Chennai Court September 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.
Kutumatt Puthen Variath Sekhara Varier (Deceased) and ors. Vs. Kotakat ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-25-1919
Reported in: 54Ind.Cas.389
1. The last two members of a Nambudri Illom, known as the Kotakkat Illom, were Kesavan, and Nangeli. In 1849 one of them, Kesavan, mortgaged the property in dispute by Exhibit B to the Tarwad of defendants Nos. 1 to 12. He died after 1852. In 1855 the only surviving member Nangeli appointed one Narayana Moosad as the heir to the properties of the Tarwad. In 1856 she appointed Damodaram during the lifetime of Narayana. In 1858 Narayana brought a suit to redeem the Kanom executed by Kesavan in 1849. Damodara intervened and disputed Narayana's title. There was a compromise (Exhibit E) in 1859 by which Damodara's right was recognised by Narayana and the suit was dismissed. There was a Kanom by Damodara in 1859, which is Exhibit A, to the Tarwad of defendants Nos. 1 to 12. Damodara died in 1896. Damodara prior to his being appointed heir belonged to a Tarwad known as Thiyyath Tarwad. Damodara died issueless and the present suit is by his natural brother to redeem Exhibit A. The two Courts b...
The Tanjore Life Assurance Co., Ltd., by R. Sivarama Aiyar, Vakil, Tan ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-25-1919
Reported in: 55Ind.Cas.660
Seshagiri Aiyar, J.1. Both the junior members of the Bar who appeared in this case argued it very ably. The fasts are not in dispute. A policy was effected on the life of one Nagammal on the 29th of May 1906. The premia were payable monthly. The assured made 61 payments and then discontinued the payment. She died on the 6th of April 1914 and the present suit was instituted on the 11th of April 1917. The District Munsif dismissed the suit. On appeal the Subordinate Judge gave a decree for the amount of the premia paid by the deceased. I agree with the conclusion of the lower Appellate Court, though not for the reasons given by it. When the insurance was effected the rule of the company stood thus [see Exhibit E, Clauses (b) and (c)]. 'The policy-holders mentioned above who have been making payments duly in that manner, will be paid interest at the rate of Rs. 6 per annum. It is only after the death of the policy holder that the life assurance amount will be determined. (c) If the presen...
Perumal Goundan and ors. Vs. the Jananukoola Dana Sekhara Sankanidhi ( ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-1919
Reported in: 58Ind.Cas.446
1. In this case we have to deal only with the question whether certain statements in writing made by the defendant amounted to an acknowledgment of liability within the meaning of Section 19 of the Limitation Act. The other question raised by Mr. K.V. Krishnaswami Ayyar, the learned Vakil for the appellant, viz., that a sanction should have been obtained by the Official Liquidator in respect of the institution of this suit was very fairly not pressed by him, when it was pointed out that there was a general authority given to the liquidator to take the necessary action in order to realise the outstanding in the order of the appointment itself.2. The first acknowledgment, Exhibit C, is contained in a resolution passed in the meeting held on the 17th March 1907 and signed by the father of the appellants, the cash-keeper whose liability is questioned in this suit. It says: 'The money payable to the members of the Executive Committee and the amount belonging to the Reserve Fund are lying wi...
Muthiah Chettiar and anr. Vs. Periyan Kone and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-1919
Reported in: 55Ind.Cas.78
Spencer, J.1. These suits were brought by a landholder to enforce accepatance of Puttahs under Section 56 of the Madras Estates Land Act.2. The Deputy Collector, who tried the suits, found that the tenure in the village, Chennianviduthi, was Amani tenure and that in spite of temporary lapses when cash rents were paid, the landholder was entitled to revert to the Varam system. The District Judge, on appeal, found that there was an implied contract between the parties that the rents should be paid in cash and, therefore, that the plaintiff had no subsisting right to revert to Amani rates.3. He quotes in his judgment a passage from the Full Bench case of Venkatagopal v. Rangappa 7 M.P 365 to the effect that payment of rent in a particular form at a certain rate for a number of years is presumptive evidence of the existence of a contract to pay rent in that form or at that rate for those years. In doing so he has omitted the words at a certain rate'. In Kavipurapu Rama Rao v. Diritavalli N...
Basavanagudi Narayana Kamthy and ors. Vs. Lingappa Shetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-1919
Reported in: (1920)38MLJ28
1. Following the ruling in Mani Chander Chuckerbutty v. Baikunta Nath Biswas I.L.R. (1902) C. 363 we must hold that the appellants were not in a position to acquire any easement right over the respondents' land as they were his tenants. The fact that the tenants were permanent tenants was held to make ho difference on this point in the Calcutta case.2. That case is sought to be distinguished on the ground that the Easements Act did sot apply to Bengal. But it is not shown how the Easements Act has made any difference on the point. Section 12 of that Act enables only owners of immove-able property to acquire easement rights and not persons who are mere lessees. If a lessee by his user acquires any easement right over another's land he acquires for the benefit of the tenement he is holding and as that belongs to his landlord th e benefit will go to the latter, and it follows that such a right could not be acquired or set up against the landlord. The English Law is clear on the point, vid...
Ponnuswami Chetty and anr. Vs. the Vellore Commercial Bank Ltd. by Age ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1919
Reported in: (1920)38MLJ70
1. The suit was brought upon a promissory note, Exhibit A. The question is when the cause of action arose for the suit. The defendant applied to the Bank at Vellore by Exhibit B for a loan. The application is in a printed form and he filled up the blank by inserting the words ' for six months Thavanai. Thereupon the application was referred to an officer of the Bank, who made an endorsement to this effect. 'The applicants are responsible men. I am of opinion that Rs. 3000 may be lent to them for six months Thavanai at 12 annas per cent per mensem. On the same date the promissory note was executed. In the accounts of the Bank Exhibit C, six months interest was deducted from the money paid to the defendant. On these facts the question is whether the cause of action arose on the date of the note or whether it arose only after the six months provided for in the application from Exhibit B. Mr. Viswanatha Aiyar referred us to one circumstance which may be disposed of at once. He referred to ...
Subbiah Pillai Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1919
Reported in: 55Ind.Cas.105
ORDER1. We feel no doubt that when the petitioner, who was at the time the acting Village Magistrate of Kuttapanjan, prepared a record relating to a case which was actually pending before him as such Village Magistrate, he did so not in a private capacity but acting as a Judge, and if the making of that record amounts to an offense, sanction is necessary under Section 197, before any Court can take cognizance of the offence of which he is accused in connection with it. The case in Palaniandy Pillai v. Arunachellum Pillai 3 Ind. Cas. 387 : 32 M.p 255 : 4 M.L.T. 473 : 9 Cr. L.J. 89 is distinguishable on the ground that the criminal case in respect of which the Village Magistrate there concerned was alleged to have fabricated a false record was an alleged criminal case which had no existence in fact.2. Whether a public servant could make a record in an imaginary case otherwise than as such public servant, when it is one of the functions of his office to hear and dispose of oases, is a que...
Sreemat Kanatala Venkata Krishnama Charlu (Now Major) and anr. Vs. Sre ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1919
Reported in: 56Ind.Cas.593
1. The main reliefs asked for in these oases are declarations that the adoption of 2nd defendant by 1st defendant is not valid and that the proceedings in Appeal Suit No. 72 of 1911 and No. 51 of 1912 are not binding on plaintiffs. The lower Court refused the latter and, therefore, did not deal with the claim to the former on its merits.2. The facts are that plaintiffs were in 1912 minors, the eldest being about sixteen, and their father Kanakacharyalu was the nearest reversioner to the estate of 1st defendant's deceased husband. First defendant in 1910 set up the adoption of the 2nd defendant and Kanakacharyala sued in Original Suit No. 72 of 1911 to have it declared invalid In 1912, as it was thought that a decree in terms of the award would not bind plaintiffs or 3rd defendant, their adult elder brother, because they were not parties to Original Suit No, 72, there was a reference to arbitration; and an application, numbered as Original Suit No. 51 of 1912, was made to the Court to f...
V.A.L.R.M. Lakshmanan Chetty and anr. Vs. V.A.L.R.M.L. Muthaya Chetty ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-1919
Reported in: (1921)40MLJ126
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The plaintiffs 1 and 2 are the appellants.2. The suit was brought for sale of 13 properties hypothecated under 7 hypothecation bonds. The plaint impleaded 17 defendants. The 7th defendant died after suit and three more defendants (18 to 20) were added as his legal representatives.3. As above stated, the suit looks a simple one, but in reality it is very complicated owing to the seven hypothecated documents sued on containing only one property in common to all of them, namely, item t, a house in Madura which is the most valuable property. Four of them B.C.D. and E, hypothecated (among others) certain properties which are not included in. the plaint schedule, the plaintiffs having given up their right to proceed against those properties. The common mortgagor in the documents Exhibits B to G (the later six documents) is the 1st defendant whose undivided sons are the defendants 2 and 3. The mortgagor who executed the 1st document, Exhibit A is the 1st defendant's decea...
P.L.P.L. Palaniappa Chetti Vs. V.S.S.P. Subramania Chetti and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-1919
Reported in: (1920)38MLJ338
1. This is an appeal against the order of the District Judge of Ramnad dismissing an application presented by the appellant before us under Section 43 of the Provincial Insolvency Act.2. A preliminary objection was taken by Mr. Krishnaswami Aiyar that the appellant is not a ' person 'aggrieved' within the meaning of Section 46 of the Provincial' Insolvency Act and therefore that this appeal does not lie. He cited Iyappa Nainar v. Manicka Asari I.L.R. (1917) Mad. 630 which is a decision directly in point. Some of the reasons given by the learned Judges in that case do not commend themselves to us, but we think that the conclusion of the learned Judges, is right. Section 43 of the Provincial Insolvency Act which enables the Court to call upon the insolvent to produce his books and to give inventories of his properties etc., was intended to facilitate the work of the Court in finally adjudicating upon the extent of the properties which are to be distributed among the various creditors. By...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »