Chennai Court March 1884 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds — plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed — log in to pick up where you left off.
Narayani and 6 ors. Vs. Govinda
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1884
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad352
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. There is no authority for the practice which has been recently introduced in the Malabar Courts for awarding one moiety of the assets of the tarwad to the karnavan.2. The tarwad is a family of which the karnavan is the manager, and, although as a senior member he enjoys special consideration, he has no higher claim in the enjoyment of the income than any other member of the family. He has a right to expend, as he pleases, for the common benefit of all. Amongst other expenditure, it devolves on him to see to the performance of the ceremonies and to the upkeep of the house and other family properties, and, when it becomes necessary, to ascertain what is a proper allowance for members who do not reside in the tarwad house. Allowance must, no doubt, be made for the charges which especially devolve on the karnavan. In some cases, it may be necessary to allow him to retain more, in others less than one moiety of the net profits, but in each case the allowance t...
In Re: Reference from the Board of Revenue Under Section 46 of the Ind ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1884
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad349
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. The Court is of opinion that the instrument is not a settlement within the meaning of the Act but a gift.2. The definition of the term settlement suggests the creation of separate interest in favour of several persons who may have a legal or moral claim on the settlor or for whom he may desire to make a provision. It would not necessarily embrace the whole property of the settlor. In the present case there is an unqualified and absolute gift to two persons jointly, and although the result must be that a provision is made for them, it does not appear that it was the object of the gift....
Koduthi Vs. Madu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1884
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad321
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. The Judge finds, as a question of fact, that by custom among the Lingait Goundans of the Wynaad a woman who, after her first husband's death, contracts what is known as an odaveli marriage with another husband, ceases to inherit her husband's estate. There is evidence to warrant this finding and we cannot interfere with it.2. The petition is dismissed....
Bhujanga Rau Vs. Ramayamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1884
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad387
1. We are not prepared to dissent from the opinion of the District Judge that the terms putra poutra paryantam were--what are known to the English law as words of purchase and not words of limitation--words indicating that the estate conferred on the widow was an absolute estate and not a mere life estate with a limitation over. The question then arises whether- a widow has power to alienate land given to her as stridhanam. It is consistent with the disinclination of Hindu lawyers to the sale or alienation of landed estate that a restriction should be imposed on widows in respect of immoveable property received from their husbands. The text of Narada, "What has been given by an affectionate husband to his wife she may consume as she pleases when he is dead, or may give it away except the immoveable property," afforded occasion to the authors of the Dayabhaga (Ch. IV, Section 1, pl. 23) and the Vyavaharamayukha (Ch. IV, Section 10, Section 9) to declare expressly that a woman may dispos...
Arunachala Vs. Ayyavu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1884
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad318
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. The appellant brought this suit upon a bond which the respondents had executed in his favour. As against the second respondent both the lower Courts have decreed the claim, and he has preferred no second appeal. The first respondent, however, pleaded his discharge as an insolvent in answer to the claim, and the question for decision is whether the Judge is right in accepting this plea and dismissing the suit as against him.2. The first respondent was arrested at the instance of another creditor in execution of the decree in Small Cause 1344 of 1878 on the file of the Subordinate Court at Negapatam. Thereupon he applied under Section 344 of the Code of Civil Procedure to be declared an insolvent, setting forth, in a schedule which he annexed to his application, the appellant's name as a creditor, and the debt now in suit among the pecuniary claims against him. But none of his creditors, including the appellant, appeared either to oppose the application und...
Narayanan and anr. Vs. Kannan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-1884
Reported in: (1885)ILR7Mad315
1. It is not disputed that the property in this case was at the disposal of the donor, that he could deal with it at his pleasure as he could have dealt with it had it been his self-acquisition. By the gift, then, it passed to the donees absolutely, or would have so passed but for the restriction in the deed of gift, the effect of which was no doubt intended to be, as is found by the Subordinate Judge, 'that the estate should be impartible, and be held by the donees as joint family estate descendible to their heirs in the female line.' The question is, whether the donor had power to create such an estate so as to prevent the execution creditor of one of the donees--the first defendant--from proceeding in execution against the share of that defendant. This the creditor certainly could do but for the conditions attempted to be imposed, under which the estate would pass subject to the peculiar incidents of tarwad property. It has been held that' a Hindu, the possessor of property which he...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›