Chennai Court February 1892 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.
Thandavan and anr. Vs. Valliamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1892
Reported in: (1892)ILR15Mad336
Subramanya Ayyar, J.1. One Paramasivan Chetti died on the 27th December 1887, leaving him surviving his divided brother, the first plaintiff, his widow, the first defendant, and his daughter, the second defendant. The plaintiffs, Nos. 2 and 4, are the sons of the first plaintiff, who died after the institution of the suit.2. The case for the plaintiffs is that the late first plaintiff was entitled, according to the custom of the caste, to succeed, to the exclusion of the first defendant, to the properties left by Paramasivan Chetti; that, on his death, disputes arose between the late first plaintiff, and the first defendant respecting his properties; that, through the mediation of certain persons, the disputes were settled and the terms of the settlement were embodied in an agreement executed between the first plaintiff and the first and second defendants on the 28th December 1887; that, according to the said agreement, the first plaintiff became entitled to one-third of the moveable p...
Krishnan Vs. Perachan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1892
Reported in: (1892)ILR15Mad382
1. We do not think that the money can be considered as having been received by the defendant for the plaintiff's use, so as to make Article 62 applicable; nor is the case one coming within any other special article of schedule II of the Limitation Act. It is, therefore, one for which no period of limitation is provided elsewhere, and consequently falls within Article 120, which gives a period of six years from the date when the right to sue accrued, Nund Ball Bose v. Meet Aboo Mahomed I.L.R. 5 Cal. 597 and Gurudas Pyne v. Ram Narain Sahu I.L.R.10 Cal. 860. This suit having been brought within six years from date of receipt of the money by defendant is therefore not time-barred.2. The lower Appellate Court has found to be valid the sale at which plaintiff acquired a right to the money in question. In this finding we concur. As, by Section 2 of the Transfer of Property Act, Clause (d), transfers in execution of decrees are unaffected by the provisions of Section 135 of the same Act, we g...
iyyanki Venkata Subbarayudu Vs. Koppula Kotaya Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1892
Reported in: (1892)2MLJ166
1. This is an appeal from the decree of the district Judge of Kistna in Original Suit No. 23 of 1890. The appellant is the 1st defendant, a first grade pleader, who became the purchaser in court auction of the village of Devarapalli. The plaintiff as trustee of the temple of Sriranganayakaswami sues to set aside the sale alleging fraud on the part of the 1st defendant. The District Judge found that 1st defendant's purchase was tainted with fraud, and set aside the sale.2. The first question is whether the 1st plaintiff is the Dharmakarta of the temple, and as such entitled to maintain the suit. The village of Devarapalli originally formed part of the Zamindari of Vallur, but in July 1847 it was assigned by the then Zamindar in favor of 1st plaintiffs grandfather Koppula Seetaya Naidu, as an endowment of the temple of Sriranganayakaswami, which had been erected by Seetaya Naidu. The village was sub-divided from the Zamindari, and a peishcush of Rs. 541 fixed for it by the Collector, and...
Subbarayudu Vs. Kotayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1892
Reported in: (1892)ILR15Mad389
1. This is an appeal from the decree of the District Judge of Kistna in Original Suit No. 23 of 1890 The appellant is the first defendant, a first-grade pleader, who became the purchaser in Court auction of the village of Devarapalli. The plaintiff, as trustee of the temple of Sriranganaya-kaswami, sues to set aside the sale alleging fraud on the part of the first defendant. The District Judge found that first defendant's purchase was tainted with fraud, and set aside the sale.2. The first question is whether the first plaintiff is the dharmakarta of the temple, and as such entitled to maintain the suit. The village of Devarapalli originally formed part of the zamindari of Vallur, but in July 1847 it was assigned by the then zamindar in favour of first plaintiff's grandfather Koppu-la Seetaya Naidu, as an endowment of the temple of Sriranganayakaswami, which had boon erected by Seetaya Naidu. The village was sub-divided from the zamindari, and a peishcush of Rs. 541 fixed for it by the...
