Chennai Court August 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.
Venkata Hanumanulu Garu Vs. Lachchamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1904
Reported in: (1904)14MLJ464
1. The appellant, on the 20th June 1898, brought this suit for the recovery of lands which had been held by a Hindu female on the ground that he was under the Hindu Law, the reversionary heir entitled thereto on her death. 2. The question is whether the suit is barred by limitation. Article 141 of the Limitation Act is, of course, the article governing the case and under it, if the suit is brought within 12 years from the death of the female, it will be in time--otherwise it will be barred. It, therefore, lay on the plaintiff to show that, on the date of the presentation of the plaint, his claim was not barred, that is to say, he had to show that the death of the female occurred, or must be taken to have occurred, within twelve years prior to the institution of his suit.3. No evidence as to this was called on behalf of the plaintiff. No doubt the present case proceeds on the footing that the female was dead on the date of the suit, as she had not been heard of for seven years, from her...
The Chiarman, Municipal Council Vs. Suserla Venketeswarulu Alias Venka ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1904
Reported in: (1906)16MLJ53
1. The article of Limitation Act applicable to this case is Article 147 of the 2nd Schedule vide Narayanayyar v. Venkatarama Aiyar I.L.R.(1900) M. 220 and the suit was, therefore, clearly not barred by Limitation.2. The decree of the District Judge is accordingly set aside and he will replace the appeal on his file and dispose of it according to law. The costs of this appeal will be provided for by the District Judge in the revised decree....
Latchmanan Chetty Vs. Ramanathan Chetty (Minor) Through His Mother and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1904
Reported in: (1904)14MLJ436
1. The suit out of which the present appeal arises was brought for the partition of a house and some lands to which the parties to the suit were jointly entitled. The parties, entered into a compromise which was recorded by the Court and according to it the first plaintiff was declared entitled to half a share, the first defendant to one-fourth and the second plaintiff who is the appellant before us, to the remaining one-fourth. Steps for the actual partition and delivery of the respective plots or for the adjustment of the rights of the parties otherwise remained to be taken. The first plaintiff having died, his minor son and representative applied for the appointment of a Commissioner to make a division of the property. The Subordinate Judge dismissed the application on the ground that the first plaintiff's right to claim further relief in the matter had become barred by the law of limitation. On appeal the District Judge reversed the order of the Subor-dinate Judge and remanded the ...
Maharajah of Vizianagram Being Minor, by Collector and Guardian H.F.A. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1904
Reported in: (1904)14MLJ468
1. The appellant, the Maharajah of Vizianagaram, obtained a decree ex parte against the respondent on a mortgage and it contained an order for the sale of the mortgaged land. Though the record prior to and inclusive of, the decree makes no allusion to the fact, yet, in the subsequent proceedings, the land is admitted to be service inam being the emoluments attached to the office of village carpenter, which is among the offices comprised in the Madras Hereditary Village Offices Act (Act III of 1895). Section 5 of that Act runs thus, 'The emoluments of village ' officers, whether such offices be or be not hereditary and, in the ' scheduled districts as defined in the Scheduled Districts Act ' 1874, all such emoluments and other emoluments granted or con-' tinued in remuneration for the performance of duties connected ' with the collection of the revenue or the maintenance of order ' shall not be liable to be transferred or encumbered in any man-' ner whatsoever and it shall not be lawful...
Thiruvenkata Mudaliar Vs. Muthu Aiyar Alias Mahadeva Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1904
Reported in: (1904)14MLJ431
1. It is conceded by the pleader for the res-pondent that, under the Full Bench ruling in Periasami Mudaliar v. Seetharama Chettiar I.L.R. M. 243 this action is maintainable and we must, therefore, reverse the decree of the Subordinate Judge and direct him to replace the appeal on his file and dispose of it according to law. It was contended that the 4th issue in the Munsif's Court raising the question, whether there was any debt due by the defendants father, could not be raised by the son in this suit brought to recover the debt decreed in the judgment against the father, was much as that question was concluded by that judgment. Though no doubt, there are some observations in the judgments of the learned judges in the Full Bench case referred to above, which lend support to this contention, it did not form the subject of the Full Bench decision and we should be reluctant to hold that the son is no longer able to show that the debt which it is being sought to charge upon him is not exi...
Subramanian Patter and ors. Vs. Vembammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-1904
Reported in: (1904)14MLJ339
1. The question whether an agreement with reference to the payment of maintenance operates as a release of the right of the party entitled to maintenance to have the amount raised is one of construction of the particular instrument.2. There is nothing whatever in Exhibit I to suggest that the plaintiff had agreed to release her right to increased maintenance if circumstances entitled her to it.3. The expression that the maintenance is to be paid to her for her life cannot be construed as involving such a release. Nagamma v. Virabadra I.L.R. l7 M. 392 is a precisely similar case, though the report does not show that the agreement was for the payment of the maintenance for the life of the party there as in fact it was.4. The concluding part of paragraph 8 of Exhibit I does not refer to the right to maintenance but to the respondent's claim to certain properties about which the parties had a dispute.5. We dismiss the appeal with costs....
Linga Reddy Vs. HussaIn Reddy and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-1904
Reported in: (1904)14MLJ430
1. The appellant became surety on behalf of the defendant in O.S. No. 596 of 1897 during the pendency of that suit in the Court of first instance. Though the security was taken after the attachment of property before judgment, yet by the security bond the appellant consented to become liable for any sum that might be decreed.2. A decree having been eventually passed against the defendant in that suit, application for the execution of the decree was made and granted against the appellant. Before the actual execution of the decree the present suit was brought for a declaration that the appellant was not liable for a portion of the decree sought to be executed against him on certain grounds unnecessary here to be stated. The order for execution against the appellant was not appealed against. The objection taken on behalf of the respondent that this suit does not lie, the matter being one to be litigated only in execution proceedings must, in our opinion, be upheld on the authority of Expa...
Chidambaram Pillai and ors. Vs. Sivathasamy thever
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-1904
Reported in: (1905)15MLJ396
1. The respondent was one of two persons to whom the father of the appellants sold certain lands. There is nothing in the sale deed to import that the vendees took otherwise than as tenants in common and the recital of payment of half the price by each is in favour of the construction which must be put upon the instrument in the absence of any clear indications that the vendees took jointly. We agree therefore with the argument on behalf of the respondent that the interests of the vendees with reference to the covenant which under the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act a vendor is in the absence of a contract to the contrary deemed to enter with the vendee were several. This covenant according to the Act runs with the land. The objection that the plaintiff was not entitled to sue without the other vendee being made a party to the suit therefore fails. Nor do we think the suit is barred by limitation inasmuch as it is brought within six years from the date of the sale to the res...
Kandasami Chetty Vs. Annamalai Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1904
Reported in: (1905)15MLJ402
1. This suit is brought on a bond for the principal sum of Rs. 300 with interest. The principal amount was payable on the 7th June 1898. According to the first part of the bond the interest was payable on the 7th June 1897 and the 7th June 1898 respectively. The bond also provided that if default in making payments were made on the due dates the principal and interest then due with compound rate at Rs. 1-4-0 per cent, per mensem with annual rests should become payable on request or demand by the obligee.2. Two arguments have been advanced before us by the plaintiff-respondent, with reference to the ground taken on behalf of the appellant for the first time here, that the claim in so far as it was not admitted is barred by limitation and the court is bound to dimiss it under Section 4 of the Limitation Act.3. The first is that the provision about the obligee making a request or demand is a condition to the money becoming payable in accordance with the terms of this portion of the instru...
Gnana Sambanda Pandara Sannadhi Vs. David Nadar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1904
Reported in: (1904)14MLJ433
1. Certain lands of the appellant were attached for arrears of land revenue due thereon and sold under the provisions of Act II of 1864 (Madras). The sale was confirmed by the Deputy Collector in charge of the Division in which the lands were situated and a certificate of sale was granted to the respondent, the purchaser at the sale. The respondent having applied to the District Munsif within whose jurisdiction the lands lay, possession thereof was ordered and delivered under Section 40 of Act II of 1864. This delivery took place pending an appeal to the Collector of the District by the present appellant against the confirmation of the sale by the Deputy Collector and the Collector having in the appeal set aside the sale, the District Munsif who had ordered the delivery of possession to the respondent directed, on the appellant's application, restitution of the land. On application for revision to this Court Boddam J., set aside the District Munsif's order.2. The two points which arise...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »