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.
Sowdagar Sheik Abdul Gafur and ors. Vs. Ashamath Bibi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-1919
Reported in: 54Ind.Cas.385
1. This is a suit by a Muhammadan sister for partition against her brother and for setting aside alienations made in favour of the other defendants by that brother. The alienations in question were made more than 12 years before suit. Both the lower Courts have held that, as it had not been proved that the plaintiff had knowledge of those alienations, her claim was not barred by limitation. Apparently the view which found favour with them was that, as a co parcener cannot be prescribed for exclusive possession without setting up notoriously and to the knowledge of other members of the family his intention to hold adversely, the alienee from the co-parcener is affected by the same disability. In this Court also Mr. Madhavan Nair forcibly argued in support of this contention. But in the very case relied on by him and by the Courts below, namely Jogendra Nath Bai v. Baladeo Das 35 C.P 961 : 12 C.W.N. 127 : 60. L.J. 735 Mr. Justice Mookerjee points out the distinction between the possessio...
Kasturi Pillai Vs. the Municipal Council, Represented by the Chairman ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-1919
Reported in: (1919)37MLJ618
1. Under Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, (Act I of 1894) the making of an award and taking possession of land vest the property absolutely in the Government. It has been argued, that if notice on the occupier had not been served in accordance with Section 9(3) and Section 45, the subsequent proceedings and the award are void.2. Assuming that such service has not been sufficiently proved in the present case, Section 12 provides that the award shall be final and conclusive, whether the persons interested have appeared or not, as to the question which can be dealt with by the Collector under Section 11, subject to the right of the party to require a reference to the Court under Section 18. The declaration made by the Government under Section 6 is conclusive evidence that the land is needed for the purposes sanctioned by the Act. All that the parties interested can urge before the Collector is that the area of the land is not properly stated, the compensation proposed is insufficie...
Chodavarapu Narayana Row and ors. Vs. Chennuru Venkatasubba Row
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-1919
Reported in: (1920)38MLJ77
Spencer, J.1. The facts of this case so far as they are necessary for the disposal of this Second Appeal are as follows:-In 1905 the managers of the defendants' undivided family sold certain land to the testamentary guardians of the plaintiff, who was then a minor, the consideration being the discharge of a certain mortgage debt then due by the defendant's family under a mortgage deed executed in favour of the plaintiff's adoptive father. In accordance with the agreement of sale possession was then given of the property and the plaintiff claims to have held possession ever since. A sale deed was also drawn up but not registered on account of some verbal defects. A suit to enforce registration would now be long out of time if brought under Section 77 of the Indian Registration , Act (Act XVI of 1908), This suit was instituted in January 1915; for specific performance, the prayer in the plaint being that the defendants be directed to execute a proper registered sale deed in favour of the...
Akula Achiah Vs. Challapalli Lakshminarasimham
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1919
Reported in: (1919)37MLJ433
1. In this case an exparte decree was passed on the 27th July 1917. The defendant alleging that he did not become aware of the decree till the 26th of August 1917 and that the summons was not served on him personally, applied to set aside the exparte decree. This was on the 29th August 1917. It is conceded that along with the petition, the amount of the decree was not deposited. It is said that it was deposited before the application was heard. We express no opinion as to whether this deposit after the time allowed for the application is valid or not. The only question before us is whether the provision in Section 17 of Act IX of 1887, is directory or mandatory. Parker and Wilkinson, JJ., held in Ramaswami v. Kurisu I.L.R. (1890) Mad. 178 that it was not mandatory. Mr. Justice Miller in Chaturvedula Suryanarayana v. Chaturvedula Ramamma I.L.R. (1911) Mad. 88 did not dissent from this view. So this decision of Parker and Wilkinson, JJ., has stood unchallenged in this Court for nearly th...
Akula Achiah-defendast Vs. Challapalli Lakshminarasim Ham
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1919
Reported in: 53Ind.Cas.926
1. In this case an ex parte decree was passed on the 27th July 1917. The defendant, alleging that he did not become aware of the decree till the 26th August 1917 and that the summons was not served on him personally, applied to set aside the ex parte decree. This was on the 29th August 1917. It is conceded that along with the petition, the amount of the decree was not deposited. It is said that it was deposited before the application was beard. We express no opinion as to whether this deposit after the time allowed for the application is valid Or not. The only question before us is whether the provision in Section 17 of Act IX of 1887 is directory or mandatory. Parker and Wilkinson, JJ., held in Ramasami v. Kurisu 13 M.P 178. that it was not mandatory, Mr. Justice Miller in Suryanaray na v. Ramanna 6 Ind. Cas. 400; 34 M.P 88; 7 M. L. T. 308; (1910) M. W.N. 279. did not dissent from this view. So this decision of Parker and Wilkinson, JJ., has stood unchallenged in this Court for nearly...
Sabapathi Pillai Vs. Thandavaraya Odayar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-1919
Reported in: (1919)37MLJ620
1. The plaintiff's vendor purchased certain properties in execution of a money decree against the 1st defendant and obtained a certificate of sale, Exhibit A. At the time of the attachment, a partition suit between the 1st defendant and his co-parceners was pending. The decree in the partition suit allotted certain properties to the 1st defendant. On comparing the sale certificate, Exhibit A, with the list of the properties which the 1st 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 2.83 cents under the sale certificate. His suit was for the allotment of this extent from the items given under the partition decree. 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 have the...
Garapathi Brahmayya and ors. Vs. Kurella Ramiah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-1919
Reported in: (1920)38MLJ123
1. The main facts of the case are not in dispute. The first defendant obtained a license to sell arrack. The principal condition in it with which this second Appeal is concerned is in these terms, 'Para 16. The privilege of supply and vend shall not, without the permission of the Collector previously obtained, be sold, exchanged or sub-leased, nor, if the Collector has ordered, can an agent be appointed, without his permission first previously obtained, for exercise of any such privilege,' The first defendant took the second defendant as his partner without obtaining the, Collector's sanction, Plaintiff had dealings with both the defendants and the suit is for money due on those dealings.2. The first question is whether the partnership became illegal by the second defendant joining the business. Mr. A. Krishna swami Aiyar, Vakil for the respondent argued that as the license does not in terms prohibit a partnership and as the word 'transfer' is not to be found in it, the transaction was...
Garapathi Brahmayya and Six ors. Vs. Kurella Ramiah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-1919
Reported in: (1920)ILR43Mad141
Seshagiri Ayyar, J.1. The main facts of the case are not in dispute. The first defendant obtained a licence to sell arrack. The principal condition in it with which this Second Appeal is concerned is in these terms:Paragraph 16.--The privilege of supplying and vending shall not, without the permission of the Collector previously obtained, be sold, exchanged or sub-leased, nor, if the Collector has ordered, can an agent be appointed, without his permission previously obtained, for exercise of any such privilege.2. The first defendant took the second defendant as his partner without obtaining the Collector's sanction. Plaintiff had dealings with both the defendants and the suit is for money due on those dealings.3. The first question is whether the partnership became illegal by the second defendant joining the business. Mr. A. Krishnaswami Ayyar, vakil for the respondent, argued that as the licence does not in terms prohibit a partnership and as the word transfer is not to be found in it...
Chowkaran Pazha Parambath Cheria Kunhi Pocker Vs. Chowkaran Pazha Para ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1919
Reported in: (1919)37MLJ544
1. This is a suit by a junior member of a tarwad who obtained permission to conduct the suit on behalf of all its members for possession of certain tarwad properties, The predecessor of the present karnavan, the 1st defendant, gave a kanom in 1904 to the 2nd defendant under Ex. X. Thereupon the tenants of the tarwad attorned to the 2nd defendant and paid him rent. It was found by both the Lower Courts that there was no consideration for the kanom and that it is not binding on the tarwad. The only ground urged by Mr. Menon in second appeal is that the possession of the 2nd defendant, if any, must be deemed to be possession of the tarwad and that the only remedy open to an anandravan under the circumstances is to sue for a declaration. He also contended that this is a subterfuge to evade the law of limitation as a suit for declaration would have been barred. Strong reliance was placed upon Padamma v. Themana Amma I.L.R. (1894) M. 232 for this contention. There can be no doubt that on the...
Odayamangalath Appanni Nair Vs. Isaak Mackadam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-1919
Reported in: (1919)37MLJ435
Seshagiri Aiyar J.1. The original suit was instituted against one C.W. Fuller. In the course of the suit an application was made for his arrest. When he was brought before the Court the Respondents before us agreed to stand surety for him. Thereupon Fuller was released from custody. I shall refer to the terms of the bond and its legal effect later on. Subsequent to this, the surety asked the Court, at a time when Fuller was before it to conduct his case, that he should be relieved from his obligation to produce the defendant. The District Munsif did not apparently agree to this course. Thereafter the plaintiff and the defendant agreed to a consent decree which has now been put in execution. The surety whose bond was not in terms discharged contended that the bond was discharged under Section 135 of the Indian Contract Act. The District Munsif rejected these contentions and ordered execution. On appeal the District Judge has reversed that order. A Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »