Chennai Court January 1920 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.
Muthu Pillai and ors. Vs. Veda Vysa Chariar (Deceased) and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-15-1920
Reported in: 60Ind.Cas.397
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The defendants Nos. 1 to 4 are the appellants. The suit was brought for the redemption of plaint lands alleged to have been mortgaged with possession by the plaintiff's predecessor-in-title in March 1875 for Rs. 20. The suit was brought on the 14th December 1913.2. In a previous suit Original Suit No. 211 of 1908, the present plaintiff sued the same defendants Nos. 1 to 4 in ejectment on the al legation that the defendants trespassed upon the land sometime in 1900. The defendants contended that the plaintiff's predecessor-in-title and the plaintiff were never owners and they set up title in themselves as usufructuary mortgagees from a third person whom they set up as owner. The District Munsif found in that suit that the mortgagor of the defendants had the right in the property under the plaintiff's predecessor-in-title and though the defendants' case that their mortgagor was the owner was false they could resist the plaintiff's claim to eject them as trespassers a...
Venkata Reddi and ors. Vs. Kuppu Reddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-15-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Mad553; 61Ind.Cas.762
John Wallis, C.J.1. This is an appeal from the degree of the Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore in a suit brought by the plaintiff after attaining majority to question the terms of a partition deed, Exhibit U, entered into in 1906. It has been held already in this suit that the partition-deed was not binding en the minor in so far as it allotted an extra share as Jeshta Bagham to the senior co-parcener.2. The questions argued before us to day are merely questions of limitation. The first question argued was, whether, having regard to the fast that the minor's mother was a party together with three adult co-parceners to this deed providing for partition according to the shares I have mentioned, the suit is barred under Article 41 as a suit by a ward who has attained majority to set aside a transfer of property by his guardian. This appears to me to be altogether straining the language of this Article. In the first plane, it is well settled and I need only refer to the decision of the Privy...
Ramaswami Pillai Vs. Badra Nayakkan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-1920
Reported in: (1920)38MLJ322
1. This is a petition to revise the order of the District Judge of Ramnad refusing to allow the petitioner to conduct his appeal. His allegation was that his vakil has improperly withdrawn the appeal. The reasons given by the District Judge do not commend themselves to me. None the less I would have had no jurisdiction to go into this matter but for the fact that the District Judge ends his order by saying that 'the petition does not lie' thereby declining jurisdiction to hear the petition. The allegations contained in the affidavit of the petitioner certainly require investigation. Without asking the vakil concerned for an explanation and without taking further evidence in the case the District Judge disposed of the application on two grounds both of which are unsustainable. The first ground is that the vakalat authorised the vakil to compromise and therefore the vakil was competent to withdraw the appeal. He is clearly wrong here. The power to compromise does not involve a power to w...
Ramasawmi Pillai Vs. Badra Nayakar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-1920
Reported in: 55Ind.Cas.267
Seshagiri Aiyar, J.1. This is a petition to revise the order of the District Judge of Ramnad refusing to allow the petitioner to conduct his appeal. His allegation was that his Vakil had improperly withdrawn the appeal. The reasons given by the District Judge do not commend themselves to me. Nonetheless I would have had no jurisdiction to go into the matter but for the fact that the District Judge ends his order by saying that 'the petition does not lie,' thereby declining jurisdiction to hear the petition. The allegations contained in the affidavit of the petitioner certainly require investigation. Without asking the Vakil concerned for an explanation and without taking further evidence in the case, the District Judge disposed of the application on two grounds both of which are unsustainable. The 1st ground is that the Vakalath authorised the Vakil to compromise and, therefore, the Vakil was competent to withdraw the appeal. He is clearly wrong hers. The power to compromise does not i...
Yalla Krishnamma Vs. Kotipalli Mali
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-1920
Reported in: (1920)38MLJ467
1. The short point in the Second Appeal is whether a plaintiff who has not paid the purchase-money of a property which has been conveyed to him can maintain a suit for possession without paying for it or submitting to a decree for payment or a condition attached to the decree as to the purchase-money which he had agreed to pay. No doubt it seems very reasonable that a man who comes to enforce his right against the property should be expected to do what is just, and pay the price. But we think that there is no doubt whatever that the law in this country, following the English law, is otherwise. The two benches of this Court in Subrahmania Iyer v. Poovan I.L.R.(1904) Mad. 28 and in Rama Aiyar v. Vanamamalai Aiyar (1914) I.C. 336 have held that in such cases as the present, the vendee can be compelled to pay the purchase money in extinction of the lien of the vendor before he gets a decree for possession. That must proceed on two assumptions.2. The first is that the vendor is entitled to ...
S.V.R. Veerappa Chetty Vs. I.N.K.R. Muthuraman Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-1920
Reported in: 58Ind.Cas.508
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. I think that the hundi sued on is illegal, as contravening Section 26 of the Indian Paper Currency Act Nachimuthu Chetty v. Andiappa Pillai 42 Ind. Cas. 706 Spencer and Krishnar, JJ.. The Subordinate Judge's view that a loan becomes a deposit with the debtor 'after the loan become pay. able by the expiry of the time provided in the document of loan' and if the debtor happened to be a banker, the proviso to Section 26 of the Paper Currency Act will apply, cannot be accepted as sound.2. The lower Appellate Court's decree dismissing the suit must, therefore, be confirmed on the above ground which was the ground on which the District Munsif properly dismissed it.3. It is unnecessary, under these circumstances, to give a final opinion on the question whether the particular ground on which the lower Appellate Court dismissed the suit, namely, that plaintiff could not sue on the hundi because he had entered the name of Periannan Chetty on it and had not got Periannan Chet...
Yella Krishnamma Vs. Kotipalle Mali
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-1920
Reported in: 56Ind.Cas.530
1. The short point in this second appeal is whether a plaintiff, who has not paid the purchase money of a property which has been conveyed to him, can maintain a suit for possession without paying for it or submitting to a decree for payment or a condition attached to the decree as to the purchase money which he had agreed to pay. No doubt it seems very reasonable that a man who comes to enforce his right against the property should be expected to do what is just and pay the price. But we think that there is no doubt whatever that the law in this country, following the English Law, is otherwise. Two Benches of this Court in Subramania Aiyar v. Poovan 27 M. 28 and in Rama Aiyar v. Vanamarnalai Aiyar 27 Ind. Cas. 336 have held that, in such cases as the present, the vendee can be compelled to pay the purchase money in extinction of the lien of the vendor before he gets a decree for possession. That mutt proceed on two assumptions. The first is that the vendor is entitled to a possessory ...
Narayanan Chetty and ors. Vs. K.N.P.R. Suppiah Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1920
Reported in: 58Ind.Cas.639; (1920)38MLJ437
Wallis, C.J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of the Temporary Subordinate Judge of Sivaganga in a suit brought by the next reversioner of the deceased Raman Chetty to recover from the defendants, who are members of a Nattukottai Chetty trading family, a certain sum which they alleged to have been deposited after Raman Chetty's death by Raman Chetty's uncles as forming part of the estate. The Subordinate Judge has decreed the suit in part.2. The first point taken by Mr. Krishnaswami Aiyar for the defendants is that although the plaintiff as reversioner may be entitled to recover the principal, he is not entitled to recover the interest which accrued due during the lifetime of the widow as that formed part of her estate and was descendible to her heirs in the absence of any intention having been manifested on her part to incorporate it with the estate of her deceased husband. The evidence is that after her husband's death his uncles deposited the money with another firm of Nattukot...
Vastad Mushkir Saib Vs. Karnam Chowdappa and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-04-1920
Reported in: (1921)40MLJ528
Sadasiva Iyer, J.1. I agree with the decision in Subba Lakshnanna v. Venkatarayudu I.L.R.(1908) M. 318 to this extent that the same Appellate Court cannot pronounce (except when it is moved by an application for review) a different opinion on a relevant question of law from that which it held in a previous stage of the same case and on which earlier opinion, it based its decision remanding the suit to the lower court.2. The other dictum laid down in Subba Lakshnanna v. Venkatarayudu I.L.R. (1908) M. 318 namely, that the High Court sitting on further appeal from the second decision of the remanding Court could not consider the correctness of that opinion when it comes before it in the same case because the remand order itself had not been set aside by appeal or otherwise, has been doubted in Seshu Gurukkal v. Somasundara MudaVar (1909) 7 M.L.T. 93 but it is unnecessary to consider that other dictum for the decision of this second appeal.3. If the decision of this Court on the former occ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›