Chennai Court January 1908 Judgments
Venkobachar Vs. Raghavandrachar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-1908
Reported in: (1908)18MLJ96
1. The District Judge has dismissed the application as barred by limitation. The appellant's case is that he never had any notice of the appeal. The return on the notice is that it was tendered to the younger brother of the appellant. Under Section 82 of the Civil Procedure Code it was the duty of the Court before proceeding with the appeal to declare that the notice had been duly served. This the Court, as the record shows, did not do, and without such declaration there is no sufficient service. If, in fact, the appellant had no notice of the appeal, Article 169 of Schedule II of the Limitation Act can have no application. We, therefore, set aside the order of the District Judge and remand the case for disposal on the merits. Costs will abide and follow the result....
Tag this Judgment!Manuel Louis Kunha Vs. Juana Coelho and ors. and
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-1908
Reported in: (1908)18MLJ158
Wallis, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of the District Judge of South Canara dismissing the appellant's petition for grant of letters of administration of the estate of Revd. A.J. Coelho, a Roman Catholic priest, with the will annexed by which the petitioner was made residuary legatee. A caveat was put in by one of the next-of-kin alleging in effect that the testator had bequeathed the estate to the petitioner subject to certain instructions as to how the property should be disposed of and that the petitioner had fraudulently suppressed the private instructions left by the testator in order to claim the estate for himself. The second issue raised was, whether the bequest was really intended for religious and charitable purposes and the fourth, whether the will had become uncertain and incapable of execution by reason of the plaintiff having suppressed the private instructions, if any, given him by the testator. The fifth issue was, whether the will had become null and void on...
Tag this Judgment!Shamu Patter Vs. Abdul Kadir Ravuthan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-1908
Reported in: (1908)18MLJ219
Wallis, J.1. The main question raised in this appeal is whether the provisions of Section 59 of the Transfer of Property Act which requires a mortgage to be effected by a registered instrument signed by the mortgagor and attested by at least two witnesses are sufficiently complied with when the witnesses are not present at the execution of the instrument by the mortgagor, but attest it subsequently on his acknowledgment of his signature-This question has been answered in the negative by the Calcutta Court in Girindra Nath Mukerjee v. Bejoy Gopal Mukerjee I.L.R. (1898) C. 246 and Abdul Karim v. Salimun I.L.R. (1899) C. 190 and in the affirmative by the Bombay and Allahabad High Courts in Ramji v. Bai Parvati I.L.R. (1902) B. 91 and Ganga Dei v. Shiam Sunder I.L.R. (1903) A. 69.2. As to what is meant by attesting an instrument the appellant has relied on numerous old cases under Section 5 of the Statute of Frauds of which Stonehouse v. Evelyn (1734) 24 E.R. 3, Grayson v. Atkinson (1752) ...
Tag this Judgment!S. Subramania Nayanar Vs. S. Vengu Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-1908
Reported in: (1908)18MLJ302
Miller, J.1. It has not been clearly decided by either Court which party is in possession of the temple property, or was in possession thereof when the injunction was issued, but the defendants have in their favour a magisterial order directing possession to be delivered to them, and it is not denied that this order has partially at any rate been obeyed, and that they hold the keys of the outer doors of the building. It is said that the plaintiff is collecting the rents from some tenants, and that others refuse to pay him, so that it is not clear that he is in possession of any part of the property now, whatever may have been the case when the suit was instituted, while it is clear that the defendants have the control of the temple building itself. There is no allegation that the property is likely to be wasted or removed by the defendants, and the case is not therefore within the provisions of Section 492 of the Civil Procedure Code. Nor is it, the defendants being in possession, a ca...
Tag this Judgment!Miyaji Alias Mahomed Ghouse Sahib Vs. Sheik Ahmed Sahib and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1908
Reported in: (1908)18MLJ205
1. This is an appeal from the decree of the District Judge of South Arcot by which he removed the (defendant) appellant from his trusteeship of the Durga dedicated to Saint Hazareth Nur Mahomedsha Avulia at Panruti and the mosque attached thereto, and directed him also to pay to the trustee who would be appointed as his successor on behalf of the trust the sum of Rs. 3,052-8-3 which was found by the Judge to have been misappropriated by him, and further directed him to surrender possession of the durga and all its properties. The Judge also directed the Mahomedan Religious Endowment Committee to select a qualified person to be the trustee in succession to the appellant now removed, to whom the property was to be surrendered by the defendant.2. The suit was brought by the plaintiff under Section 14 of Act XX of 1863 after having obtained the sanction under Section 18 of the Act to remove the defendant from the trusteeship and also to recover damages. The Nur Mahomedsha Avulia Durga and ...
Tag this Judgment!Rama Odayan and ors. Vs. Subramania Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-1908
Reported in: (1908)18MLJ178
Charles Arnold White, C.J.1. The facts of this case, as admitted or found, are stated in the judgment of my learned brother, which I have had the advantage of reading.2. It seems to me that whether we regard the relations between the plaintiff and Government, with reference to the supply of water as contractual, the view taken in Chinnappa Mudaliar v. Sikka Naikan I.L.R. (1900) M. 36, or whether we regard the plaintiff's right to the water of the channel as a proprietary right appurtenant to the ownership of the land - in either view, I think the injunction which has been granted can be sustained without any express finding that actual damage has been suffered by the plaintiff.3. Assuming the rights of the plaintiff as against the Government to be contractual, I do not think it is necessary in order to uphold the injunction which has been granted to pray in aid the principle of the decisions in Temperton v. Russell (1893) I.Q.B. 715 and Quinn v. Leatham (1903) A.C. 495. In fact, I doub...
Tag this Judgment!Marri Ramanna and anr. Vs. Ghattamaneni
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-1908
Reported in: (1908)18MLJ258
1. The case set up by the plaintiff in his plaint is a right to exclusive possession of the property leased to him by Kottappa's widow, viz., one half of the family property.2. The findings are that the 1st defendant was not divided from his family, and consequently, as against him, the plaintiff was, of course, not entitled to exclusive possession of any portion of the family property.3. On appeal to us this is conceded, but it is now contended that the first defendant being merely entitled to joint possession with the plaintiff of the family property, he was not entitled to oust the plaintiff, and it was argued that the plaintiff was entitled to damages on the footing that as regards one-third of the family property, the ousting of the plaintiff by the 1st defendant was wrongful.4. We agree with Mr. T.V. Seshagiri Aiyar that the plaintiff is entitled to the same right as the deceased Kottappa would have had if he had been alive, but Mr. Seshagiri Aiyar has cited no authority to suppo...
Tag this Judgment!Erat Madhavan Mannadi Vs. Venganat Swarapa Hil Ravi Varma Alias the Va ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1908
Reported in: (1908)18MLJ39
1. For the purposes of the questions we have to determine in this appeal, the facts are these.2. In 1880, the 1st defendant obtained a lease of certain property from Zamorin No. 1.3. In 1892, Zamorin No. 2, the successor of Zamorin No. 1, granted a lease of the same property to the plaintiff.4. The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant and Zamorin No. 3, who had succeeded Zamorin No. 2, to obtain a declaration that the lease to the defendant by Zamorin No 1. was invalid. The Court of first instance declared the lease to be invalid and gave the plaintiff a decree for possession subject to the payment of a certain sum to the defendant as compensation for improvements. The defendant did not appeal against the decree, and in March 1895, he was paid the compensation money and gave up possession. The Zamorin appealed to the lower appellate Court on the question of the validity of the lease making the defendant a respondent to the' appeal. This appeal was dismissed. The Zamorin then pr...
Tag this Judgment!Surampalli Bangaramma Vs. Surampalli Bramhazee
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1908
Reported in: (1908)18MLJ254
Wallis, J.1. The question we are called upon to decide in this case is whether a wife who, without sufficient cause, leaves her husband and lives apart from him during his life-time forfeits her right of maintenance against his estate after his death.2. It is undoubtedly the duty of a Hindu wife to live with her husband and under his protection, and if, without due cause, she leaves him and lives apart she cannot claim to be maintained by him.3. There is, however, no authority for saying that after leaving him she has no right to return and live under his protection.4. Hindu Law does not recognise any divorce or dissolution of the marriage tie, and in the absence of clear authority to the contrary, I am of opinion that it is her right and also her duty to return to her husband. I am not referring to cases of unchastity which is not alleged here. If she is entitled to be maintained by her husband during his life-time on her returning to him, it appears to follow that her right to mainte...
Tag this Judgment!BudruddIn Sahib and anr. Vs. Abdul Rahim
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-1908
Reported in: (1908)18MLJ21
1. The respondent obtained a decree for sale of certain property in a mortgage suit against the father of the appellants.2. After decree, the defendant died and the respondent applied for leave to execute the decree against the appellants by sale of the land under Section 234, Civil Procedure Code. The appellants opposed the application' on the ground that the land ordered to be sold was wakf property of which they were in possession not as representatives of their deceased father but as hereditary trustees of the property.3. The District Munsif held that he could not go into the question under Section 244, Civil Procedure Code, on appeal. The District Judge also held that Section 244 did not apply, and if it did, he dismissed the appellants' appeal.4. This second appeal is brought from this decision.5. It is contended before us, that no appeal or second appeal lies as the appellants' only remedy is by preceeding under Sections 278 to 283, Civil Procedure Code, and that Section 244 doe...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »