Chennai Court November 1899 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.
Komu Nair Vs. Ittiatha Amma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-1899
Reported in: (1900)10MLJ57
ORDER1. The District Munsif finds (paragraph 15 of his judgment) that Ram Nair managed certain property that had been given to him by his natural father (Putravakasam) that he was also in possession of certain self-acquired property and that it had not been proved that the property to which this suit relates was acquired out of the profits derived from the Putravakasam' property. The Subordinate Judge in appeal (paragraph 8 of his judgment) without making any reference to such evidence as there might be in support of the view arrived at by him or giving any reasons for his decision observes, ' Here it is proved that the property was acquired by Raru Nair with the income of property derived by him as putravakasam. Further on he holds (para-graph 9, of his judgment) that even if it were proved that the property was the self-acquisition of Raru Nair, it would not lapse to the Tarwad but that his sister, the plaintiff, and her children, would, on his death, be entitled to enjoy it to the e...
Rayilu Pattar Vs. Narayana Pattar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-1899
Reported in: (1900)10MLJ205
1. No doubt 'there ought, in strictness, to be an order absolute for sale before the order for sale is passed and if the objection had been taken before the sale took place it might have prevailed and the decree-holder might have remedied the defect.2. Here, however, the judgment-debtor waited although he had notice of the intended sale and actually applied for an adjournment of it. Under these circumstances, we do not think he ought to be allowed to object to a defect by reason of which he does not allege that he has suffered. We must reverse the order of the Subordinate Judge and restore that of the District Munsff with costs here and in the lower appellate Court....
Chokkalinga Pillai Vs. Kumarasami Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1899
Reported in: (1900)10MLJ132
1. The application of 1888 was made in due time. The order thereon of the 6th July states in the English translation that the 'petition is dismissed, by which expression, as we gather from the diary, the District Munsif merely meant that it was removed from the file. In 1893 while the decree was still under attachment another application was made in which the fact that execution had been stopped by the attachment is mentioned. That, application is in terms dismissed for the reason that the attachment was still pending. On the 24th July 1895 the attachment was raised. On the 12th July 1898 the present application was made which refers to the first application and asks for the same relief.2. The order which the District Munsif ought to have made on the first application was an order to adjourn the matter until the attachment was raised, and as the District Munsif clearly did not mean to dismiss the application, we think he must be taken to have made that order. That being so, the applica...
Venkatakrishnamma and anr. Vs. Annapurnamma and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-1899
Reported in: (1900)10MLJ73
Subrahmania Aiydr, J.1. The dispute in this case relates to the validity of the 2nd defendant's adoption by the 1st defendant, the widow of one Lakshminarasu, the adoption having been made after she had succeeded to the estate of her son, who died unmarried, and with the assent of three out of four of Lakshminarasu's sapindas who were divided and existing at the date of the adoption.2. The Lower Courts upheld the adoption, being satisfied that there was nothing in the circumstances in which the adoption took place and the sapindas assented, to show that the widow and those sapindas acted otherwise than properly and bona fide in the matter.3. The present appeal was preferred by the sapinda (since deceased and hereinafter referred to as the appellant) who did not assent to the adoption and who stood in the same degree of relationship to Lakshminarasu as those who gave their assent. In support of the view urged on his behalf that the adoption was, invalid, the argument was as follows:The ...
Samiya Mavali Vs. Meenammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-1899
Reported in: (1900)10MLJ240
ORDER1. Two points have been taken with reference to, the Court-fee stamp payable in this case.2. It is said that the subject-matter in dispute is one, the money value of which it is not possible to estimate, and it is said that the decree for which the plaintiff asks is a declaratory decree only without any consequential relief.3. On this latter point, we are referred to a case in Karam Khan v. Daryai Singh in which it seems to have been ruled that a suit like the present for the cancellation of a document is a suit for a declaration and not a suit in which substantive relief is asked for. The report of the case is extremely brief, but, if it was intended to hold that the law, as understood before the Specific Relief Act came into force, was altered, by Section 39 of that Act, we are unable to agree with the decision.4. On the other question, as to the possibility of valuing the subject-matter, there are several cases of this Court deciding that a valuation is possible (Naraina Putter...
Lakshminarayana Aiyar Vs. Thandavaraya Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-1899
Reported in: (1900)10MLJ100
1. The plaint is no doubt inartistically framed. It does not allege, what appears in evidence, the acts done by the defendants in pursuance of the order which the plaintiffs impeach. The substantial question is whether, on the part of the defendants, there has been an invasion of the rights of the plaintiffs as members of the Committee entitling them to seek relief by suit. If tine act of the defendants, then members of the Committee had stopped with a mere resolution dismissing the trustee and nothing further had been done, we are not prepared to say that the plaintiffs would have had a cause of action, provided that they had not been actually excluded from taking part in the inquiry and the decision. Here however, action was taken upon the resolution, and it was communicated to the authorities with a view to placing the new manager in the room, of the, rightful one, and other acts were done calculated to interfere with the management of the latter.2. In the other case, we have held t...
Thandavaraya Pillai and ors. Vs. Subbier and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-1899
Reported in: (1900)10MLJ117
1. We are clearly of opinion that the points of jurisdiction taken by the appellant's Vakil cannot be maintained. The suit does not relate to immoveable property and there is nothing to show that the valuation is wrong. The only question to be decided is whether, upon the facts found, the decision of the District Judge is justified. We have to consider the question not with reference to the substance of the charges made against the plaintiff, but with reference to the manner in which the enquiry was conducted and the resolution of dismissal arrived at. What happened apparently was thus--One member of the Committee initiated some sort of enquiry, received petitions and, it is said, took some evidence. The result of his work was submitted to two other members of the Committee successively, and the three thereupon signed the yadast of 31st October 1893. By that yadast, the plaintiff is required to present himself at the office for the purpose of an inquiry into certain charges laid agains...
Erusappa Mudaliar Vs. the Commercial and Land Mortgage Bank Limited
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-1899
Reported in: (1900)10MLJ91
1. The facts of this case are as follows;--The respondent before this Court, the Commercial and Land Mortgage Bank, Limited, India, in O.S. No. 27 of 1896 on the file of the District Court: of Trichinopoly, sued the now appellant before this Court on a mortgage of certain properties for over Rs. 1,20,000 of which he was the owner and obtained a decree under Section 88 of the Transfer of Property Act for sale of those properties. Subseqnently a portion of those properties was sold in execution of a simple money decree for Rs. 1339 and interest thereon and ' costs obtained by one A. Srinivasa Aiyar against the appellant in Regular suit No. 239,of 1896 on the file of the District Munsif of Trichinopoly. and was purchased by the Bank. The property so sold was sold subject to the decree debt under the abovementioned decree held by the Bank. Thereupon the appellant presented a petition to the District Court of Trichinopoly purporting to be made under Section 258 of the Civil Procedure Code, ...
Elayalwar Reddiar and ors. Vs. Namberumal Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-1899
Reported in: (1900)10MLJ86
Subramania Aiyar, J.1. The suit, out of which this appeal arises, was Drought, under Section 14 of the Religious Endowments Act (XX of 1863) by certain persons, interested in the shrine of Vedanta Desika or Vedanta Charlu, attached to the Vishnu Temple at Sriperambudur, against the defendant who is the trustee of the shrine. So far as this appeal goes, the plaintiffs case appears in substance to be that the defendant, from the time he became trustee in 1892, has improperly and completely stopped the celebration of certain periodical festivals which ought to have been celebrated according to the usage of the institution, and the plaintiffs seek to compel the defendant to carry out the trust in regard to the present matter duly. The defendant raised various contentions, and several issues were framed with regard to the averments of the parties. 2. But the second issue, which was whether the suit was cognizable by a Civil Court was alone dealt with and the suit, in so far as we are here c...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›