Chennai Court January 1920 Judgments
N.P.T. Cheria Kunhammad and anr. Vs. Kunhinni Alias Kizhakkayil Nair a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1920
Reported in: (1920)38MLJ461
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. Defendants 3 and 4 are the appellants. The plaintiff is the Karnavan of an edam and he sued to recover the edom property which had been leased to the 1st defendant in 1899 to take effect on the expiry of a prior lease granted in 1891 and which would expire in the ordinary course in 1903. It was found by the lower Appellate Court that there was no necessity or justification for granting that lease in 1899, four years before the term of the prior lease expired. The question is whether in law the plaintiff who has succeeded to the Karnavastanom in 1907 is entitled to treat the lease granted without justification or necessity by the prior Karnavan, 5th defendant, as not binding on the tarwad. In Cheria Chirikandan v. Krishnan Nambiar (1812) 27 M.L.J. 690 Sundara Aiyar, J., and myself held that where a lease had been granted for five years and a melcharth was granted after three years from the beginning of the first lease and two years before the expiry of that lease te...
Tag this Judgment!M.P.T. Cheria Kunhammad and anr. Vs. Kunhunni Alias Kizhakkayl Nair an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1920
Reported in: 57Ind.Cas.424
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. Defendants Nos. 3 and 4 are the appellants. The plaintiff is the Karnavan of an Edam and he sued to recover the Edam property which had been leased to the 1st defendant in 1899, to take effect on the expiry of a prior lease granted in 1891 and which would expire in the ordinary course in 1903. It was found by the lower Appellate Court that there was no necessity or justification for granting that lease in 1899, four years before the term of the prior lease expired. The question is whether, in law, the plaintiff, who has succeeded to the Karnavan Stanom in 1907, is entitled to treat the lease granted without justification or necessity by the prior Karnavan, 5th defendant, as not binding on the Tarwad. In Cheria Chirikandan v. Krishnan Nambiar 13 Ind. Cas. 391 Sundara Aiyar, J, and myself held that where a lease had been granted for five years and a Melcharth was granted after three years from the beginning of the first lease and two years before, the expiry of that ...
Tag this Judgment!Siddick Hajee Aboo Bucker Sait Vs. Ebrahim Hajee Aboo Bucker Sait and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Mad571; 70Ind.Cas.715
Kumaraswamy Sastri, J.1. The plaintiff sues for a declaration that he and the defendants are members of a joint Cutchi Memon family governed by the Ordinary Hindu Law of joint family and succession; that plaintiff as a member of such family is entitled to a partition of the family properties and asks for an account being taken of the family properties, and liabilities, and that plaintiff's fifth share be delivered to him. The plaintiff prays in the alternative for a declaration that the firm of Hajee Aboobucker and Sons became dissolved on the death of his father and for delivery to him of his sixth share as a partner.2. The plaint sets out that the plaintiff and defendants are Cutchi Memons and the sons of Hajee Aboobucker Rahimatulla Sait who died on the 10th of September 1918, that they and their deceased father were members of a joint Cutchi Memon family governed by the ordinary Hindu Law of joint family and succession, that they were carrying on a joint family business in Madras w...
Tag this Judgment!Jakkamreddi Seshadri Reddy and ors. Vs. Sir S. Subramania Iyer, K.C.i. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1920
Reported in: 56Ind.Cas.450
1. One of the plaintiffs in this suit, which was instituted under Section 92, Civil Procedure Code, was found to have no interest such as that required by this section. Thereupon two other men who had the requisite interest applied to the Collector and obtained sanction to institute this very suit. They were then added as third and fourth plaintiffs. Objection was, however, taken by the defendants to the effect that the suit was bad as laid and must be dismissed and that the requirements of Section 92 were not satisfied by adding the 3rd and 4th plaintiffs in the same suit, The learned Subordinate Judge heard the objection, discussed it and came to the conclusion that the suit was not properly instituted and dismissed it. There is a ruling of this Court in Ramayyangar v. Krishnayyangar 10 M. 185 , which could cover the present case, but it was argued that in the old Code no such clause as that in the sub paragraph 2 of Section 92 occurred in Section 539 and that the latter paragraph ma...
Tag this Judgment!Vemi Reddi Seshu Reddi Vs. Nallappa Reddi Raghava Reddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1920
Reported in: 57Ind.Cas.800
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. His claim was based on two alternative bases; one was that in 1903 he and his adoptive father, the 1st defendant, had effected a division of the joint family property under which division he obtained the whole of items Nos. 1 to 3 and portions of items Nos. 4 to 9 for his share and that the items NOS. 10 to 20 were left undivided to be enjoyed in common between himself and his father. He, therefore, claims a declaration of his title to items Nos. 1 to 3 and to defined portions of items Nos. 4 to 9 and also partition and separate possession of his share in items Nos. 10 to 20. That is the first basis of his claim. In the alternative, he says that 'should the Court come to the conclusion that the plaintiff and the 1st defendant are members of an undivided family, then the plaintiff claims in the alternative portions of the said properties,' that is, 'recovery of his half share of the properties' and soon. The items Nos. 1 to 20, I have...
