Chennai Court August 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.
Kuppuswami Mudali Vs. B. Subba Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1920
Reported in: 62Ind.Cas.501
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The plaintiff (appellant) brought the suit, out of which this second appeal has arisen, to set aside the attachment of his holding effected by his landlord, the defendant, for recovery of arrears of rent for Fasli 1325. The only question is whether the pattah tendered is proper, having regard to the fact that it contained a term that the landlord is entitled to charge fasli jasthi, for the second and third crops, though not raised by the landlord's water. If that question is res judicata by the decision in a former suit between these same parties as regards the same holding in S.S. No. 1123 of 1914, the question has to be answered in the negative.2. In that former suit (which was also for setting aside the attachment of the holding for arrears of rent due for Fasli 1323) the landlord set up two defences, namely, that the tenant having raised the second and third crops with the landlord's water was liable to pay fasli jasthi and (2) that even if he did it with the a...
ivatury Atchamma Vs. Ivatury Bapiah and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Mad24; 60Ind.Cas.583; (1921)40MLJ83
Wallis, C.J.1. In this case the estate of the last male owner descended to his widow and on her death a in 1877 to their four surviving daughters. According to the law in this part of India they inherited jointly a woman's estate in their father's property determinable on the death of the last survivor when the succession would devolve on the next heir of their father the last male owner. Sundaramma, one of the four daughters, excluded and held adversely to her three sisters, and, on the expiration of the statutory period of twelve years, their right of suit became barred and their rights in the property were extinguished under Section 28 of the Limitation Act. The present plaintiff, one of the excluded sisters survived Sundaramma who died in 1905 and instituted within 12 years the present suit in which she sought to recover the estate by the right of survivorship from Sundaramma's alienees and her son, the seventh defendant, who is at once heir to his mother's separate estate and the ...
Empire of India Life Assurance Co. Limited Vs. S. Nanu Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-1920
Reported in: 60Ind.Cas.69; (1920)39MLJ577
Napier, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit by one S. Nanu Aiyar against the Empire of India Life Assurance Co., Ltd. of Bombay. The plaintiff alleges that he was once an agent of the Company and claims a declaration and an account in respect of all premia paid by policy-holders in respect of all policies procured by the plaintiff after the termination of the plaintiff's services as' agent. The plaintiff does not allege that he was wrongfully dismissed or claim damages for wrongful dismissal. The lower appellate court has found that he was an agent employed by the Company and was properly dismissed for misconduct but on the terms of his engagement as found by itself, has held that the plaintiff is entitled to premia on the original policies obtained through his efforts for three years prior to the suit. I accept the finding as to the agency, but the important question remains whether the lower appellate court has based its finding as to the terms of engagement on proper materi...
Atchamma Vs. Papiah and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-1920
Reported in: (1921)ILR44Mad131
John Wallis, C.J.1. In this case the estate of the last male owner descended to his widow and on her death in 1877 to their four surviving daughters. According to the law in this part of India they inherited jointly a woman's estate in their father's property determinable on the death of the last survivor when the succession would devolve on the then next heir of their father, the last male owner. Sundaramma, one of the four daughters, excluded and held adversely to her three sisters and, on the expiration of the statutory period of twelve years, their rights of suit became barred and their rights in the property were extinguished, under Section 28 of the Limitation Act, IX of 1908. The present plaintiff, one of the excluded sisters, survived Sundaramma who died in 1905 and instituted within twelve years the present suit in which she sought to recover the estate by right of survivorship from Sundaramma's allienees and her son, the seventh defendant, who is at once heir to his mother's ...
Mahomed Abdul Kadir Markayar Minor by Guardian Mahomed Kasim Markayar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-1920
Reported in: 60Ind.Cas.267
Oldfield, J.1. The first question raised in this appeal is whether the plaintiffs, mortgagors, are entitled to execute their decree, one for redemption, by asking the Court to sell the mortgaged property. It is prima facie concluded in their favour by Govinda Taragan v. Veeran 12 Ind. Cas. 432, since we have been shown no case in which that decision has been doubted, and one Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No, 99 of 1915, in which it has been followed, and since Mr. Anantha Krishna Iyer for defendants declined to argue against its correctness. He has relied only on the fact that the decree provides for a sale at the instance only of the mortgagee, But that appears to have been the case also in the decision referred to. This objection to the order under appeal must, therefore, be disallowed.2. The more important contention before us is, however, that the plaintiff's application for execution was made too late; and certainly it was so, unless time ran, as they contend, from the date, 10th Feb...
Kayarat Kizhakkethil Raru Nair Vs. Thirunarayanapuram Uralan Karutheda ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-1920
Reported in: 61Ind.Cas.510
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The first defendant is the appellant before us. The suit was brought by one of the two Uralans of a Devaswom to redeem a Kanom mortgage granted in December 1903. The other Uralan is the 64th defendant, who was not non-suited before this suit was brought and was not even added as a party, defendant till the first defendant raised, among others, the objection that the suit was bad for non--joinder of the plaintiff's co--Uralan.2. The first question, therefore, for consideration is, whether one of two Uralans is entitled to redeem a Kanom without consulting the other Uralan. The general rule embodied in Section 48 of the Trusts Act is not disputed that all the trustees should act together in conducting the business of the trust. But the lower Courts rely on the Full Bench case in Karattole Edamana v. Unni Kannan 26 M. 649, which decided that, so far as the redemption of a mortgage is concerned, the wide language of Section 91 of the Transfer of Property Act entitled o...
Sri Rajah Ravu Venkata Kumaramahipati Surya Rao Bahadur Garu, Rajah of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1920
Reported in: (1921)40MLJ18
John Wallis, KT., C.J.1. This is an appeal by the 1st defendant from a decree of the Temporary Subordinate Judge of Cocanada in a suit brought by the plaintiff to recover from the 1st defendant money payable for work and labour done under a building contract. One of the points argued before us relates to the price with which the plaintiff has been charged in account with the 1st defendant for timber supplied by the latter for the building. The 1st defendant claimed an allowance for the timber supplied by. him at the rate of Rs. 3 a cubic foot. The evidence is not very strong on either side and we are not prepared to interfere with the finding of the subordinate Judge in paragraph 35 of his judgment in favour of the lower figure.2. The next objection is to the disallowance of the 1st defendant's claim for Rs. 1081-11-10 for stone and sand supplied by the 1st defendant for the purpose of the building. The 1st defendant admittedly stored stone and sand on the premises for the purposes of ...
Muthu Reddi Vs. Chinnaswami Reddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1920
Reported in: (1920)39MLJ486
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The second defendant is the appellant. The facts are shortly as follows :--The first plaintiff obtained a personal decree against the 1st defendant, the brother of the second defendant for a sum of 'money due to the plaintiff by both the first and second defendants who carried on a family business, the debt sued on being a family debt due by both the defendants. He obtained a contested decree against the 1st defendant for the amount, and he also obtained an ex parte decree in the same suit against the 2nd defendant to the extent of the family property in the 2nd defendant's hands. This decree (containing two reliefs) was assigned by the first plaintiff to the 2nd plaintiff and the 2nd plaintiff was recognized by the court (on an application in execution) as the transferee decree-holder. But on that same date, on the 2nd defendant's application, the decree so far as it was passed ex parte against him was set aside and the case was posted for re-trial so far as the 2...
Kunhimai Kutty Beari and anr. Vs. Halekote Alsabi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Mad636; 62Ind.Cas.723
1. The question of limitation relates to the construction of a clause in Exhibit A, the deed of usufructuary mortgage. That clause is in these words: 'Till the above stated vaida (time), you shall take possession, make improvements and enjoy and also pay the thirva due, in respect of this property, Wang No. 81.' It is argued that we must hold that the passage contains a covenant to pay and that, therefore, the mortgagee was entitled to rely on that covenant and that this suit is in time, as it was filed within 12 years of the breach of the covenant. But we must cay that it is difficult to find any covenant to pay in this Clause What the mortgagor says is that the mortgagee is to be in possession and enjoyment of the land for 15 years, and, after the expiry of the 15 years, if he wishes to get back his land, he will pay the amount due to the mortgagee. There is no unqualified promise to pay. It is an option given to the mortgagor, in case he wanted to do so, to re-pay the mortgage amoun...
Polepeddi Venkatasivayya, Being Minor by Next Friend and Maternal Uncl ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1920
Reported in: 60Ind.Cas.98; (1920)39MLJ621
1. We think the Subordinate Judge was right in holding that the suit was barred under Article 118 of the Indian Limitation Act, IX of 1908. It is now settled by the Full Bench decision in Varamma v. Gopala Dasayya 35 M.L.J. 57 (F.B.) that a suit for declaration that an adoption is invalid, is a representative suit which the nearest reversioner is entitled to bring on behalf of the whole body of reversioners born and unborn within the period prescribed in the article. Time begins to run from the time the adoption becomes known to the plaintiff, and here the adoption came to the knowledge of the next reversioners as soon as it took place in 1902. Time therefore began to run against the whole body of reversioners from that date, and the present suit not having been brought within six years, is barred. It is said that the nearest reversioner did not bring the suit because he had been bribed to give his consent to the adoption. That might have been a good reason for allowing another reversi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »