Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 36 (0.88 seconds)
Documents citing Ramaswami Aiyar And Anr. vs Vythinatha Aiyar And Ors. on 15 July, 1903

Bommidi Bayyan Naidu vs Bommidi Suryanarayana, Minor, By ... on 9 September, 1912

However, in so far as any principle in Arunachellam Chetty v. Meyyappa Chetty 21 M. 91 at p. 99 is directly inconsistent with the later Full Bench decision of the Madras High Court in Thrikaikat Madathil Raman v. Thiruthiyil Krishnan Nair 29 M. 153; 16 M.L.J. 48 [which approves of the decision in Ramaswami Aiyar v. Vythinatha Aiyar 26 M. 760 : 13 M.L.J. 448 but which does not refer to and do not expressly overrule Arunachellam Chetty v. Meyyappa Chetty 21 M. 91 at p. 99 though it expressly overruled only Rangasami Pillai v. Krishna Pillai 22 M. 259. I am not anxious that such directly overruled principle should be again reconsidered.
Madras High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 15 - Full Document

Thona Sina Naina Muhammad Rowther vs Mona Moona Abdul Rahman Rowther on 1 November, 1922

Reference must, however, be made to two of, the cases relied on by the learned Vakil for the respondent, Ramaswami Ayyar v. Vythinatha Ayyar 26 M. 760 at pp. 774, 775 : 13 M.L.J. 448, a decision of this Court and Saminatkan Chetty v. Palaniappa Chetty 26 Ind. Cas. 228 : 41 I.A. 142 : 18 C.W.N. 617 : 17 New Law Reports 56 : 83 L.J.P.C. 131 : (1914) A.C. 618 : 110 L.T. 913 (P.C.), a decision of the Privy Council in an appeal from Ceylon. In the former case it was ruled that the dismissal of a suit to redeem one mortgage did not bar a subsequent suit to redeem another mortgage on the same property. I agree with this decision, as the two suits are different from one another being based on two different contracts. The title or rural relationship in the two litigations are different as the terms of the two mortgages which regulate that relationship are different. But I do not wish to be understood as agreeing to all the observations in that judgment. That case is really an illustration of the rule that a plaintiff is not bound to combine different causes of action in the same suit and does not apply here.
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 17 - Full Document

Bammid1 Bayya Naidu vs Bammioi Paradesi Naidu And Anr. on 15 February, 1911

was distinguished on that ground in Ramaswami Ayyar v. Vythinatha Ayyar (1903) I.L.R. 36 Mad. 760. We have also to bear in mind that the Madras High Court and carbon decisions of the other High Courts recognize a distinction for this purpose between plaintiffs and defendants, though other decisions refuse to tnuke any such recognition. It is now well settled that ' a defendant in possession of an estate is bound to put forward all his pleas to resist the plaintiff's suit to recover possession. But in the case of a plaintiff this Court has, in a course of decisions, held that this principle is not applicable to a plaintiff, and he is not bound to sue on all his causes of action, that even if he fails on one title be may recover on another title (I.L.R. 26 Mad. 761). From this it follows that he is bound to put forward his whole case only with reference to his cause of action or title, on which he sues.
Madras High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Bommidi Bayyan Naidu vs Bommidi Suryanarayana, Minor By ... on 9 September, 1912

However, in so far as any principle in Anmachellam Chetty v. Meyyappa Chetty (1897) I.L.R. 21 M. 91 is directly inconsistent with the later Full Bench decision of the Madras High Court in Thrikaihat Madathil Raman v. Thiruthiyil Krishnen Nair (1903) I.L.R. 26 M. 91, (which approves of the decision in Ramaswami Ayyar v. Vythinatha Ayyar (1903) I.L.R. 26 M. 760, but which does not refer to and does not expressly overrule Arunachellam Chetty v. Meyyappa Chetty (1897) I.L.R. 21 M. 91) though it expressly overruled only Rangasami Pillai v. Krishna Pillai (1898) I.L.R. 22 M. 259, I am not anxious that such directly overruled principle should be again reconsidered.
Madras High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mangalathammal vs Veerappa Goundan on 5 December, 1918

Bat there could be nothing of this kind in the present case, and I do not think there is anything unreasonable in holding that the plaintiff in the former suit ought to have relied upon his descent from the deceased's sister as well as upon the adoption, so that if proof of the adoption failed, he might still establish his right as reversioner on the ground of this descent and prevent further litigation regarding it. The judgments of the learned Judges who made the reference do not expressly refer to Section 42 of the Civil Procedure Code, and although Ramaswami Ayyar v. Vythinatha Ayyar 26 M.760 : 13 M.L.J. 448 is cited, it is, I think, possible that the attention of the learned Judges was not specially directed to the observations as to the scope of Section 42 which are to be found in different parts of a very lengthy-judgment. If I had been obliged to form a conclusion upon the earlier authorities, and apart from Section 42, 1 should have found the task one of great difficulty." Section 42 of the old Civil Procedure Code corresponds to the present Order II, Rule 1.
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Somalinga L. Rengier And Ors. vs Ramia Santhu And Anr. on 19 September, 1929

4. The facts of the present case seem to be on all fours with the facts of the case in Ramaswami Ayyar v. Vythinatha Ayyar [1903] 26 Mad. 760. In that case, the first suit was brought for the redemption of a mortgage of 1856. The defendants denied the truth of that mortgage setting up another mortgage of 1853 for a portion of the suit properties. That suit was dismissed on the ground that the mortgage sued on was not proved and was in fact fictitious. In the second appeal preferred to the High Court, it was urged that a decree might be given for redemption at least on the footing of the mortgage of 1853 set up by the defendants; but the High Court declined to grant such relief, one of the reasons for the refusal being, that the plaintiff not having sued in the alternative on that mortgage, no issue could be raised in respect of it in that suit. Thereupon, a second suit was brought for redeeming the mortgage of 1853, which was set up by the defendants in the previous suit. The plea of res judicata and the bar under Section 43 of the old Civil P.C., were raised. There is an exhaustive discussion of the case law in that decision and the real test according to the opinion of the learned Judges is, whether the cause of action or transaction, on which the two suits are based is the same, and not whether the transaction is sought to be established indifferent modes or by different means. It is distinctly pointed out that a plaintiff is bound to bring before the Court all the grounds of attack available to him with reference to the title which is made the ground of action, but he is not bound to exhaust in one suit all the different causes of action which he may have at the date of that suit in respect of the property. If the plaintiff who sought to redeem a specific mortgage failed in that suit, because the mortgage was not proved, he was not thereby precluded from seeking to redeem the same property from another specific mortgage.
Madras High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next