Tag this Judgment!Bhyri Appamma and anr. Vs. Bhyri Chinnammi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1920
Reported in: 58Ind.Cas.511
1. The plaintiff (respondent) is the junior widow of her husband, who executed the Will Exhibit A (September 1913)providing (1) that his senior widow should adopt a suitable boy after his death and (2) that, if after such adoption, disagreement should arise between his junior wife (on the one side) and his senior wife and the adopted son (on the other side), the junior widow (present plaintiff) should be given absolutely 15 acres out of a larger area of land (there are certain other provisions in the Will unnecessary to detail for the decision of the present case).2. The senior widow (1st defendant) adopted the 2nd defendant on the nest day after her husband's death and according to the dictum of the Privy Council in Pratapsing Shivting v. Agarsinghji Raisinghji 50 Ind. Cas. 457 , he stands in as good a position as if he was the posthumous son of his father.3. It was not alleged or contended in the lower Courts (much less proved) that the senior widow at the time of the adoption caused...
Tag this Judgment!K. Krishna Menon Vs. K. Krishnan Nair and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-16-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Mad520; (1921)40MLJ338
Sadasiva Aiyar, J. 1. The principal second appeal is 468 of 1915 and the 2nd defendant is the appellant therein. The suit out of which that second appeal has arisen was brought by several of the junior members of a tarwad of which the 1st defendant is the Karnavan. The 2nd defendant is the melcharthdar of the plaint properties under a melcharth deed granted by the Karnavan. The 3rd defendant is the senior Anandravan. The plaint admits in paragraph S.A.O. 468 etc of 1915 that the 1st defendant is 'the Karnavan and Manager ' though it refers in paragraph 4 to a karar of 1906 under which the 3rd defendant was to carry on the management under the 1st defendant by virtue of a muktyamamah and was to collect the rents, michavarams &c; and incur expenses relating to the maintenance of the tavazhis and so on. The suit was brought for declaring that the melcharth obtained by the 2nd defendant, a junior member, from the 1st defendant on the 12th February 1907 in respect of the schedule properties...
Tag this Judgment!T. Rangaswami Reddi Vs. Konda Reddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-16-1920
Reported in: 61Ind.Cas.967
Seshagiri Aiyar, J.1. This is an application to revise the order of the Subordinate Judge of Vellore imposing a fine and directing the attachment of the property of a witness in a judicial proceeding. As, in my opinion, there has been a serious miscarriage of Justine, I shall shortly state the fasts before dealing with the question of law.2. The petitioner was summoned as a witness in Original Suit No. 42 of 1918 on the file of the Subordinate Judge. The summons was dated the 20th February 1919, and it direst-ed him to appear with the account relating to the sum of Rs. 4,600 credited to the name of Manickammal and the account relating to petty transactions adulated by her in his many accounts. He was asked to appear on the 25th of February. He did appear on that date and deposed as follows: of have accounts for money dealings. I was summoned by the defendant to produce my accounts. They related to five years ago. As my accountant is ill and they are lying in a lumber room, I could not ...
Tag this Judgment!Rangachariar Vs. P.R. Subramania Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-15-1920
Reported in: 58Ind.Cas.536
Olefield, J.1. The facts are that the respondent, decree-holder, filed an application for transfer of his decree and obtained an order for its transmission. He had not filed the copies required by Order XXI, Rule 6 and when he filed them on a sub sequent date, he also again applied orally for the transmission of the decree. The question is whether this oral application was one to take a step in aid of execution and time can be calculated from it.2. The lower Appellate Court held that it could. But, in my opinion, it misapprehended the circumstances and the authorities relied on. The material fact is that the transmission of the decree had been ordered and that order was not the less the only order, which was necessary, because the decree holder had for his own convenience been allowed to postpone filing the necessary papers, We have not been shown that any further application by him was necessary; in fact for all that appears, on his filing the papers that decree would have been transm...
Tag this Judgment!V.M. Naina Marakayer, Partner in V.M. Naina Marakayer and Co. Vs. A.R. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-15-1920
Reported in: 56Ind.Cas.604
1. The appellant's firm carries on business at Penang, and the plaintiff, who lives at Negapatam in this Presidency and does business there, sent several consignments of rice to the defendant for sale on commission. He now sues for recovering the price of the last two consignments, amounting to 200 lags of rice. The only question that requires decision on appeal is whether the Negapatam Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The contention of the appellant is that the defendant was not to make payment to the plaintiff at Negpatam but all that he was under obligation to do was to send Hundials from Penang to the address of the plaintiff and the plaintiff was to receive money due on those Hundials.2. The main basis of his defence rests on the decision of the House of Lords in Comber v. Leyland 79 L.T. 180. There the question was whether the English Court could issue writs out of jurisdiction under Order XI, rule 1 (e), with respect to a breach of contract on the part of the respon...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »