Chennai Court January 1882 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.
John Francis Pereira Vs. Helen Charlotte Pereira and Eugene Bonjour
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR5Mad118
1. We consider the evidence sufficient to show that the respondent committed adultery with the co-respondent in October 1879; that the petitioner received reasonably probable information respecting the respondent's misconduct and, by continuing co-habitation, condoned it--Dillon v. Dillon 3 Curteis 112; but that the subsequent misconduct of the respondent shown by the occurrences of January 1880, though falling short of, but tending to, adultery, revived the condoned adultery--Winscom v. Winscom and Plowden 3 Sw. & Tr. 380 and that the petitioner is consequently entitled to a decree.2. We confirm the decree dissolving the marriage with costs to be paid by the co-respondent....
Uramkumarath Kannan Nayar Vs. Uramkumarath Tenju Nayar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR5Mad1
Innes and Muttusami Ayyar, JJ.1. It is contended that plaintiff is barred under Section 43 of the Code of Civil Procedure as regards items 5-9, and as regards items 1-4, by Section 13.2. The Suit 928 of 1878 was terminated by a karar to which first defendant was not a party. First defendant, however, though not a party to the karar, was a party to a petition to the Court saying that he had surrendered the lands in pursuance of the karar, and asking the Court to draw up a decree dismissing the suit. 3. Suit 912 of 1879 was brought by plaintiff to enforce the terms of the karar, as 1st defendant, though in the petition he had stated that he had surrendered the lands, had not actually done so, but persisted in retaining them. First defendant, however, demurred to this suit, saying that he was not a party to the karar.4. The plaintiff then withdrew the suit with permission to bring a fresh suit on. his general rights as Karnavan to recover the property from first defendant.5. He then insti...
Ramasami Vs. Ramasami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR5Mad115
1. Plaintiff sued to recover from defendant certain specified land in the village of Kiluveli of Kiliyanur which is equal to one-sixth of the land defendant holds. He said that on 21st November 1861 he entered into a deed of exchange with defendant whereby he was to get one-fourth of the four karais defendant then held in the village of Kiluveli of Kiliyanur, and defendant some lands of plaintiff' in another village; that for convenience sake they had arranged that plaintiff and defendant should enjoy the land jointly, but share the produce in the proportions due to each; and that they had been acting on this arrangement till recently when defendant carried off the produce of the two years Dhatu and lswara; and that hence an apportionment of the lands became necessary. He further said that since the exchange effected in 1861 defendant had acquired two more karais of land in the same village and that plaintiff's share was therefore one-sixth. Defen-dant in his written statement admitted...
Velliyammal and ors. Vs. Kaisha Chetti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR5Mad61
Innes, J.1. In the Petition 357 of 1879 we were asked to review our decision in Second Appeal 558 of 1878, with reference to the Full. Bench rulings of the High Court in Second Appeals 412 of 1879, and 703, 704, and 705 of 1878, I.L.R. 4 Mad. 1. 73.2. The suit was a partition suit in which plaintiff, while seeking his share in certain family property in possession of the family, also prayed for a share in certain other property that had been purchased in execution of a decree against his father and was in possession of the purchaser.3. As we understand the Full Bench rulings, it was held by the majority of the Court that the decision of the Privy Council in Girdharee Lall v. Kantoo Lall and Girdharee Lall v. Muddun Thakoor L.R. 1 IndAp 321 is binding on this Court, and that, where there has been a decree against the father for debt, and the right, title, and interest of the father in ancestral property has been sold under the decree, and the purchaser has been placed in, possession of ...
Sriman Sadagopa, Sri Sadagopa Edintara Maha Desika Swamiar Vs. Jamuna ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR5Mad54
Innes, J.1. In 1862, one Virasami Nayudu instituted a suit on the Equity Side of the late Supreme Court of Madras for a partition of the family property held jointly by him and others.2. An injunction issued to Venkatasami Nayudu, his brother, inhibiting him from intermeddling with the property pending the suit.3. On the 12th May 1863, the injunction was continued. By the decree the master was directed to sell the property and distribute the proceeds.4. On the 7th July 1866, the property was sold, and one Arunachala Mudali became the purchaser on behalf (as is alleged) of one Virji Lal. The latter left a widow Devaki Bhai and a daughter Jamuna Bhai. Arunachala left a will appointing Shanmuga Mudali and Ekambaram Mudali his executors. On the 24th March 1873, they conveyed the property purchased by Arunachala at the Court-sale to the widow of Virji Lal, Devaki Bhai. The latter died in 1875, leaving a will in which she appointed the plaintiffs as her executrixes; and the suit arises out o...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›