Chennai Court January 1905 Judgments
Vencata Rao and ors. Vs. Venkatachalam Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1905
Reported in: (1905)15MLJ109
1. In this case the date of the judgment of the District Court was January 28th, 1904. The Court closed for the vacation on April 18th and re-opened on June 20th. The appellant made no application for a copy of the judgment between January 28th and April 18th and has given no explanation why he failed to do so.2. On the day of re-opening of the Court (June 20th) he applied for a copy of the judgment, i.e obtained his copy on the 22nd and he filed his appeal to this Court on July 11th the first day after the re-opening of this Court. The question is whether in the computation of the 90 days his time for appeal to this Court the period during which the District Court was closed is to be excluded as time requisite for obtaining a copy of the judgment within the meaning of Section 12 of the Limitation Act. Having regard to the fact that the appellant had from January 28th to April 18th to apply for his copy, we do not think that he is entitled to exclude the period during which the Court w...
Tag this Judgment!Malla Reddi and ors. Vs. Aswaratha Reddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-26-1905
Reported in: (1905)15MLJ494
1. We think that the compromise evidenced by the Exhibits II and III entered into in 1890 between the plaintiff (who was then a minor) through his grand-mother and guardian Somakka on the one hand and the 1st defendant on the other hand, is a valid and binding compromise and that the plaintiff is not at liberty to dispute it now.2. At the time the compromise was entered into, each party claimed to be himself entitled to the whole of the property of the deceased. Somi Reddi denied the title of the other to any part of it The plaintiff, through his grand-mother, claimed to be entitled, by virtue of his adoption by Tirumal Reddi, the grandson of Somi Reddi, but this adoption and the will alleged to have been made at the same time, were both drafted by the first defendant, Malla Reddy, who was then in possession of the property, and who claimed to be entitled to the whole of it as the illatom son-in-law of Somi Reddy. His position as an illatom son-in-law had been acknowledged and recorded...
Tag this Judgment!Vanamamalai Bhashyakar Vs. Krishnaswami Thathachariar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-1905
Reported in: (1906)16MLJ150
1. Before disposing of these second appeals, we will ask the District Judge to return a finding on the merits of the 7th issue, (which was as to whether the idol of Manavalamamuni was entitled to any procession) which the Munsif found in favour of the plaintiffs. Fresh evidence may be taken.2. The finding should be submitted within 5 (five) weeks from this date. Ten days will be allowed for filing objections.3. In compliance with the above order, the District Judge submitted a finding which ran as follows: 'My finding accordingly is that according to the long usage and custom of the temple, Manavala Mahamuni a Parathantra Bakta is entitled to a visit from Devaraja Swarni on the evening of his Sathumorai day and to a procession through the prakarams with Devaraja to the latter's shrine as far as the foot of the hill and back to his shrine after Devaraja is taken to his abode in case there should be Ubayakars forthcoming, that is entitled, if there are no Ubayakars, to be taken in proces...
Tag this Judgment!Syed Abdul Rahiman Sahib Vs. Govinda Padayachi and Two ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1905
Reported in: (1905)15MLJ406
Charles Arnold White, Kt. C.J.1. Paragraph 9 in form No. 56 appended to the Civil Rules of Practice appears under the general heading ' conditions of the sale.' In my opinion the paragraph is directory and cannot be said to be a condition of sale in the ordinary acceptation of the term.2. I do not think paragraph 10 applies to a case where a party fails to comply with the directions given in paragraph 9. If paragraph 9 was intended to be anything more than the directory, I should be disposed to hold, it would be ultra vires as inconsistent with Section 312 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Both paragraphs 9 and 10 have now been deleted from the form. I set aside the order cancelling the sale and directing the deposit to be credited to Government.3. The case will go back to the District Munsiff. ...
Tag this Judgment!Narayanasami Naick, Minor, by Next Friend Thatha Naick Vs. Mangammal a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-1905
Reported in: (1905)15MLJ143
1. The plaintiff's case was that his alleged adoptive father on his death-bed in February 1897 authorized the 1st and 2nd defendants, his widows, to adopt the plaintiff, and also by oral will bequeathed to him all his property. The ease found; proved by the District Judge is that in the following December in 1897 the 1st defendant, the senior widow adopted the plaintiff with the consent of all her late husband's divided brothers, but that that adoption was invalid because, the junior widow, (the 2nd defendant) did not consent to it and took no part in it. The District Judge did not believe that portion of the plaintiff's evidence which related to the death-bed disposition of his property by the deceased or to his having authorized his widows to adopt the plaintiff. In that conclusion we agree. It was not seriously contested in the appeal by the plaintiff which was confined more to the legal question whether on the. Judge's finding of the factum of adoption in December 1897 by the senio...
Tag this Judgment!Govindammal Vs. Gopalachariar, Minor, by Next Friend Vedantachariar an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-1905
Reported in: (1906)16MLJ524
1. The facts are simple. The 1st defendant sold the land which forms the subject-matter of this suit to the 3rd defendant on the 21st November 1899 under Exhibit I, a registered document, and subsequently executed Exhibit A on the 18th January 1900 by which he purported to sell the same land to the 1st plaintiff. The 3rd defendant was duly put in possession of the land. Both the lower Courts have found that at the time that Exhibit I was drawn up, a price was fixed for the land and that the 3rd defendant promised to pay this sum at the time of registration, but that as a matter of fact he has paid nothing. The lower Courts have given the plaintiff a decree for the recovery of the land from the 2nd defendant. 'We are of opinion that this decision cannot be upheld. It is clear that under the provisions of Section 54 of the Transfer pi Property Act, there was a valid sale of the land to the 3rd defendant under Exhibt I and this sale-deed was registered as then required. All the reported d...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›