Chennai Court August 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.
Thygaraja Mudaliar Vs. Seshappier and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1919
Reported in: 54Ind.Cas.458
1. The 1st plaintiff and his sons, having conveyed certain immoveable properties to the 1st defendant in 1918, in consideration of the 1st defendant paying them Rs. 500 in cash at the time of execution and undertaking to discharge three items of debt to third parties, amounting at the time to Rs. 1,600, Rs. 4,954 and Rs. 946 respectively, brought this suit to enforce their vendor's lien to which they are entitled by Section 55, Clause 4 of the Transfer of Property Act. It is thereby declared that 'the seller is entitled (a) to the rents and profits of the property till the ownership thereof passes to the buyer, (6) where the ownership of the property has passed to the buyer before payment of the whole of the purchase-money, to a charge upon the property in the hands of the buyer for the amount of the purchase-money or any part thereof remaining unpaid and for interest on such amount or part.'2. It has now been established by the Fall Bench in Sivasubramania Aiyar v. Subramania Aiyar 37...
Venkatachella Reddy Vs. Muthialu Reddy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1919
Reported in: 54Ind.Cas.537
1. The 5th defendant obtain-ed a money decree against the 1st and 4th defendants in a suit in which the 2nd and 3rd defendants were parties but were exonerated from liability. The decree holder attached the undivided half share of the judgment-debtors in, certain property, alleged to belong to the undivided family of which the four defendants were members, and there upon the 2nd defendant applied by a petition under Order XXI, Rule 58, of the Code of Civil Procedure that the attachment of portion of the property might be raised on the ground that it had been assigned to him upon a partition and was his separate property. The petition was dismissed on the ground that it was too late. The appellant bought the attached properly at the Court sale and then sued the defendants for partition, and an issue was raised whether the portion of the property previously claimed by the 2nd defendant belonged to him.2. The appellant was not a party to the previous suit and is not a representative of an...
Angappa Mudali and ors. Vs. Ramapuram Perumal Chetty and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1919
Reported in: (1919)37MLJ313
ORDERKumaraswami Sastri, J.1. The first class Magistrate of Sankari passed orders under Section 133, Criminal Procedure Code, directing the counter-petitioners not to work a cotton ginning factory during nights or to appear before the second class Magistrate, Trichengode, on the 25th March 1918 and move to have the order set aside or modified.2. The counter-petitioners applied under Section 135 to the first class Magistrate to appoint a jury and a jury was empanelled under Section 138 who sent their verdict to the Magistrate. The records were then sent by the first class Magistrate to the, second class Magistrate for disposal. The petitioners objected to the order on the ground that the second class Magistrate had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter after the verdict of the jury, but their objection was over-ruled. Hence this revision petition.3. The question for decision is whether a Magistrate who sends a notice under Section 133 and directs a party to appear before another Magis...
Venkatasubban Patter and ors. Vs. Ayyathurai Alias Ranganatha Sastriga ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1919
Reported in: (1919)37MLJ554
1. Plaintiffs and the defendants are members of Kuzhalmannam, a Brahmin village in the Palghat Taluk. The suit was brought for a perpetual injunction restraining Defendants 1 to 45 from consecrating a lingam in the Siva temple in the village which, belongs in common to plaintiffs and the defendants without the consent of the community as a whole. It appears that for many years past the village has been divided into two factions, known as the Eastern and the Western factions. Plaintiffs and defendants 45 to 51 belong to the Western faction, Defendants 1 to 44 belong to the Eastern faction and are in a numerical majority. It seems that the Siva lingam was stolen in 1888, and the members of 1st defendant's faction wanted to have it replaced by another. The proposal was opposed by the plaintiff's faction and litigation ensued, and the plaintiff's faction succeeded in obtaining an injunction restraining the defendants from consecrating the particular Lingam in dispute. Plaintiff's case as p...
Seshagiri Rao and ors. Vs. Sreenivasa Rao and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1919
Reported in: (1920)38MLJ62
1. There is no dispute as to the facts in this case. A suit for maintenance was brought by one Yamuna, Bayee. Some of the present appellants were defendants 9 to 12 in the suit and were added as supplemental defendants as they belonged to a divided branch of the family. Yamuna Bayee obtained a decree for maintenance against defendants 1 to 8 and the maintenance awarded was made a charge on the shares of defendants 1 to 8 in certain properties. The appellants and their three-fourths share of the properties were expressly exonerated under the decree. In 1906 the decree-holder applied for execution of the decree against defendants 1 to 8 only and no notice of the execution proceedings was taken out to the appellants 1 to 4. Certain lands were attached as belonging to the first defendant in the suit and on 26th January 1910 3 acres 84 cents of land in Shrotriem Thenambakkam village including the three-fourths share of the appellants were sold in court auction and purchased by one Murugesam...
Nili Rangasami Mudaliar Vs. Kari Krishna Battacharcar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1919
Reported in: 54Ind.Cas.281
1. In this case the plaintiff (respondent) is the hereditary Archaka for performing certain Poojas in the Sri Krishna Perumal Devasthanam. He was dismissed from his office by the 1st defendant (appellant before us), the Trustee of the Devasthanam since 1909, and brought his suit to declare that his dismissal was improper and for an injunction to restrain, inter alia, 1st defendant from excluding him (plaintiff) from his rights and for Rs. 349-8-0 damages respecting the value of honours detained from the plaintiff by 1st defendant.2. The District Munsif decreed that, upon plaintiff filing in Court an undertaking that he will faithfully obey the orders of the trustee or his deputy for the time being in all the matters pertaining to the Archakaship, including the showing of temporal honours by garland, Theertham and the like to Ubayakars, and generally to conduct himself in subordination to the trustee in respect of his duties, the order of dismissal should be set aside and the plaintiff ...
Sabapathi Pillay Vs. Thandavaroya Odayar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-1919
Reported in: 54Ind.Cas.515
1. The plaintiff's vendor purchased certain properties in execution of a money decree against the first defendant and obtained a certificate of sale, Exhibit A. At the time of attachment, a partition suit between the first defendant and his coparceners was pending. The decree in the partition suit allotted certain properties to the first defendant. On comparing the sale certificate, Exhibit A, with the list of the properties which the first defendant obtained under the partition decree, it is found that the sale certificate included items which did not all of them correspond to the items in the partition decree. Plaintiff obtained 283 cents under the sale certificate. His suit was for the allotment of this extent from the items given under the partition decree.2. Some of the items being common to both, there will be no difficulty in decreeing them to the plaintiff. As regards those which do not correspond to the partition decree, the question is whether the plaintiff is entitled to hav...
Dontu Pedda Chenchayya Vs. Mallam Balayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1919
Reported in: (1919)37MLJ596
Krishnan, J.1. In this second appeal and the civil revision petition two questions have been raised for our decision namely (1) whether when a suit abates on account of the death of a sole plaintiff the right to sue not surviving, and it is dismissed in consequence, the court has power to make an order granting defendant's costs out of the estate of the deceased and (2) when such an order is made by the District Munsif an appeal lies against it to the District Judge at the instance of the deceased's legal representatives.2. On the first question the learned District Judge held that the Court had no such power. No doubt, as pointed out by him the case before us is not one to which Order 22 Rule 3 Civil Procedure Code applies for that order does not seem to refer to a case where the right to sue does not survive on the death of the sole plaintiff, Sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 which in terms authorises the Court to grant costs to the defendant against the estate of the deceased plaintiff applie...
Donta Pedda Chenchayya Vs. Mallam Balayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1919
Reported in: (1920)ILR43Mad284
Krishnan, J.1. In this second appeal and civil revision petition two questions have been raised for our decision, namely, (1) whether when a suit abates on account of the death of a sole plaintiff the right to sue not surviving, and it is dismissed in consequence, the Court has power to make an order granting defendant's costs out of the estate of the deceased and (2) when such an order is made by the District Munsif an appeal lies against it to the District Judge at the instance of the deceased's legal representatives.2. On the first question the learned District Judge held that the Court had no such power. No doubt, as pointed out by him, the case before us is not one to which Order XXII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, applies, for that order does not seem to refer to a case where the right to sue does not survive on the death of the sole plaintiff. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 3, which in terms authorizes the Court to grant costs to the defendant against the estate of the deceased p...
Konda Siddhia Chetti Vs. M. Venkataroya Chetty and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-1919
Reported in: (1919)37MLJ659
ORDER1. Mr. Chandrasekhara Aiyar has raised an interesting question as to the fee payable to practitioners in appeals from orders, granting or refusing Probate or Letters of Administration, The Taxing Officer has informed us that there is no settled practice in this Court on the subject. Sometimes he fixes a reasonable fee. Sometimes advalorem fee as in a regular appeal is fixed. In Bombay according to a long standing practice, only a fee of Rs. 30 is decreed; See Sundra Bai v. Collector of Belgaum I.L.R. (1908) Bom. 256. In Calcutta sometimes the Judges fix the fee at the hearing. If that is not done, the Taxing Officer fixes Rs, 80 as the fee, See Baijnath Prasad Singh v. Sham Sundur Kuar I.L.R. (1913) Cal. 687. It is not denied that in the mofussil the pleaders's fee is on the advalorem scale as in a suit. In the Original Side of our High Court also, the same practice is alleged to exist. In this state of the authorities we have been asked to settle the rule of practice. Mr. Chandra...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »