Chennai Court September 1908 Judgments
Acharath Bappan, Karanavan of Tarwad Vs. Mathtjmmal Chovi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-29-1908
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.122
1. The facts found by the District Judge are as follows:The plaint paramba was leased for 12 years by plaintiff's deceased Karanavan, Kunhi Pakki. In 1888 Kunhi Pakki gave the paramba as stridhanam to the 2nd defendant, his niece, and directed the tenant by Ex, III to pay the rent to her. From 1889 to 1903 the purapad was received by the 2nd defendant from Volandi Kannan and his assignee, the 1st defendant, both of whom executed marupat to 2nd defendant, the former in 1892 and the latter in 1893. Patta was transferred to the 2nd defendant's name in 1893.2. The question for determination is whether the suit which is by the present Karanavan to recover the paramba on the strength of the lease of 1887 is barred by limitation as found by both the Courts below.3. There is no registered document to evidence the gift to 2nd defendant as required by Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act. The stridhanam grant is, therefore, invalid if it is to be considered as a gift recognising this; the...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Manikam Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-29-1908
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.609a
ORDERAbdur Rahim, J.1. There can be no doubt that the facts alleged against the accused do not constitute an offence under Sections 419 and 511 Indian Penal Code, as it is not alleged that his attempt to get himself re-instated in the post of the Karnam by the production of a certificate of having passed a certain examination and representing that the certificate referred to him while in fact it referred to another man bearing the same name caused or was likely to cause damage or harm to the officer to whom the representation was made either in body, mind, reputation or property within the moaning of Section 415, Indian Penal Code. The conviction and sentence must be set aside and the fact that the accused pleaded guilty to the charge can, of course, make no difference I am not sure that the facts proved might not amount to an offence under Section 182, Indian Penal Code, as held in the similar case of Queen Empress v. Ganesh Khanderaso and Ganesh Doulath 13 B. 506 But having regard to...
Tag this Judgment!Samu Iyengar Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council, Through ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-29-1908
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.1123
1. The plaintiff-appellant, constructed a private tank in 1886. He subsequently extended the tank. In 1897 he was informed by Ex. D. that his tank would only be allowed to remain as it was if he constructed a weir, and that if he failed to do so, a prohibitory water-rate would be charged for the cultivation under the tank. The plaintiff failed to carry out the work and was charged prohibitory water-rate by the Collector. He now sues for a declaration that he cannot be compelled to construct the weir, and for refund of the amount collected as prohibitory water-rate. The District Munsif gave the plaintiff a decree for portion of his claim. The District Judge reversed the decree and dismissed the plaintiff's suit. Hence this second appeal.2. The first objection is that water-rate should not have been charged inasmuch as no Government water was taken. The District Judge, in our opinion, clearly found in paragraph 4 of his judgment that Government water was taken. Reliance is placed by the ...
Tag this Judgment!Palani Chetty Vs. Rangiadoss Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-29-1908
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.746
Abdur Rahim, J.1. One of the grounds taken in this appeal is that the order of remand by the District Judge, dated the 23rd February 1903, passed in Appeal No. 48 of 1902, was illegal. The suit was for a declaration of title to three plots of land and for an injunction. The plaintiff filed a plan (exhibit A). No exception to this plan seems to have been taken by the defendant before the District Munsif. The plaintiff got a decree. On appeal the District Judge held that that plan (exhibit A) was most unsatisfactory, and that, for the decision of the suit, it was necessary to have a proper plan prepared. He, therefore, remanded the suit for re-trial under Section 562 of the Civil Procedure Code. The District Munsif again gave a decree for the plaintiff. The District Judge reversed that decree and hence this second appeal.2. The order of remand was clearly illegal, for the District Munsif had disposed of the suit not on a preliminary point but on the merits. If the District Judge required...
Tag this Judgment!Gurumurthi Reddi, Minor by Next Friend Sangammal Vs. Gurammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-29-1908
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.750
1. We are of opinion that the property which devolved upon the plaintiff's father on the death of his brother, Gurumurthi, was the separate property of the plaintiff's father and not ancestral property. The inheritance was from a collateral relation and not from an ancestor.' The present case in our opinion is not governed by the judgment of the Privy Council in Venkayyamma Garu v. Venkataramanayyamma Bahadur Garu 25 M.k 678; but by the principle of the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Karuppai Nachiar v. Sankaranarayanan Chetty 27 M.k 300, where it was held (page 311) that the maternal uncle from whom the inheritance devolved was not an ancestor.' The law is thus stated at page 344 of Mayne's Hindu Law,' seventh edition, published after the judgment of Privy Council in Venkayyamma Garu v. Venkataramanayyamma Bahadur Garu 25 M.k 678: Hence all property which a man inherits from a direct male ancestor, not exceeding three degrees higher than himself, is ancestral property, an...
Tag this Judgment!T. Ranganatha Tawker and anr. Vs. T. Seetharama Chetty and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-29-1908
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.820
1. In our opinion the plaintiffs were not entitled to rateable distribution, because at the date on which the assets were realized, there was no application for execution presented by them, pending in the Court which conducted the execution.2. The plaintiffs applied in April 1900, for attachment of the 1st defendant's right to receive a monthly allowance and for an injunction directing the disburser of the allowance to pay it into Court as it fell due. The Subordinate Judge did not attach the right, but in his order of the 23rd of April 1900, directed notice to be issued as regards the prayer for injunction. On the 4th of May, he made an absolute order directing the disburser of the allowance of the Dewan Trustee of Ramnad to pay the allowance into Court, and on the 18th of July, payment not having been made he struck off the execution application of the plaintiffs.3. It is not denied that this last order closed the proceedings of the plaintiffs' application unless the order of the 4th...
Tag this Judgment!Kalidindi Ramaraju and ors. Vs. Gadiraju Narasimharaju and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-1908
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.1109
1. The father of the plaintiffs agreed under Ex. III to sell the property to the father of the defendants Nos. 1 to 3 and received Rs. 200 out of the sale price of Rs. 600 agreed upon. Before the sale was completed the plaintiffs' father died. The plaintiffs' mother then sold the property in pursuance of Ex. III and received the balance Rs. 400 of the purchase money. It is found that the sale was not for purposes binding on the minors. The plaintiffs now sue to recover the property and the Subordinate Judge has given them a decree for four-fifths of the property. The question is whether the plaintiffs are not entitled to recover the whole property on refunding the Rs. 200,earnest money. In our opinion they are; by Ex. III no interest in the property passed--section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act--and on the death of their father the whole property went to the plaintiffs by survivorship. The sale by their mother was not binding on them. We, therefore, in modification of the Subordin...
Tag this Judgment!Sultan Sahib Marakayar and ors. Vs. Chidambaram Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-1908
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.998
1. The decree-holder purchased in an execution sale in 1899 certain property of the judgment-debtor and in 1900 obtained a sale certificate. The decree was not completely satisfied by the sale, and further proceedings were taken to which it is not necessary to refer, otherwise than to say that they may be taken to have arisen out of applications for execution or to take steps-in-aid of execution. Then, in 1907 the decree-holder for the first time applied for delivery of possession, of the property to which he became entitled by virtue of his sale certificate of 1900.2. The question is, whether his application is within time? and the case has been argued on the footing that the answer must be in the affirmative if Article 179 of schedule II of the Limitation Act is applicable to the case, and, in the negative, if it is not applicable, Article 178 being in that event the appropriate article.3. We are of opinion that Article 178 is the article applicable, and that the application for deli...
Tag this Judgment!Signor Coppa D'Angelis Vs. Signor G. D'Angelis
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-1908
Reported in: (1908)18MLJ566
1. An objection is taken now that we ought not to hear this petition under Section 622 of the Civil Procedure Code because it was open to the petitioner before coming here to seek a remedy under Section 38 of the Small Cause Court Act. It is not denied that that remedy was open to him, and we think the objection must prevail. This Court will not, unless it be in a very special case, interfere under Section 622 when the party aggrieved has a remedy elsewhere, and no special reason is shewn here why the application provided by Section 38 of the Small Cause Court Act could not have been made. We, therefore, dismiss this petition. The objection should have been taken at an earlier stage of the proceedings, and we direct that each party bear his own costs....
Tag this Judgment!P.M. Appasawmy Pillay and anr. Vs. V. Ramanuja Chariar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-1908
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.620
1. The question dispute between the Temple authorities and the defendants is as to the ownership of the Gangai Kondan mantapam buildings at the junction of the Tholasinga Perumal and Venkatesa Naick Streets in Triplicane. Of this strip of land the eastern portion about 46 E.W. 36 is an open space in front of the Tholasinga Perumal Street. Next to it is the mantapam proper about 34 feet E.W. There is a door-way from it leading to the west where there are certain godown bazaars which also are claimed in this suit. On the northern side of the vacant space and the mantapam are certain shops on the Venkatesa Naick Street side which it is admitted and the evidence shows were built after 1894.2. The same question was in dispute in 1895 in a suit brought unsuccessfully by some of the worshippers against Raghava Charry, the brother of the 1st defendant, who was also a trustee.3. In that suit, Raghava Charry in claiming the property as his own admitted that it was subject to performance of a cha...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »