Chennai Court February 1904 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.
Gomathi Ammal Vs. Kupputhayi Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-29-1904
Reported in: (1904)14MLJ175
1. The question in this appeal relates to a 0-7-3 share and a 0-7-1 share in the property which originally belonged to one Venkataraya. After his death his 3 daughters, Kupputhayamnal, the plaintiff, Avadayammal and Subbammal succeeded to his property. In 1857 they divided the properties and at that partition a 0-7-8 share was assigned to Avadayammal, the other daughters taking a 0-8-0 share each and in consideration of Avadayammal performing the nuptials of Subbammal and the ceremonies connected with their deceased father and carrying on litigation, if any in connection with the property of their father, an extra share of 0-7-1 was assigned to her. In other words, the estate was divided into four shares, two being assigned to Avadayammal and one share to each of the others. Avadayammal being dead, the question is whether the plaintiff, the sole surviving daughter, is not entitled to what had been taken by Avadayammal, Undoubtedly the daughters had only a limited estate and the partiti...
Karuppan Servai and ors. Vs. Alagara Koundan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-29-1904
Reported in: (1904)14MLJ347
1. We are unable to accept the proposition, that in Thambuswamy Moodely v. Hosnain Rowthen I.L.R., 1 M.1 the Privy Council intended to lay down that the erroneous view taken by the Madras Court up to that time of the law was no longer to be taken as enforcible. The reference to legislation upon the point in the judgment of the Privy Council would seem to suggest that the Judicial Committee took no decided view as to whether their own rendering of the law in Pattabhiramaiyar's case 13 M.I.A. 516 or that of the local Courts was to prevail with reference to mortgages executed after 1858. In this state of things and having regard to the proposed legislation in the Bill for the Transfer of Property, the majority of the Full Bench in Ramaswami Sastrigal v. Bamiappa Naickar I.L.R., 4 M. 179 held that they were at liberty to deal with the case of a mortgage executed subsequent to 1858 but prior to 1875 with reference to the course of decisions in this country. In regard to mortgages executed b...
Subbaraya Mudaliar and ors. Vs. Vedantachariar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1904
Reported in: (1904)14MLJ171
1. On the question which we have first to consider, namely, whether this suit is cognizable by a Civil Court, we have no hesitation in deciding that it its not.2. The explanation to Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure which governs the question runs as follows : ' A suit in which the right to property or to an office is contested is a suit of a civil nature notwithstanding that such right may depend entirely on the decision of questions as to religious rites or ceremonies.'3. Now, here the subject of the plaintiffs claim was confined to rights in religious ceremonies, without a claim to any office or any emoluments. The plaintiffs did ask for damages on account of perquisites which they had been prevented from getting, but this was a mere fiction, apparently put in to clothe the Court with jurisdiction, for though both the Courts hare declared the plaintiffs' rights in other respects, neither Court has declared the plaintiff's rights to any office or to any emoluments. The Subord...
Ramanadhan Chetti Vs. Narayanan Chetti Alias Ranganadhan Chetti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1904
Reported in: (1904)1MLJ321
1. The respondent Narayanan Clietti alias Ranganadhan Chetti while residing in Saigon brought a suit in the Subordinate Court of Madura (East) through Yenkasami Aiyangar who hold a general power of attorney from him and who was his recognised agent, against, among others, the appellant Kamanadhan Chetti as 4th defendant, with reference to certain disputes connected with the temple in Ariyakudi in the Sivaganga Zemindari, of which institution the respondent claimed to be one of the managers. Pending the suit the recognised agent and the appellant entered into a compromise in accordance with one of the terms of which the suit was to be withdrawn. The recognised agent not having in accordance with the compromise applied for the withdrawal of the suit, the appellant, under Section 375 of the Civil Procedure Code, brought the compromise to the notice of the Subordinate Judge who thereupon dismissed the suit on the 10th September 1901.2. On the 5th November succeeding, the respondent applied...
Suri Venkatappayya Sastri, Agent of Sri Rajah Rangayya Appa Row Bahadu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1904
Reported in: (1904)14MLJ155
1. In this case the accused was charged with theft in that he dishonestly quarried and carried away stones from land in the possession of another. The Sub-Magistrate discharged the accused on the ground that the stones were not moveable property and so could not be the subject of theft and he relied on the ruling in Queen-Empress v. Kotayya I.L.R. 10 M. 255.2. The question referred for our decision is whether, assuming that the stones were quarried and carried away dishonestly, the accused could be convicted of theft under Section 379, Indian Penal Code.3. We have no doubt but that the answer to this question must be in the affirmative. Under Section 378, Indian Penal Code 'Whoever intending to take dishonestly any moveable property out of the possession of any person without that person's consent moves that property in order to such taking, is said to commit theft.' The only question is whether the stones in this case are ' moveable property.' Section 22 enacts that these words ' are ...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›