Chennai Court February 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.
Subramania Iyer and ors. Vs. Dharmambal Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1920
Reported in: 57Ind.Cas.656
Abdur Rahim, C.J.1. The lower Court has in my opinion, gone wrong with reference to the second question whether the defendants are entitled to the set-off claimed. The claim of set-off arose out of the same partition deed under which the plaintiff based her claim. According to that document, if any of the sharers was compelled to pay a common debt, he would be entitled to recover the share due from the other members of the family. The plaintiff, on the basis of this provision, recovered what was her share of the decree debt payable by the defendants. The defendants alleged that they had paid certain debts and that the plaintiff was liable for half the share of those debts. The Subordinate Judge refused to try this question. It seems to me that Rule 6 of Order VIII of the Civil Procedure Code applies and that he was wrong in refusing to investigate the claim of set-off. The Court has no option, so far as I can see, to refuse to adjudicate on a claim to setoff if such claim falls within ...
Muthu Hengsu Vs. Netravathi Naiksavi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-1920
Reported in: 58Ind.Cas.383
1. We agree with the find, logs of the lower Appellate Court except as to the profits which accorder before the assignment of 20th July 1915. Section 8 of the Transfer of Property Act provides that on a transfer of property, the legal incidents of the transferor's interest, which are to pass, shall include the rents and profits due after the transfer. In Kocharla Seetamma v. Pillala Venkatarammanayya 21 lnd Cas. 387 it was held that a transfer of a claim to pass profits was invalid: and this is in accordance with English authority: Defrres v. Milie (1918) 1 Ch. D 98 .2. We must, therefore, allow the appeal, reduce the amount decreed by Rs. 62, and confirm the decree in other respects. Parties will pay: and receive proportionate costs throughout....
Ghulam Ghouse Khan Saib Vs. Jannia Alias Ghulam Ghouse Khan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-1920
Reported in: 58Ind.Cas.788
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff who brought the suit for a declaration that he is the Mutawalli of a mosque and is entitled to draw the Yeomiah allowance received by the defendant, a rival claimant, in 1914. It is conduced that, as far as the declaration chat he is the Mutawalli is concerned, the suit is barred, but it is alleged that that part of the action which relates to the Yeomiah allowance and which the learned Judge has held to be barred ' id not in fact barred because it is said that Article 131 of the Limitation Act which relates to suits relating to periodical recurring rights covers this case. It appears to us that that Article is not applicable at all. What the plaintiff claims, apart altogether from the claim for a declaration that be is the Mutawalli, is that he is perpetually entitled to receive all the Yeomiah allowances that ever accrued. It seems to us that that is not a periodical recurring right but a perpetual right. The mere fast that sums of money are paid...
Srinivasa Aiyangar and anr. Vs. Narayana Aiyangar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-1920
Reported in: 56Ind.Cas.608
1. This is a suit by a certain members of a Hindu family against others for an injunction. The prior proceedings relied on as enabling the plaintiffs to sustain the suit may be shortly stated. Plaintiffs as representing one branch of the family sued (he defendants representing the other branch for partition. There were minors in both the branches. There was a reference to arbitration pending the suit. On the award of the arbitrators, a decree was passed. Vide Exhibit A series. The material portion of the decree, so far as this suit is concerned, gives the plaintiffs possession of all the family properties for 6 years from July 1904, and directs that at the end of that period the defendants shall be entitled to recover their half share either amicably or through Court. Plaintiffs did not give possession amicably and according to the plaint they are in sole possession even now. Defendants attempted to take possession. There were proceedings under Chapter XII of the Criminal Procedure Cod...
Mokshagunam Subramania Aiyar Vs. S.V. Ramakrishna Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1920
Reported in: AIR1922Mad335; (1922)42MLJ426
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. As soon as the adjudication was made against Kasipathi Aiyar he ceased to be the owner of the equity of redemption on 29th February 1916 as his property vested at once either in the court or in the Receiver as the case may be (Section 16 Clause 2(a) of the Provincial Insolvency Act (III of 1907). The decree for sale obtained in July 1916 in a suit in which a person was impleaded as defendant who had no right whatever in the property ordered to be sold is a nullity so far as the true owner (not made a party to that suit) is concerned, unless the case is governed by the doctrine of lispendens which cannot affect the Court or the Receiver. The sale held in execution of such a futile decree stands in no better footing than the decree itself.2. The appellants defence was therefore rightly rejected by the Lower Appellate court and this Second Appeal fails with costs payable by the appellant.Spencer, J.3. The appellant sold a house to one Kasipathy Aiyar on June 12th 1914...
Sree Rajah Bollapragada Venkata Lakshmamma Garu Vs. Menda Seetayya and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1920
Reported in: (1920)39MLJ30
Sadsiva Aiyar, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. In paragraph 3 of the plaint, it is said that plaintiff was the proprietor of the village Guttinadevi. The contesting 1st defendant says in paragraph 7 of the written statement that the plaintiff's right as the proprietor of this village had been sold in court auction to Nyapathi Subba Row and therefore the plaintiff could not claim prior charge for any rent due to him as he does in the plaint. Though this question was not made the subject of any issue, it seems not to have been denied that the property had been sold away to Nyapathi Subba Row. But there seems to have been a question before the lower appellate court as to whether the purchase was prior to the bringing of the summary suit No. 219 of 1913 by the plaintiff in the revenue court against the 2nd defendant for rent or subsequently to that suit. Whether it was prior or subequent to it, it has been held by the privy Council in a case in Forbes v Maharaja Bahadnr Singh, I.L.R (...
Venkata Lakshmamma Garu Vs. Seetayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1920
Reported in: (1920)ILR43Mad786
Sadasiva Ayyar, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. In paragraph 3 of the plaint it is said that plaintiff was the proprietor of the village of Guttinadevi. The contesting first defendant says, in paragraph 7 of the written statement, that the plaintiff's right as the proprietor of this village had been sold in Court auction to Nyapathi Subba Rao and therefore the plaintiff could not claim prior charge for any rent due to him, as he does in the plaint. Though the question was not made the subject of any issue, it seems not to have been denied that the property had been sold to Nyapathi Subba Rao. But there seems to have been a question before the lower Appellate Court as to whether the purchase was prior to the bringing of the summary suit No. 219 of 1913 by the plaintiff in the Revenue Court against the second defendant for rent or subsequent, to that suit. Whether it was prior or subsequent to it, it has been held by the Privy Council in Forbes v. Maharaj Bahadur Singh I.L.R.(1914) ...
Sree Raja Bollapragada Venkata Lakshmana Garu Vs. Nenda Seetayya and a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1920
Reported in: 57Ind.Cas.764
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. In paragraph 3 of the plaint it is said that the plaintiff was the proprietor of the village of Guttinadevi. The contesting 1st defendant says in paragraph 7 of the written statement that the plaintiff's right as the proprietor of the village had been sold in Court auction to Nyapathi Subba Rao and, therefore, the plaintiff could not claim prior charge for any rent due to him as he does in the plaint. Though this question was not made the subject of any issue, it seems not to have been denied that the property had been sold away to Nyapathi Subba Rao. But there seems to have been a question before the lower Appellate Court as to whether the purchase was prior to the bringing of the Summary Suit No. 219 of 1913 by the plaintiff in the Revenue Court against the 2nd defendant for rent or subsequent to that suit. Whether it was prior or subsequent to it, it has been held by the Privy Council in a case in Forbes v. Maharaja Bahadur Singh ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›