Ukkandan Vs. Kunhunni and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1892
Reported in: (1892)ILR15Mad483
1. The decision in Kanaran v. Kunjan I.L.R. 12 Mad. 307 goes no further than that a blind man is not a fit person to be karnavan of a tarwad against the wishes of the other members of the tarwad. The reason given is that the ruin of the tarwad would be the likely result. It is therefore for the members of the tarwad to object to such a man being their karnavan and not for strangers. Defendant No. 2, who has raised the objection in the present case, no doubt, claims to be a member of the tarwad, but this claim of his is denied by the plaintiff; and other members of the tarwad have put in a petition, recognising plaintiff as their karnavan, and asking that the suit may be proceeded with in his name. If defendants desire, these petitioners might also be included as plaintiff's in this suit. The mere fact of plaintiff's blindness does not appear to be a valid ground for dismissal of the suit. The decrees of both the lower Courts are, therefore, set aside and the suit remanded for replaceme...
B. Thiagaraya Sastri and ors. Vs. G. Krishnasami Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1892
Reported in: (1892)2MLJ127
Arthur J.H. Collins, Kt. C.J.1. The accused were convicted of the offence of defamation, under Section 500 of the Indian. Penal Code; and the question. I have to decide is whether the evidence is sufficient to support the conviction, or whether the accused can claim the benefit of any of the exceptions to the section. The accused are Brahmins, and the complainant is also of that caste. It appears that one Akhilandiah, a Smarta Telugu Brahmin, went to England with his wife and family, and by doing so, committed a caste offence. He was therefore expelled from caste under the Shastras, for having committed the sin of crossing the sea. The brother-in-law of Akhilandiah associated with Akhilandiah, and apparently thereby committed an offence against caste. He, however, petitioned and submitted his case to Chivukuta Krishniah, the elected president of the executive committee, and at a meeting in February 1891, duly convened, it was resolved that Devala Venkatakrishniah should be re-admitted ...
Thiagaraya and ors. Vs. Krishnasami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1892
Reported in: ILR1893NULL214
Arthur J.H. Collins, Kt., C.J.1. The accused were convicted of the offence of defamation under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, and the question I have to decide is whether the evidence is sufficient to support the conviction, or whether the accused can claim the benefit of any of the exceptions to the Section, The accused are Brahmans, and the complainant is also of that caste. It appears that one Akilandayya, a Smarta Telugu Brahman, went to England with his wife and family, and, by doing so, committed a caste offence. He was, therefore, expelled from caste under the shastras for having committed the sin of crossing the sea. The brother-in-law of Akilandayya associated with Akilandayya, and apparently thereby committed an offence against caste. He, however, petitioned and submitted his case to Chivakalu Krishnayya, the elected president of the executive committee, and, at a meeting in February 1891 duly convened, it was resolved that Davalla Venkatakrishnayya should be readmitte...
Panda Bairagulu and anr. Vs. Moparti Venkayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1892
Reported in: (1892)2MLJ112
1. The suit has been dismissed on the ground that the matter in question, viz., the satisfaction of the decree, is a matter which should be dealt with by the court in execution of the decree and not by a separate suit.2. It is clear that it is of this nature. The effect of Section 258 of the Civil Procedure Code is only to exclude proof of an uncertified agreement in execution proceedings. It does hot limit the operation of Section 244. The case in I. L. R 5 M 397, Viraraghava v. Subbakka, is cited by the appellant's pleader. This case shows that an action for the breach of the contract to certify adjustment of the decree may be brought. But it is not authority for the position that a suit to declare that a decree has been satisfied will lie. The appeal is dismissed with costs....
Bairagulu and anr. Vs. Bapanna
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1892
Reported in: (1892)ILR15Mad302
1. The suit has been dismissed on the ground that the matter in question, viz., the satisfaction of the decree, is a matter which should be dealt with by the Court in execution of the decree, and not by a separate suit.2. It is clear that it is of this nature.3. The effect of Section 258 of the Civil Procedure Code is only to exclude proof of an uncertified agreement in execution proceedings. It does not limit the operation of Section 244. The case of Viraraghava v. Subbakka I.L.R. 5 Mad. 397 is cited by the appellants' pleader. This case shows that an action for the breach of the contract to certify adjustment of the decree may be brought; but it is not authority for the position that a suit to declare that a decree has been satisfied will lie. The appeal is dismissed with costs....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›