Chennai Court April 1903 Judgments
Pappi Anterjanam, the Present Karnavathi of the Illom Vs. Teyyan Nayer ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1903
Reported in: (1904)14MLJ214
1. The first issue raises a question of considerable importance. It runs ' Whether junior members of Nambudri Illoms are prohibited by law or custom from contracting valid msrriages in their own community.' The District Munsif has decided this question in the negative but the Subordinate Judge has taken the opposite view and held that such marriages are prohibited. He bases has decision mainly on two judgments one of Mr. 'Wigram, who was for some years District Judge of South Malabar and the other of Mr. Raman Nayar, a Subordinate Judge employed in Malabar. Mr. Wigram's judgment is dated the 14th December 1876 and was delivered in 5. A. No. 562 of 1876. In it he observes that ' it is difficult to see how the 2nd defendant who ' is the wife of Narayanan Nambudri's younger brother who predeceased him can have any status social or otherwise in a Nambudri family where only the oldest male member may marry.' This no doubt reads as if Mr. Wigram was prepared to hold that the marriage of a ju...
Tag this Judgment!Pallayya and ors. and Mallayya Vs. Ramavadhanulu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1903
Reported in: (1903)13MLJ364
1. We do not think that the judgments of the Subordinate Judge can be supported. We think that his construction of Exhibit I as not amounting to a dedication of the idol and the land in question as a public religious institution is erroneous.2. By Exhibit I the plaintiff dedicated the land to the idol, so that a temple may be built on it, and he adds that '' in ease a permanent temple is built thereon for the idol, neither he nor his heirs will raise any dispute'. These words would be inapplicable if it was a trust for a private family idol which the plaintiff was creating. A stone temple was being created on the site by the 5th defendant though it was not completed at the date of the suit. The District Munsif fully refers to other circumstances which clearly support the view which we take based on the terms of Exhibit I.3. We are clearly of opinion that the dedication of the idol and land to the public is not a gift within the definition of that term in Section 122 of the Transfer of ...
Tag this Judgment!Chidambara Patter Vs. Ramasami Patter and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1903
Reported in: (1903)13MLJ467
1. Our answer to the questions put to us is in the affirmative. In our opinion Sections 278 to 281 of the Civil Procedure Code are not restricted to properties under attachment which are capable or tangible or physical possession.2. The term 'possession' is no doubt, one which is used in widely different senses in dealing with different subjects, and refers sometimes to tangible or physical possession and sometimes to constructive possession, or possession in law, In Webster's Dictionary the legal meaning of 'possession' includes ' the having or holding of property in one's power or command' See also Anderson's Dictionary of Law, page 790.3. In our opinion it would be unreasonable to restrict the meaning of the word ' possessed' in Section 279 and of the word 'possession' in Sections 280 and 281 to merely tangible or physical possession: Such restricted meaning would, we think, unduly narrow the operation of Section 278 which relates to claims preferred to and objections made to the at...
Tag this Judgment!Ramasamy Aiyar and anr. Vs. Thirupathi Naick
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1903
Reported in: (1903)13MLJ356
1. We think that the endorsement of the Manager on the memorandum of darkhast, which endorsement was communicated to the applicant, must be taken to be an agreement to lease and therefore to be subject to the provisions of the Registration Act as if it were a lease. But treating it as a lease, we do not think that it requires registration under Section 17 of the Act. It does not in terms purport to be for a period exceeding five years, nor does the rent reserved by it exceed Rs. 50 per annum.2. It is therefore exempted from registration by the Notification of Government published under that section.3. It is argued that by custom a lease of this kind entitles the grantee to hold permanently. It may or may not be so ; but the criterion for registration is what is expressed on the face of the document.4. If we had to go into the question of what incidents are annexed by custom to grants of the kind, we would have to bear in mind that one of such incidents is that the tenant can relinquish...
Tag this Judgment!Saminatha Aiyar Vs. Venkatasubba Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-1903
Reported in: (1903)13MLJ300
1. This is an appeal from an order rejecting an appeal on the ground that it was out of time, A preliminary objection has been taken that no appeal lies as the order is not a decree as defined by Section 2 of the. Civil Procedure Code. If we had to consider the point apart from authority, we might have felt disposed to adopt the view put forward on behalf of the respondent. The balance of authority, however, is strongly against this view. The precise point was decided against the respondent in Gulab Rai v. Mangli Lal I.L.R. 7 A. 42 and Raghunatha Gopal v. Nilu Nathoji 8 I.L.R. 9 B. 452 Ganga Dass Dey v. Ramjoy Dey I.L.R. 12 C. 30. The principle of these decisions was applied by this Court in the cases of (Ayyanna v. Nagabhooshanam I.L.R. 16 M. 285 and Zemindar of Tuni v. Bennayya I.L.R. 22 M. 155.2. Having regard to these authorities we are not disposed to say that no appeal lies in the present case. The preliminary objection is overruled.3. In this case judgment was delivered on Decem...
Tag this Judgment!Venkata Satyanarayana, Minor, by Father and Guardian Kalle Ramamurthy ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-1903
Reported in: (1903)13MLJ311
1. One Thiruvengatam, deceased, and his nephew Venkatarangaya. who were the members of an undivided Hindu family entered on the 25th December 1900 into an agreement in writing to submit to the decision of certain persons the disputes which had arisen between them with reference to the partition of their joint property and to abide by the partition to be made by them, On the 25th March 1901 Thiruvengatam applied under Section 523 of the Code of Civil Procedure to the District Court of Godavari to have the agreement filed. Venkatarangaya on notice to him having consented to the agreement being filed, the application was numbered as a suit and the matter was referred to the decision of the arbitrators named. Pending the proceedings before the arbitrators Thiruvengatam died on the 18th August 1901. Thiruvengatam's daughter's son Satyanarayana, a minor, who is the appellant before us, alleging himself to be the adopted son of Thiruvengatam. applied through his natural father as his next fri...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›