Chennai Court March 1898 Judgments
Siva Rau and ors. Vs. Vitla Bhatta
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1898
Reported in: (1898)ILR21Mad425
JUDGMENT 1. One thing appears to be clear as to the intention of the testator and that is that the property should be divided and enjoyed in three shares by his three daughters and their respective descendants. It would be inconsistent with this intention to hold that each daughter was to take an ordinary daughter's estate, for in the event of any daughter dying leaving other daughters, the property would go to those other daughters instead of to the deceased daughter's descendants. Nor is the contention that each daughter was to take an absolute estate in accordance with the above intention or with certain express provisions in the will. In the first place in the case of the daughter and son before us the two are coupled together as both taking under the will, and no power of alienation is given to the daughter, while it is expressly prohibited to the son. Though this prohibition may not be valid as against the son, it is a clear indication that no absolute estate was intended to be g...
Tag this Judgment!Kumara Tirumalai Naik and ors. Vs. Bangaru Tirumalai Sauri Naik and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-1898
Reported in: (1898)ILR21Mad310
1. The following are the undisputed facts of the case. About the beginning of the last century, the zamindars of Sivaganga and Guntamanaikanur made a free grant of the two villages of Vellikurichi and Thekkampatti, respectively, to Raja Bangaru Tirumalai Naikar, the last of the Naik rulers of Madura, for the maintenance of the rank and dignity of his family. The plaintiffs and the defendants Nos. 1 to 23 are his descendants. In 1844 a suit was brought by the present first plaintiff's father for a partition of these villages between the members of the family, but it was held by the Court of Sadr Adalat, after consultation with its pandits in Hindu law, that the corpus of the property was indivisible, but its annual produce was divisible, and they directed the Civil Court to determine the parties by whom and in what shares the joint participation of the annual profits of the estate was to be enjoyed. The Civil Judge thereupon, in September 1852, passed a decree, defining the shares of th...
Tag this Judgment!Raman Chetti Vs. Kadirvalu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1898
Reported in: (1898)8MLJ148
1. It is objected that the appeal was not within time--that deducting the time taken in obtaining copy of the decree--the appeal was one day late or deducting that for obtaining copy of the judgment it was two days late. It was contended for the respondent that the appellant could claim only one or the other period, whichever was the longer. This contention is, however, opposed to the clear language of Section 12 of the Limitation Act, which allows the exclusion of both the periods. Doubtless, such portion of the time in obtaining one as forms a portion of the time in obtaining the other, cannot be treated as two separate periods and allowed twice over, but any period over and above that occupied in common should be allowed to be counted. In this case the copy of the judgment was applied for on the 27th October and that of the decree on the 28th October. The former copy was ready on the 31st October and the latter on the 2nd November. The time, therefore, occupied in obtaining both cop...
Tag this Judgment!ittappan Vs. Parangadan Nair and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-1898
Reported in: (1898)8MLJ137
1. It is argued for the appellant that the whole of the renewal fees were not paid by the defendants. That, however, was not plaintiff's case in the Court of First Instance, nor is it a ground of appeal to this Court. The contention of the plaintiff was simply that the money paid was not paid as renewal fee, but as rent. The Courts found that it was paid as renewal fee. No question was raised as to whether the payment was the full fee or only a part of it, and we cannot allow the plaintiff's present contention that it was only part of the fee to be maintained. We find that the full fee was paid. Then it is argued that a lease of the kind agreed upon between the parties can only be made by a registered instrument, and that as no such instrument was executed in this case, the plaintiff can maintain the present suit in ejectment. In support of this plea, reliance is placed on a dictum in the case of Pappi Reddi v. Narasa Reddi I.L.R. 16 M. 464 . That dictum has been doubted by the full Be...
Tag this Judgment!Subbarayar and ors. Vs. Subbammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1898
Reported in: (1898)ILR21Mad497
1. The principal questions raised in this case are, first, whether the will (Exhibit I) was executed by the deceased Kuppayyar when he was of sound mind; secondly, whether the second defendant was the validly adopted son of Kuppayyar; and thirdly, if the second defendant was not validly adopted, whether he is nevertheless entitled to take the property under the will as the persona designata.2. The District Judge has found the first question in favour of the defence, and we have no doubt that that finding is correct. That the will was executed by Kuppayyar is really beyond dispute. It is sufficient on this point to refer to the Sub-Registrar's evidence, before whom the testator Kuppayyar admitted the execution, and the fact that the fourth defendant, the nearest reversioner and father of the plaintiffs himself, has attested the execution by Kuppayyar. As to the state of mind of the testator at the time of his execution of the will, it is quite true that he was then in extremis, so that ...
Tag this Judgment!Thiruvengadasami Mudaliar Vs. Raghavachary
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1898
Reported in: (1898)8MLJ133
1. The appellant's vakil wishes to argue against the correctness of various items in the account which was referred to the commissioner for report. A preliminary objection is taken that it is not open to the appellant's vakil to do this as the learned Judge did not vary the report of the commissioner, and No. 292 of the Rules of Practice on the original side provides that 'a certificate or report of an officer of the court, or commissioner, unless discharged or varied will be taken as conclusive evidence of the facts found therein.' The rule was interpreted by this Court in the sense contended for by the respondent's vakil in O. S. appeal No. 8 of 1896, and it appears to us to be unreasonable that the appellate court should go into particulars in an account in regard to which both the commissioner and the Judge have come to the same conclusion. We, therefore, follow the decision in that case. There is, however, one term in regard to which the commissioner did not give a decision, but r...
Tag this Judgment!Alagirisami Naickar and ors. and Vs. Sundareswara Ayyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1898
Reported in: (1898)ILR21Mad278
1. The first plaintiff (who will hereafter be called the plaintiff as the second plaintiff was only formally joined) brought this suit to establish his right to the entire office or offices of Nagara Mutharai and Kattyam in the temple of Sri Meenatchi Sundareswarar at Madura and to recover from the possession of the seventh defendant the village of Thandayanendal, one of two villages, the profits from both of which form the emoluments of the offices aforesaid. The other village Vandavasi was already in the plaintiff's possession and it had been the subject of a previous suit, to which reference will soon be made. The plaintiff impleaded defendants Nos. 1 to 5 as the committee men and the sixth defendant as the manager of the devastanam in question, on the ground that they were supporting the seventh defendant in his usurpation of the offices in suit and the emoluments thereof. The seventh defendant set up his right to a moiety of the offices and of the emoluments and apparently claimed...
Tag this Judgment!Subramanyam Chetty and ors. Vs. Thayaramma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1898
Reported in: (1898)8MLJ130
1. The dispute in this case is as to the right of succession to the stridhanam of one Rengammal, who had been married according to one of the approved forms, but who died without issue, male or female, her husband having pre-deceased her. The learned Judge holds that the plaintiffs--the daughters of Rengammal's husband's brother--are, in the absence of nearer heirs, entitled to take the succession.2. In the argument before us, two contentions were urged on behalf of the appellants, defendants 1 to 3, viz.: 1st, that the plaintiffs are, under the law, not in the. line of heirs at all; 2ndly, that if they are, the 2nd defendant (assuming he is, as, alleged by him, Rengammal's maternal uncle's adopted son) has a preferential right to the property in dispute.3. With reference to the first of these contentions, the question is whether the plaintiffs are in the line of heirs to their uncle, since, in the admitted circumstances of the case, the heirs entitled to take Rengammal's stridhanam wo...
Tag this Judgment!Venkatasubramaniam Chetti and ors. Vs. Thayarammah and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1898
Reported in: (1898)ILR21Mad263
1. The dispute in this case is as to the right of succession to the stridhanam of one Rangammah who had been married according to one of the approved forms but who died without issue, male or female, her husband having predeceased her. The learned Judge holds that the plaintiffs--the daughters of Rangammah's husband's brother--are in the absence of nearer heirs, entitled to take property by succession.2. In the argument before us two contentions were urged on behalf of the appellants (defendants Nos. 1 to 3), viz., firstly, that the plaintiffs are, under the law, not in the line of heirs at all secondly, that, if they are, the second defendant (assuming he is, as alleged by him, Rangammah's maternal uncle's adopted son) has a preferential right to the property in dispute.3. With reference to the first of these contentions the question is whether the plaintiffs are in the line of heirs to their uncle, since, in the admitted circumstances of the case, the heirs entitled to take Rangammah...
Tag this Judgment!Queen-empress Vs. Subba Naik and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1898
Reported in: (1898)ILR21Mad249
1. This is a petition presented by the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Government to revise the sentences passed by the Sessions Judge of Tinnevelly on the three accused on the ground that the sentences are inadequate. The first prisoner was an acting station-house officer, the second prisoner is a constable, and the third prisoner is a private kavalgar. The first and second prisoners were charged with culpable homicide amounting to murder under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, but were convicted under Section 304 of the Code, the third prisoner was charged with voluntarily causing hurt with a dangerous weapon under Section 324, Indian Penal Code, but was convicted under Section 323. The first prisoner was sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment, the second prisoner to imprisonment until rising of the Court, and third prisoner to two months' rigorous imprisonment. The prisoners have not appealed against their conviction.2. The facts of the case as found by the Sessions Judge ar...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »