at the time of passing of the Act, the section says that ' every occupancy ryo...
A. Madurai Chetty and anr. Vs. T. Babu Saheb and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1919
Reported in: 52Ind.Cas.971
1. In this case the purchasers sued for specific performance and the vendors for the rescission of the contract. Both suits were decided in favour of the purchasers, and the vendors appeal. The house in question stood in the name of Ellammal who, on 10th March 1916, executed in favour of her daughter's son Balasundara Chetti an unregistered document Exhibit I, receipt that she had promised to give his mother the house as a dowry and that the mother had paid Rs. 2,000 and providing that be was to have the house after her (Ellammal's) death. Then on 17th November 1916 she and her husband Madurai Chetty contracted in Exhibit B to sell the house to Melu T. G. Muhamad Oosman Salt & Co., the contract taking the form of a receipt for Rs. 500 which contained the stipulation that 'the sale is subject to good title, if the title is found not in order this earnest of Rs. 500 is to be refunded, and they are to return the title deeds.'2. On the 28th of December Ellammal got her grandson Balasuadara...
Subramania Pathar Vs. Appu Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1919
Reported in: 55Ind.Cas.526
Oldfield, J.1. It seems to me that the applications of 24th Jane 1911 and 24th June 1914 were never really dismissed but were merely removed from the file for what have frequently been referred to as statistical purposes. I take this view, because the endorsements on them indicate that they were disposed of without notice or hearing and in the course of office routine. The principle to be applied is then that enunciated in Chulavadi Kotiah v. Poloori Alinelammah 31 M.P 71 : 18 M.L.J. 46 : 3 M.L.T. 329 and in Subba Chariar v. Muthuveeram Pillai 14 lad. Cas. 264 : 36 M.P 553 : 24 M.L.J. 545 from which I regard Singaravelu Pillai v. Santhana Krishna Mudaliar 31 Ind. Cas. 9 : (1915) M.W.N. 613 as a departure, and the consequence is that these applications are still pending and must be disposed of. The lower Appellate Court's order is, therefore, set aside and that of the District Munsif restored. The petition is remanded to the latter for further proceedings. Costs to date will follow the ...
Aiyappa Naicker, Minor by His Maternal Uncle and Next Friend, Guruswam ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1919
Reported in: (1919)37MLJ238
Napier, J.1. This is an appeal from the District Court of Tinnevelly in a suit brought by the plaintiff to recover possession of certain property from the 1st defendant, the suit being based on a lease granted to the 1st defendant and on title. The present 2nd defendant applied to be made a party alleging 1hat neither the plaintiff nor the 1st defendant had ever any right to the land. This defendant alleged further that he was the owner, and that he was in possession and pleaded adverse possession from enjoyment by his ancestors. The 1st defendant remained ex parte and the suit proceeded between the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant and some supplementary parties.2. The issues framed were 'whether the plaint mentioned lease is true and valid, whether the plaint mentioned land belongs to plaintiff and whether plaintiff has been in possession within the statutory period.'3. The plaintiff has ali along denied that the 2nd defendant was his tenant and, as far as he is concerned, sought to re...
Koppanna Chelamiah Vs. Sree Raja Datla Suryanarayana Jagapathi Raju Ba ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1919
Reported in: (1919)37MLJ346
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. The suit out of which this petition arises was for contribution in respect of costs awarded by the decree in O.S. No. 41 of .1909 paid by the plaintiff. The sum paid by plaintiff was according to the decree in O.S. No. 41 of 1909 payable by plaintiff and defendants jointly. The suit was to recover possession of property which was trespassed upon by the defendants and a decree was passed in favour of the plaintiff with costs. If the defendants were joint tort-feasors there would be prima facie no liability for contribution. The Subordinate Judge framed a preliminary issue as to whether the plaintiff was in law entitled to recover any contribution for costs from the defendants. The judgment in O.S. No. 41 of 1909 was filed as Exhibit I without any objection by the plaintiff. The Subordinate Judge states and it is not disputed before me that neither party let in any evidence though time was given to them to do so. Each party filed a document (plaintiff filing Ex. ...
Athermankutti Vs. Chandroth Moideenkutty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1919
Reported in: 52Ind.Cas.619
1. The plaintiff-respondent in this case challenged the defendant-appellant under Section 9, Oaths Act, to take a particular oath on a specified day and the challenge was accepted, including a term that, if owing to plaintiff's failure to pay the cost of taking the oath, defendant did not take it, that should be treated as equivalent to his taking it. On the day fixed, as plaintiff did not pay defendant did not take the oath. He, however, in spite of plaintiff's opposition and application for a trial on the merits took it on a later day; and the District Munsif passed a decree in his favour. The lower Appellate Court in the order appealed against held that plaintiff's consent was only to be bound by the oath as originally agreed on, that he withdrew his consent on that agreement proving abortive and that he was entitled to a remand for a trial on the merits. It has been argued that this withdrawal was not open to plaintiff and did not, in fast, take place. But we deal with this part of...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »