Chennai Court October 1909 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.
Ravikanty Venkata Rama Moorti Being Minor by His Morther and Next Frie ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.934
1. We think the District Judge was wrong in disposing: of the suit ?without finding whether the plaintiff's father had acquired a valid title to the trusteeship by adverse possession. The Will (Exhibit B) recites that the Dharmakartaship was hereditary in the testator's family and provides that as he had only daughters and no sons, his daughter's son should be Dharmakarta in his place. We think the plaintiff's father, if he took under Will, must be considered to have prescribed for the estate which the Will purports to confer upon him, viz., that of a hereditary trustee, and that if his title was perfected by adverse possession he must be considered to have held a hereditary trusteeship with all the incidents attaching thereto including the plaintiff's right of succession on the occurrence of 1 vacancy Gopinadha Pande v. Ramachandra Punigrahi 6 M.L.J. 255.2. We may add that an attempt was made to question the validity of resignation of the plaintiff's father and the consequent vacancy ...
Devi Bhagavalu Vs. Tadpatri Veeravadhanta and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1909
Reported in: (1910)20MLJ79
1. Defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 owned amongst themselves four vriths, 13 visam and one pie of land in the agraharam of Sangalsa. In 1876 there was an award of arbitrators on a submission made by them dividing the common properties. That document is Exhibit H. The plaintiff purchased half a visam of land from the 1st defendant on 28th March 1897 out of the lands that had fallen to the 1st defendant in the division made by the award. The District Munsif gave the plaintiff a decree for his half visam by directing a division of the entire property of the three brothers.2. The District Judge has dismissed the suit. The first question to be decided is whether the plaintiff was entitled to the division, and this turns on the right understanding of the provision contained in Exhibit H. Exhibit H says : ' Time is fixed for the partition of the said paddy fields up to the end of the year Sarvajit (1887-1888). So it is settled that each should enjoy the lands allotted for his share until then, and ...
A. Vencatasawmy Chetty Vs. Suppa Pillay
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.303
Miller, J.1. The lease is a lease for a term of three years and is, therefore, compulsorily registerable under Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act (or unless it is saved by the proviso to the section). The District Munsif reads the proviso as exempting leases for a term and reserving an annual rent, provided that the term does not exceed 5 years and the rent Rs. 50.2. I am asked to read it differently, as exempting leases, the terms granted by which do not exceed 5 years and the annual rent (if any) reserved by which does not exceed Rs. 50. In other words when a lease reserves no annual rent, it will not, if the contention is correct, be compulsorily registerable, unless it grants a term of more than five years.3. I have not been referred to any authority on the question: it is not really touched by Venkatachellam Chetti v. Audian 3 M.k 358 in which there was an annual rent reserved.4. The question is one of some difficulty but I think on the whole, though I was at first disposed...
Duri Bhagavanulu Vs. Tadpatri Veeravadambu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.392
1. Defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 acquired amongst themselves 4 virthis, 13 visams and one pie of land in the Agraharam of Sangavalsa. In 1876 there was an award of arbitrators on a submission made by them dividing the common properties. That document is Exhibit-H. The plaintiff purchased half a visam of land from the 1st defendant on the 28th March, 1897, out of the lands that had fallen to the 1st defendant in the division made by the award.2. The District Munsif gave the plaintiff a decree for his half visam by directing a division of the entire property of the three brothers. The District Judge has dismissed the suit. The first question to be decided is whether the plaintiff was entitled to the division and this turns on the right understanding of the provision contained in Exhibit--H. Exhibit--H says: Time is fixed for the partition of the said paddy fields up to the end of the year Sarvajith (1887-1888). So it is settled that each should enjoy the lands allotted for his share until t...
Kailasam Pillay Vs. Nataraja Tambiran and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.4
Ralph Benson, Offg. C.J.1. The question referred for the decision of the Full Bench is this: 'Does the head of a mutt hold the properties constituting its endowment as a life-tenant or as a trustee.'2. I do not think that the question admits of, a categorical answer, as the incidents attaching to the endowments of a mutt depend upon the conditions on which the endowments were given, or, when these are no longer discoverable through the mist of antiquity, the incidents may be inferred from the long continued practice and usage of the institution in respect of the endowments in question. As laid down by their Lordships of the Privy Council in Greedharee Doss v. Nundokissore Doss Mohunt 11 M.I.A. 405 'the only law as to these Mohunts and their offices, functions and duties is to be found in custom and practice, which is to be proved by testimony.'3. The origin and growth of mutts and the position of the head of the mutt, usually called the Mohunt or Swami, have been discussed by learned H...
Ana Pattar and anr. Vs. Swaminatha Pattar Kariakar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.935a
1. The 1st plaintiff is the purchaser from the original mortgagor. Objection is taken to the bona fides of the transfer. But it was not pressed before the 1st Court. We agree with the Subordinate Judge that the transfer is good.2. The principal question argued in the case was whether the equity of redemption was subsisting at the date of the suit. The defendant who was a sub-mortgagee sued on his mortgage making the original mortgagor a pro-forma defendant and prayed for a decree against the mortgage interest mortgaged to him and got a decree accordingly.3. The decree in the case failed to describe the property as a mortgage interest. We think we are entitled to construe it (and we do so without hesitation) as a decree only against the mortgage interest. See Srinivasa Rao Saheb v. Yamuna Bai Ammal 16 M.L.J. 50 and Ram Chander v. Kendo 22 A.K 442. The decree-holder sought to take advantage of the vagueness in the description and managed to retain the same vagueness of description in the...
Meenakshi Anni Vs. Appakutti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.299; (1910)20MLJ359
1. The plaintiff as the widow of Sethu Mudeli claims the entire property of her deceased husband as against his illegitimate son the defendant. The Courts below gave her a decree for one half of the property. She appeals for the other half alleging that under the Hindu Law the widow excludes the illegitimate son altogether. We do not think this contention can be upheld. The decision in the case of Chinnammal v. Varadarajulu. 15 M.k 307 is a direct authority against the appellant and though it rests upon a misapprehension of the ground of decision in Parvati v. Thirumalai 10 M.k 334 it is supported by the observations at page 343 of the report, and also by the reasoning at page 559 of the decision in Ranoji v. Kandoji 8 M.k 557. We think the remarks of Mr. Justice Bashyam Iyengar in Ramalinga Mappan v. Pavadai Goundan 25 M.k 519 are correct. He says: 'the rights of an illegitimate son in the paternal estate when the father has died a separated holder have now been clearly defined by jud...
Thomas Pillay and ors. Vs. S.J.M. Muthurama Chettyar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.301
1. The first question argued is that subsequent creditors are not within the rule enunciated in the first Clause of Section 53 of the Indian Transfer of Property Act, IV of 1882. Reliance was placed on Sections 1 and 2 of 13 Eliz. Chap. 5 and it was suggested that the use of the words 'and others' in Section 1 and 'person or persons' instead of 'creditors' in Section 2 led to the decisions of the English Courts that 'sub-sequent creditors' fall within the prohibition of the English Statute, while the absence of such words in Section 53 of the Indian Transfer of Property Act made in favour of restricting the benefit to existing creditors. We are unable to agree with this argument. The English cases, cited by Mr. Venkatarama Sastri, Taylor v. Jones 26 E.R. 758 and Holmes v. Penney 69 E.R. 1035 do not lay it down that if the word 'creditors stood' alone it would not include subsequent creditors. The change in the language of the Indian Act is not, therefore, an index to a change of intent...
Subramania Aiyar Vs. Gopala Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1909
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.898; (1910)20MLJ633
1. The suit was instituted by the plaintiff as trustee of a temple for recovery of a certain sum of money which represented the rents due to the temple uncollected by the father of the defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3, who was the preceding trustee.2. The father having died in August-September 1901, the sons were impleaded as liable as well as the representatives of certain sureties for the proper management of the temple affairs by the father. The suit has been dismissed as barred by limitation. As regards the sons, Article 98 of the Indian Limitation Act XV of 1877 is sought to be made applicable. It runs as follows:To make good out of the general estate of a deceased trustee the loss occasioned by a breach of trust.3. The property that is sought to be made liable being the joint family property of the father and sons, which passes by survivorship to the sons on the death of the father, we do not think it forms 'the general estate' of the deceased trustee within the meaning of the article....
Uppangala Subraya Bhatta and ors. Vs. Bedradi Subraya Bhatta and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.57
1. The plaintiffs allege no cause of action against the defendants. The mere fact that the 2nd defendant passed an order restoring the 1st defendant to his caste would not give the moktesars of the temple any right of civil action. That the 1st defendant's son entered the temple is no ground of action against the father. We must dismiss the second appeal with costs on this ground. We may, however, point out to the Judge that the right of entry into a temple for worship is a Civil right, Venkatachalapati v. Subbarayadu 13 M.k 293 and that vice versa the authorities of the temple may equally well maintain a Civil suit for injunction and damages against a person who enters without a legal right to do so. Temple case See Sankaralinga Narain v. Rajeswara Dorai 31 M.k 236.2. The declaration made by the Judge in favour of the 2nd defendant must be struck out.3. The second appeal is dismissed with costs....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »