Chennai Court October 1901 Judgments
Ramalinga Muppan and ors. Vs. Pavadai Goundan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1901
Reported in: (1902)ILR25Mad519
Bhashyam Ayyangar, J.1. The question and the only question which arises in this second appeal is whether, under the Mitakshara law, a divided brother of a Sudra A, who died without leaving legitimate male issue, is entitled to succeed to A's estate in preference to A'a grandson, the legitimate son of A's predeceased illegitimate son. Neither side relies upon any usage or custom having the force of law and the question has to be decided as an abstract question of Hindu Law. There is no direct authority either in the Hindu Law texts or in judicial decisions, applicable to the case. The question, therefore, has to be answered with reference to established principles and the analogies which have heretofore prevailed in like cases.2. The author of the Mitakshara defines the rights of an illegitimate son in chapter I, section XII. He lays down that a son be gotton by a Sudra on a female slave can be given a share by the father's choice; but that after the death of the father leaving legitima...
Tag this Judgment!Ramasami Kichilappa Naick and ors. Vs. Ramanujam Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-1901
Reported in: (1901)11MLJ406
Benson, J.1. The first ground of second appeal taken, before us is that the Subordinate Judge ought not to have admitted the appeal to him under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.2. In 1893 the plaintiff was dismissed by the Zemindar (1st defendant) from his office of Karnam in his Zemindari. In 1894 he endeavoured to establish his right to the office before the Deputy Collector and the Collector, but he was referred by them to the Civil Courts. He accordingly filed the present suit for a declaration fend for recovery of the office and of the emoluments of the office before the District Munsif who dismissed the suit on 29th January 1898 on the ground that Section 3 of Madras Act II of 1894 ousted his jurisdiction. The plaintiff applied for copy of judgment and decree on the same day, and copies were delivered to him on 18th February. Agreeably to Act II of 1894, on which the District Munsif relied, the plaintiff moved the Deputy Collector on 5th March 1398, and his petition was rejected ...
Tag this Judgment!Kichilappa Naickar and anr. Vs. Ramanujam Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-1901
Reported in: (1902)ILR25Mad166
Arnold White, C.J.1. In this case the Subordinate Judge admitted an appeal which was out of time. The question for consideration is whether this Court ought, on second appeal, to interfere with the finding of the Subordinate Judge that the appellant had shown 'sufficient cause' within the meaning of these words as used in Section 5 of the Limitation Act for not presenting his appeal within the prescribed period. The dates and facts are set out in the judgments of Mr. Justice Benson and Mr. Justice Boddam and are not in dispute.2. The Subordinate Judge held that the appellant was out of time with his appeal by reason of his following the course pointed out by the District Munsif and that his proceedings before the Deputy Collector and the Collector were bond fide. This being so he held that sufficient cause had been shown for admitting the appeal. In other words, he held that the fact that the appellant had made out a case, which, if the question had been whether under Section 14 he was...
Tag this Judgment!Karuppa Goundan Vs. Kumarasami Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-1901
Reported in: (1902)ILR25Mad429
1. It has been decided by both Courts that the plaintiff was the illegitimate son of his father and we are bound by that decision unless the matter was res judicata. We find nothing in the judgment of this Court to which we have been referred deciding that the plaintiff was a legitimate son.2. It is then urged for the plaintiff that as an illegitimate son he is still entitled to a share in the property of the defendants, his father's brother's sons, on the ground that he is a co-parcener of theirs. The authority quoted in support of this contention is Raja Jogendra Bhupati Hurri Chundun Mahapatra v. Nityanund Mansingh L.R. 17 IndAp 128 where it was held that an illegitimate son was a co-parcener of his father's legitimate son. The decision stops there, and we are not prepared to extend its principle to the case of other collateral heirs in the face of the rulings of this Court, in Krishnayyan v. Muttusami I.L.R. 7 Mad. 407 Ranoji v. Kandoji I.L.R. 8 Mad. 557 and Parvathi v. Thirumali I...
Tag this Judgment!King-emperor Vs. Alexander Allan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-1901
Reported in: (1902)ILR25Mad627
1. This is an appeal preferred on behalf of Government from a judgment of the Bench of Magistrates in Ootacamund acquitting the defendant Mr. Allan who had been prosecuted by the Municipality under Section 103 of the Madras Municipalities Act (IV of 1884 as amended by Act III of 1897).2. The only question which has arisen for decision at the hearing of this appeal is as to whether all or any portion of the lands owned by Mr. Allan, the details as to which are given in exhibit D, should be held to be lands used solely for agricultural purposes and as such exempted from the enhanced rates of taxation that may be imposed in certain cases under Section 63, Sub-section 3 of the Madras Municipalities Act.3. The expression 'agricultural' is not defined in the Act. The only decisions of this Court to which our attention has been drawn in which an attempt has been made to define the word 'agricultural' are that of Kunhayen Haji v. Mayan I.L.R. 17 Mad. 98 where it was held that a lease of a coff...
Tag this Judgment!Nataraja Pillai and ors. Vs. Venkatachella Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-1901
Reported in: (1902)12MLJ93
1. From the terms of the gift (Exhibit I) it would appear that the properties were given to the daughter and her husband from niece love and affection. There is nothing there to indicate that the property given to the son-in-law was given in consideration of past service or that to the daughter for her maintenance, she being in an indigent state. Though these claims are now set up in support of the gift, they are not substantiated by any trustworthy evidence. The son-in-law not being an illatom son-in-law has, therefore, not the shadow of a right to the property, and the alienation to him must be held invalid. And so in the case of the daughter, as no authority is cited to us allowing the father of a married daughter to bestow undivided family property on her even for maintenance.2. The second appeal fails and is dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Savrimuthu and ors. Vs. Aithurusu Rowthar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-1901
Reported in: (1901)11MLJ428
1. We are of opinion that a suit for the profits of immoveable property belonging to the plaintiff which have been j wrongfully received by the defendant who dispossessed the plaintiff in execution of a decree afterwards set aside on appeal is not cognizable by a Court of Small Causes....
Tag this Judgment!The Oriental Government Security Life Assurance Company Limited Vs. Na ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-1901
Reported in: (1901)11MLJ379
Arnold White, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment for the plaintiff in an action on a, policy of life insurance. The defendants raised various defences in the Court of First Instance. Before this Court the defence relied upon was that the policy had been obtained by means of misrepresentation as to the age, health, means and circumstances of the assured.2. The policy is for a sum of Rs. 6,000, and is dated 28th September 1898. The assured died on 27th September 1899. The policy recites that the assured had signed a statement in writing declaring that his age on his next birthday would not exceed 58 years and setting forth the past and present state of his health and other circumstances touching his habits and life and that the assured had agreed that this declaration and relative personal statement made to the medical referee of the defendants should be the basis of the contract between the assured and the defendants. The policy contained a condition that in case any statement or ...
Tag this Judgment!Savarimuthu and ors. Vs. Aithurusu Rowthar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-1901
Reported in: (1902)ILR25Mad103
1. We are of opinion that a suit for the profits of immoveable property belonging to the plaintiff which have been wrongfully received by the defendant who dispossessed the plaintiff in execution of a decree afterwards set aside on appeal is not cognizable by a Court of Small Causes....
Tag this Judgment!Oriental Government Security Life Assurance Company, Limited Vs. Naras ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-1901
Reported in: (1902)ILR25Mad183
Arnold White, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment for the plaintiff in an action on a policy of life insurance. The defendants raised various defences in the Court of First Instance. Before this Court the defence relied upon was that the policy had been obtained by means of misrepresentation as to the age, health, means or circumstances of the assured.2. The policy is for a sum of Rs. 6,000, and is dated 28th September 1898. The assured died on 27th September 1899. The policy recited that the assured had signed a statement in writing declaring that his age on his next birth-day would not exceed fifty-eight years and setting forth the past and present state of his health and other circumstances touching his habits and life and that the assured had agreed that this declaration and relative personal statement made to the medical refers of the defendants should be the basis of the contract between the assured and the defendants. The policy contained a condition that in case any statem...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »