Chennai Court December 1897 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.
Nellaiyappa Pillai Vs. Thangama Nachiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1897
Reported in: (1898)8MLJ119
1. In our opinion, the Subordinate Judge has overlooked the circumstance that the plaintiff in this case was the general trustee of the temple and as such held a special position in regard to the protection of its interests. In that character, it was not only his right but his duty to see that the temple funds in the hands of special trustees were duly appropriated (Jeyangarulavaru v. Sri Hati Durma Dossji, 4 M. H. C. R. 4. And even before the enactment in 1877 of the provision now embodied in Section 539, Civil Procedure Code, he would have been entitled to resort to the ordinary courts to enforce the obligations of the special trustees and to obtain all appropriate relief for the protection of the interests of the temple. He would have been entitled to have sued for the removal of such trustees for malversation, and if there was no other provision for filling up the vacancy, he could have asked the Court to appoint fresh trustees. We do not think that such right was intended to be af...
ismail Peer Ambalam Vs. Neelamegam Servai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1897
Reported in: (1898)8MLJ38
1. The question raised in this petition is one that is not free from doubt. We think, however, that Section 17(c), Civil Procedure Code, and the last paragraph of Section 20 must be read together and that the term 'acquiesce ' in Section 17(c) must be interpreted in the light thrown upon it by Section 20. In this view it seems to us that the defendant who does not acquiesce under Section 17(c) should indicate his want of acquiescence not by a mere objection to the jurisdiction of the court, but should apply under Section 20 for a stay of proceedings on the ground that it is more convenient that the suit should be tried in one or other of the courts in which it might have been instituted. The object of the procedure laid down in the two Sections is to enable a decision to be arrived at, at the earliest possible opportunity, on the question in which of the several courts the suit can be more conveniently tried, having regard to the interests of all parties. If the plaintiff applies for l...
Venkayya Vs. Venkata Narasimhulu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1897
Reported in: (1898)8MLJ112
1. Assuming that the will in this case is genuine (a question, however, which has not been tried), the appointment by it of a guardian cannot be held to be such an appointment as comes within Section 7, Clause 3 of the Guardian and Wards Act; for, a Hindu mother has no authority to make such appointment by will. It was, therefore, the duty of the Court to have enquired under Section 7 as to the necessity for appointing a guardian, and, if necessary, to have appointed a lit and proper person. In making such appointment, he might very properly take into consideration the wishes of the mother expressed in any genuine will.2. We must, therefore, set aside the order of the District Judge and direct him to restore the petition to his file and to dispose of it according to law. Costs will abide and follow the result....
Veerabadhrappa Chetty Vs. Chinnammah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1897
Reported in: (1898)8MLJ189
1. So far as appears from the record, the District Judge seems to have dismissed the petition under Section 158 of the Code of Civil Procedure, on the ground that the costs which the counter-petitioner (appellant before us) had been ordered to pay had not been paid. Such costs would ordinarily be recoverable in execution, and, in the absence of a specific order making their payment a condition precedent to hearing the counter-petitioner's evidence, the counter-petitioner's failure to pay would not render Section 158 applicable.2. We must, therefore, set aside the order of the District Judge and direct that the petition be restored to the file and be dealt with according to law. Costs will abide and follow the result....
Venkayya Garu Vs. Venkata Narasimhulu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1897
Reported in: (1898)ILR21Mad401
1. Assuming that the will in this case is genuine (a question, however, which has not bean tried), the appointment by it of a guardian cannot be held to be such an appointment as comes within Section 7, Clause 3, of the Guardians and Wards Act, for a Hindu mother has no authority to make such appointment by will. It was, therefore, the duty of the Court to have enquired under Section 7 as to the necessity for appointing a guardian, and, if necessary, to have appointed a fit and proper person. In making such appointment he might very properly take into consideration the wishes of the mother expressed in any genuine will.2. We must therefore set aside the order of the District Judge and direct him to restore the petition to his file and to dispose of it according to law. Costs will abide and follow the result....
Sitarama Charya Vs. Kesava Charya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1897
Reported in: (1898)ILR21Mad402
1. It is not alleged that any one is entitled jointly with the lunatic to the possession or control of the estate, and, therefore, the cases Shan Kuar v. Mohanunda Sahoy I.L.R. 19 Cal. 301 Jhabbu Singh v. Ganga Bishan I.L.R. 17 ALL. 529 and Virupakshappa v. Nilgangavar I.L.R. 19 Bom. 309 are not in point.2. It is next contended that the Judge had no jurisdiction to appoint a guardian for the property inasmuch as it was in the nature of trust property. The person adjudged to be a lunatic is the head of a mutt. His exact position and right in regard to the property vested in him as head of the mutt have not been investigated as the point was not raised in the Court below.2. Prima facie, however, we must take it that the lunatic's right is similar to that of the heads of the mutts referred to in Sammantha Pandara v. Sellappa Chetti I.L.R. 2 Mad. 175 and Giyana Sdmbandha Pandara Sannadhi v. Kandasami Tambiran I.L.R. 10 Mad. 375. In this view it is quite clear that a guardian for such prope...
Kombi Achen and ors. Vs. Pangi Achen and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1897
Reported in: (1898)ILR21Mad405
1. There is no doubt in this case as to the factum of the award and prima facie the award is legal and proper.2. The Court below holding that there was no cause shown for setting aside the award passed a decree in accordance with it.3. Having regard to Section 522 of the Civil Procedure Code, we are clearly of opinion that no appeal lies against such a decree. We are referred to no case decided in this Court in which the contrary has been held.4. The appeal is dismissed with costs....
Virabhadrappa Chetti Vs. Chinnamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1897
Reported in: (1898)ILR21Mad403
1. So far as appears from the record the District Judge seems to have dismissed the petition under Section 158 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that the costs which the counter-petitioner (appellant before us) had been ordered to pay had not been paid. Such costs would ordinarily be recoverable in execution, and, in the absence of a specific order making their payment a condition precedent to hearing the counter-petitioner's evidence, the counter-petitioner's failure to pay would not render Section 158 applicable.2. We must, therefore, set aside the order of the District Judge and direct that the petition be restored to the file and be dealt with according to law. Costs will abide and follow the result....
Chinnathal Vs. Viruthacha Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1897
Reported in: (1898)8MLJ37
1. The District Judge is wrong in holding there is no appeal. Apparently he has overlooked the last para. of Section 244 Prima facie the widow is entitled, there' having been in point of law a partition between her husband and his co-parceners.2. We must reverse the order of the District Judge and direct him to proceed according to law.3. The appellant is entitled to costs of the appeal and the costs to be provided for in review order....
Rangachariar Vs. Balaramasami Chetti and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1897
Reported in: (1898)8MLJ53
1. We think this case is clearly distinguishable from Kunhi v. Seshagiri I.L.R. 5 M. 141 . We cannot see how an application for a list of attached property can be said to be an application to take a step in aid of execution.2. The appeal is allowed, and the District Munsif's order restored with all costs....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »