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.
Sir Rajah Bommadevara Venkata Narasimha Naidu Bahadur Zemindar of Pang ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1919
Reported in: (1919)37MLJ591
John Wallis, C.J.1. In this case, a batch of appeals and a connected batch of second appeals have been argued together. The appeals are from decrees of the Subordinate judge of Bezwada ordering the defendant Zemindar to refund to his tenants excess rents for Fasli 1316 and the following Faslis which the Zemindar has recovered from them by suits on the authority of the decision of this Court in Venkata Nara-simha Naidu v. Kasaraneni China Bapayya I.L.R. (1908) Mad. 12 between the same parties for Fasli 1315, When these suits were decreed, the decree of this Court was under appeal to the Privy Council which reversed it in Ravi Veeraraghavulu v. Venkata Narasimha Naidu Bahadur I.L.R. (1914) M. 443 : 27 M.L.J. 451. The Subordinate Judge has decreed the suits on the authority of Shama Pershad Roy Chowdhry v. Hurro Pershad Roy Chowdury (1865) 10 M.I.A. 203 as interpreted by the majority of the Full Bench in Jogesh Chunder Dutt v. Kalichurn Dutt I.L.R. (1877) C. 30. In Shama Prasad Roy Chowdh...
Sankunni Vs. Ikkora Kutti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1919
Reported in: 52Ind.Cas.989
Phillips, J.1. It has been held in Kamakshi Achari v. Appavu Pillai 1 M.H.C.R. 448 that a 'kuri' as ordinarily conducted is not a lottery, inasmuch as each subscriber merely gets back his subscriptions in the form of a loan, and the only thing which is dependent on chance is the order in which the loans are received. In the present case, however, one subscriber at each of the first 99 drawings received something more than what he subscribed, the amounts varying from 4 annas to Its. 24-12-0. No doubt all the other subscribers eventually got back their money without interest but that does not affect the case of those subcribers who got prizes in excess of their subscriptions.2. The fact that the promoter of the kuri was liable to the remaining subscribers for the future subscriptions of the prize-winners does not alter the nature of the business, for the prize-winners themselves were under no such liability Although, therefore, it has been consistently held in this Court that a kuri as o...
Chilukuri Narasimhacharyulu Garu Vs. Zamindar of Bobbili and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1919
Reported in: 52Ind.Cas.1001
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. The plaintiff, who is the appellant, valued the lands referred to in the plaint at Rs. 100 and filed the suit in the District Munsif's Court. Objection was taken as to jurisdiction on the ground that the lands were greatly undervalued and that their proper value was beyond the Court's pecuniary jurisdiction. The District Munsif found on the evidence that the lands were worth Rs. 4,000 and ordered the plaint to be returned for presentation to the proper Court.2. This order returning the plaint is appealable under Order XLIII, rule l, Clause (a), and an appeal was filed in the District Court. The District Judge, relying on Section 12, Clause 1, of the Court Fees Act, held that no appeal lay as the decision of the District Munsif as to the valuation was final.3. I am of opinion that the decision of the District Judge cannot be supported. As was pointed in Peari Shah v. Surja Mal 16 Ind. Cas. 575 : 17 C.W.N. 603 : 16 C.L.J. 371 Section 12 of the Court Fees Act has ...
Ponnusami Alias Periana Kone and ors. Vs. Palayathan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1919
Reported in: 51Ind.Cas.252
Phillips, J.1. This case is by no means identical with Ram Sarup Bhagat v. Bansi Mandar 60 Ind. Cas. 955 ; 42 C.P 742 ; 19 C.W.N. 1118 in which the debtor bound himself to serve until the debt was repaid and in default to pay exorbitant interest. Here the debtor only undertakes to work for five years, and this undertaking is accepted by the creditor in lieu of interest. There is nothing to prevent the debtor leaving service at the end of five years, and if he commits default he has to repay the advance with 25 per cent, interest. This can by no means be called a contract of slavery, for the work done by the debtor is to be paid for at the ordinary rates and the agreement to continue in service is treated by the employer as consideration equivalent to interest. Respondents are not unfortunately represented in this Court, but there seems to me very little difference between such a contract and one of apprenticeship or indenture and, therefore, it cannot be treated as opposed to public po...
M. Sankaram Iyer Vs. Thiraviya Nadan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1919
Reported in: 51Ind.Cas.240
Kumaraswami Satri, J1. The Subordinate Judge disbelieves the plea of discharge. Ha finds the two payments alleged by the plaintiff to be rue, but dismissed the suit on the ground that it was barred by limitation as the plaintiff did not make a special appreciation towards the defendant's accounts. The only transactions outstanding when the payments were made ware promissory note and the hypothecation. the note was the earlier of the two. If appropriation was generally towards sum due on both transactions, both be saved. See Soumia Narayana gar v. Alagirisawmy Iyengar 14 Ind. Cas. 580 ; (1912) M.W.N. 754 ; 11. T.p 429 and gu Miya v. Heramba Chandra Chakra 8 Ind. Cas. 81 ; 13 C.L.J. 139. I set aside the decree of the lower Court and pass a decree for plaintiff for the amount claimed. The respondent will pay the petitioner's costs in this and the lower Court....
Rajah Bommadevara Venkata Narasimha Naidu Bahadur and Zemindar of Pang ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1919
Reported in: 54Ind.Cas.647
John Wallis, C.J.1. In this case, a batch of appeals and a connected batch of second appeals have been argued together. The appeals are from decrees of the Subordinate Judge of Bezwada ordering the defendant Zemindar to refund to his tenants excess rents for Falsi 1816 and the following Falsis, which the Zemindar has recovered from them by suits on the authority of the decision of this Court in Venleata Narasimha Nayudu v. Chinna Bapayya 2 Ind. Cas. 614 : 33 M.P 12 : 5 M.L.T. 87 between the same parties for Fasli 1315. When these suits were decreed, the decree of this Court was under appeal to the Privy Council, which reversed it in Ravi Veeraraghavulu v. Bomma Devara Venkata 25 Ind. Cas. 305 : 37 M.P 443 : 16 M.L.T. 262 : (1914) M.W.N. 695 : 1 L.W. 77 : 27 M.L.J. 45 : 20 C.L.J. 375 : 19 C.W.N. 97 : 16 Bon.L.R. 853 : 41 I.A. 258 The Subordinate Judge has decreed the suits on the authority of Shama Purshad Roy Chowdhery v. Hurro Purshad Roy Chowdhery 10 M.I.A. 208 : 3 W.R.P.C. 11 : 2 Su...
Kalliani Amma and ors. Vs. Metathil Veetil Achutan Nair and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1919
Reported in: (1919)37MLJ309
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. The plaintiffs who are the petitioners sued for a declaration that the consent decree in O.S. No. 442 of 1910 and the Karar dated 30th April 1912 are not valid and also for a declaration that the properties specified in the plaint are tarwad properties. They paid a court-fee stamp of Rs. 10 treating the suit as one for a mere declaration. The Subordinate Judge directed that an ad valorem fee should be paid on Rs. 18,000 the value of the properties as set out in the plaint. The fee payable would be Rs. 715 and the petitioners alleging that they had no property sufficient to pay the ad valorem fee directed to be paid, filed a petition to sue in forma pauperis.2. When the petition came on for disposal the Subordinate Judge held that the suit was barred by limitation and dismissed it. Hence this revision petition.3. The Subordinate Judge was of opinion that though all the plaintiffs were minors at the date of the transaction they seek to impeach; they are barred as...
The Rajah of Bobbili Vs. Akella Suryanarayana Rao Garu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1919
Reported in: (1919)37MLJ274
Oldfield, J. 1. This petition and appeal relate to the circumstances in which a court sale was concluded by the Temporary Subordinate Judge of Vizagapatam. The decree under execution was for over Rs. 250,000 and eight villages of a zamindari belonging to the judgment debtors, here respondents, were put up for sale in one lot on 27-9-1918. The sale was continued from that date until 22-10-1918, when other bidders having dropped out, competition was confined to the Rajah of Bibbili, the petitioner and appellant here, and one Perla Ramamurthi Chetty. On that date the former by his Muktyar or agent bid Rs. 325,000. On 28-10-1918, however the Cheety bid Rs. 326,000. The sale was then continued unit 5-11-1918, although no further bids were received, apparently in compliance with the requests of the Rajah and the Chetty contained in two of the telegrams marked as Ex. III. Meanwhile news was received of the Chetty's death and on the date last mentioned an adjournment to the next day was grante...
A. Vedaji Baskara Tirumal Rao Sahib Represented by the Manager, Court ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1919
Reported in: 52Ind.Cas.992a
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. The first point taken by the petitioners in this civil revision petition is that the lower Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit as it was beyond its pecuniary jurisdiction.2. The point was taken in the lower Court but the Munsif rejected it, holding that for purposes of valuation the suit fell under Section 7, Clause 5(a), of the Court Fees Act. In Madras, in the absence of rules under Section 3 of the Suits Valuation Act, Section 14 of the Madras Civil Courts Act, which says the value for Court-fees and for jurisdiction is the same, is in force as, under Section 6 of the Suits Valuation Act, Section 14 gets repealed only on the rules under Section 3 taking effect. It is, therefore, necessary to decide under what part of Section 7, Clause 5, this suit falls. It seems to me quite clear that it really falls under Clause (d) and not under Clause (a), See Godavartny Sudaramma v. Godavarthy Mangammo 47 Ind. Cas. 543 : 34 M.L.J. 558 : 8 L.W. 88. It seems come to...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›