Chennai Court September 1900 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.
Venkatalutchmi Ammal Vs. Srirungapatnam Srinivasamurthy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-1900
Reported in: (1901)11MLJ91
Arnold White, J. 1. This is an appeal against a judgment of Shephard, J., dismissing as against all the defendants the plaintiff's suit. The defendants were sued as the executors with the probate of the will of one Srirungapatnam Venkatavarada Aiyangar. The plaintiff is the daughter, and the 1st defendant is the only son of the testator. The will contains the following provisions: (10) Moreover as soon as this will shall come into force, out of 'the sum forming four-fifths part of the amount which may be derived from the policies insured in my own name and assigned for convenience in favour of my son and which are in force, Government' of India promissory notes shall be purchased and kept for and on 'account of my daughter Sowbhagiavathi Venkata Lutchmammal 'and the interest derived therefrom shall be paid to the aforesaid 'Venkata Lutchmammal for her life and thereafter the whole of the 'amount of the aforesaid promissory notes shall go to her children 'equally without distinction of ...
In Re: the Last Will and Testament of Rose Learmouth
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-1900
Reported in: (1901)ILR24Mad120
Shephard, J.1. Under the Letters Patent of 1862 it was ordained that the High Court should 'have like power and authority as that which may now be exercised by the said Supreme Court whether within or without the Presidency of Madras in relation to the granting of probate of last wills and testaments and letters of administration of the goods, chattels, credits and all other effects whatsoever of persons dying intestate whether within or without the said presidency' (Clause 34). The Letters Patent of 1800 do not seem to define the testamentary jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, but I do not think it can be doubted that its jurisdiction was limited, like that of the Ecclesiastical Courts in England, to the oases in which the deceased testator or intestate had dwelt or his goods and effects were found within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court. (See Williams on 'Executor,' pages 293, 407.)2. The Secession Act, Section 240, prescribes the same limits for the jurisdiction of ...
O. Nagiah Bathudu and ors. Vs. Muthacharry
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-1900
Reported in: (1901)11MLJ215
Arnold White, C.J.1. In my judgment this suit ought to have been dismissed on the ground that the right claimed by the plaintiffs was not cognizable by a Civil Court.2. Assuming that the suit related to a matter of which a Civil Court could take cognizance, I agree with the view taken by the learned Judge who tried the case. I think the plaintiffs failed to make out any case and that the suit was rightly dismissed.3. I propose to deal with the case first, as the learned Judge dealt with it, that is, on the assumption that the suit was cognizable by a Civil Court.4. The plaintiffs' case was that a certain temple, of which the defendant was Dharmakarta, had been built and a goddess consecrated for the special benefit of worshippers residing in certain streets in Black Town, Madras ; that those worshippers and their descendants had contributed towards the expenses of the festivals appertaining to the goddess and enjoyed the right of having the goddess carried in procession in front of the...
Subrahmania Pattar Vs. Narayanan Nayar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-1900
Reported in: (1901)ILR24Mad130
1. The only question argued before us in this second appeal is whether the plaintiff can sue in his own name to recover certain property belonging to the devasom of the fourteenth defendant and demised on kanom to the first defendant.2. In June 1892 the fourteenth defendant and the other adult members of the devasom executed to the plaintiff the document put in as exhibit Y which is called a 'lease alias Kuthaka Karar.' This document has already been the subject of judicial interpretation by the High Court in Appeal No. 191 of 1898, and it was then held to be an authority coupled with an interest and was irrevocable.3. The plaintiff's suit was dismissed both by the District Munsif and by the Subordinate Judge on the ground that the document did not enable the plaintiff to recover devasom properties in a suit brought in his own name.4. It was argued before us that by the document in question the plaintiff became an agent with interest, and that he, therefore, had a right to sue in his o...
D. Mangayarkarasi Vs. the District Backward Classes Welfare Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-1900
Reported in: (1988)2MLJ370
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. The petitioner is a Post-Graduate in Economics and a Graduate in Education (B.Ed.,). She registered her name with the Employment Office at Alankayam North Arcot District, in 1978. There is no dispute that she belongs to Hindu Backward Class. She was informed by the Employment Office by a Communication dated 12.11.1987 that she should appear for an interview on 19.11.1987 before the District Backward Classes Welfare Officer, Vellore - 1, North Arcot District, the respondent herein, for the post of Tutor-cum-Warden. She appeared for the interview and she was selected by the respondent. By order dated 7.12.87 she was appointed temporarily as Tutor-cum-Warden in the Government Backward Class Welfare Women's Hostel, Tiruvannamalai. The order of appointment made it clear that it was purely temporary and the services could be terminated at any time without any prior notice. By order dated 19.4.1988 her services were terminated with the closure of the Hostel at the end of...
Ramayya Vs. Sivayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-1900
Reported in: (1901)ILR24Mad549
Arnold White, C.J.1. In this case I think the decree of the Subordinate Judge ought to be set aside and that of the District Munsif restored.2. The issue in the case was correctly framed, but the Subordinate Judge does not seem to have appreciated the actual points which ha had to consider. In his judgment he reviews the facts and states (paragraph 11)--'In the state of things the complaint and prosecution by defendant must be presumed to have been made maliciously,' and he goes on in paragraph 12--'I accordingly find the issue for the appellants.' If he had simply found the issue for the plaintiff, his finding would have been one of fact and could not have been questioned on second appeal. See the judgment of the Privy Council, dated July 21st, 1900, in the case of Mody v. Queen Insurance Co. I.L.R. 25 Bom. 332 where it is pointed out that the question of reasonable and probable cause, when the case is tried without a jury, is a question of fact to be determined by one and the same pe...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›