Chennai Court December 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.
Mayilkothil Kunjunni Nair Vs. Vadakeveetil Kongathil Ela Nair
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-1909
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.599
1. No appeal lies against an order under Section 7 of Act VII of 1889 directing security to be given. It is only against an order under Section 19 that an appeal lies. Rama Reddi v. Papi Reddi 19 M.K 199 There is nothing in Ariya Pillai v. Thangammal 20 M.K 442, opposed to this view.2. We dismiss the appeal with costs....
Venkatarama Aiyar and anr. Vs. Essumsa Rowthen and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-1909
Reported in: (1910)20MLJ330
Arnold White, Kt., C.J.1. I have read the judgment which my learned brother is about to deliver and I concur with regard to the question whether the plaintiff has a lien on the money in deposit in the Munsif's Court. It seems to me, on further consideration, that the view taken in the judgment of this Court to which I was a party in Singaravelu Udayan v. Ramayer : (1903)13MLJ306 was wrong, and that it is not supported by the decision in Gunney v. Seppings (1846) 15 L.J. 385 to which reference is made in the judgment.2. I think the decree of the Courts below should be modified in the manner indicated in the judgment of my learned brother, and that the respondents should pay the appellants' costs throughout.Krishnaswami Aiyar, J.3. The 1st defendant mortgaged the decree in O.S. No. 254 of 1891, against defendants Nos. 2 to 9 on the file of the District Munsiff of Mannargudi, to the plaintiff. The mortgage deed is dated the 3rd of November 1904., The 10th defendant who had obtained a Smal...
Ranga Sastrigal Vs. Samanna Sastri
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.55
1. No authority in support of the petitioner's plea is cited by the petitioner's Vakil and apparently the question of the grandson's liability to contribute under the Hindu Law was not argued in the Court below. We do not think that Vrij Bhukandas v. Bai Parvati 9 Bom. L.R. 1187, or the text in Smirthi Chandrika, page 38, Chapter II, Section II, paragraphs 21 to 23, are in point.2. We dismiss the petition with costs....
Venkatarama Iyer and anr. Vs. Esumsa Rowthen and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.92
Arnold White, C.J.1. I have read the judgment which my learned brother is about to deliver and I concur.2. With regard to the question whether the plaintiff has a lien on the money in deposit in the Munsif's Court, it seems to me on further consideration, that the view taken in the judgment of this Court to which I was a party in Singaravelu Udayan v. Ramayar 13 M.L.J. 230, was wrong, and that it is not supported by the decision in Gurney v. Seppings 15 L.J. Ch. 385, to which reference is made in the judgment.3. I think the decree of the Courts below should be modified in the manner indicated in the judgment of my learned brother, and that the respondents should pay the appellants' costs throughout.Krishnaswami Aiyar, J.4. The 1st defendant mortgaged the decree, in Original Suit No. 254 of 1891 against defendants Nos. 2. to 9 on the file of the District Munsif of Mannargudi, to the plaintiff. The mortgage-deed is dated the 3rd of November 1901. The 10th defendant who had obtained a Sma...
Ranee Vellai Nachiar Vs. the Court of Wards
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.740a
ORDERArnold White, C.J.1. In this case we are asked to make an order that the Court of Wards should detain in Madras the person of the zemindir of Sivaganga now under the guardian-ship of the Court of Wards and prevent his being married to a certain lady pending the disposal of an appeal to us against an order made yesterday by Mr. Justice Wallis on an application to him that this marriage should be prevented by an order of this Court.2. We are told that the marriage is going to take place the day after to-morrow and that is the ground of urgency and the reason why an application has been made to us to-day. It is not disputed that an order that has been made making the zemindar a ward of the Court of Wards under the provisions of Section 15 of the Court of Wards Act of 1902, and the Court of Wards under the provisions of that section has been ordered to assume the superintendence of the person and property of this zemindar.3. Section 48 says: 'No declaration made by the Local Governmen...
Chidambaram Pillai Vs. Muthu Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.764a
Arnold White, C.J.1. The point which arises for consideration in this appeal is whether there is a finding by the lower appellate Court which we can accent and act upon with regard to the status of the family since the separation. The family consisted of a father and five sons. In 1873 the father and one son separated from the other sons including Manikam and Seenu. Later on there was another division and another son Venkatachalam separated. And the question which the lower appellate Court put to itself is: What effect had the separation on the position of Manikam and Seenu. 'Did they' as the lower Court thinks 'become tenants-in-common or did they remain joint or subsequently become joint after a temporary separation.' The learned Judge has answered his own question. We have to look to a later portion of the judgment, i.e., paragraph 3 for the answer. There he says 'In these circumstances I dissent from the lower Court's conclusion in favour of division and the tenancy-in-common which...
Raja Kesava Venkatappiah Alias Venkatappa Rao Garu and ors. Vs. Nayam ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-1909
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.603
1. We think the Suit No. 56 of 1895 was not barred. The defendants in their additional written statement in O.S. No. 46 of1895 alleged that the claims of the plaintiffs in that suit, as reversionary heirs, could not be joined with the other claims in that suit and that only the nearest of reversioners could sue on that ground and not all the plaintiffs jointly. In consequence of that objection, Suit No. 56 was instituted by the representatives of the 4th plaintiff in O.S. No. 45 before issues were settled in the other suit; the suit thus instituted was moved into the District Court and issues were settled in both on the same day. The claim in Suit No. 56 is to succeed as reversionary heir to Kodanda Ramiah if the estate is impartible or if Kodanda Ramiah's widow and daughter are found to have held the whole of it as his separate property. The District Judge has held that the suit is barred by Section 43 of the Code of 1882. Assuming it to be open to the defendants now, in spite of thei...
In Re: Vakil of the High Court
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.1072a
1. [Their Lordships set out the notice from the High Court to the Vakil, the evidence in the case and the deposition of the Vakil before the Chief Presidency Magistrate].2. If we accept the statements made by the Vakil in his evidence as true and it was never suggested by Mr. Rosario that they were not, it is clear that the receipts by which Rp. purported to acknowledge the receipt from A of Rs. 2,675 all were or one of them was false, that Rs. 1,175 had only in fact been paid and that the difference of Rs. 1,500 when extracted from Rv. was to go to A the man who according to the case put forward on behalf of the Vakil was acting as agent of Rv., the purchaser of the engine. The statement made in the letter of July 17th that Rs. 2,675 had been paid on account of the engine at the date the letter was written was false according to the Vakil's own evidence and we have no doubt the Vakil knew it was false. In fact he makes no suggestion to the contrary in his evidence and did not ask to b...
Muthusawmi Mudalliar and anr. Vs. Masilamani Alias Subramania Mudaliar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-1909
Reported in: (1910)20MLJ49
1. The plaintiff sues to recover possession of certain properties claiming to be the reversioner of Avudanayagam Mudaliar, the last male owner thereof from the alienees of the 1st defendant who claims to be, but according to the plaintiff is not, according to Hindu Law, his widow, as at the time of her marriage and till her husband's death she was a Christian, or, in the event of the 1st defendant's title as widow to the property being established, for a declaration that the alienations by her are not binding on the reversioners. The lower appellate Court has found that the plaintiff has established the relationship alleged by him and that the alienation by the first defendant was not made for purposes which would justify a widow under Hindu Law in alienating the property. The only question therefore for decision is whether the 1st defendant is, as the widow of the deceased, entitled to his property under the Hindu Law. In that case the plaintiff would not now be entitled to possession...
Sangila Vs. Maruthamuthu Aud ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-1909
Reported in: (1910)20MLJ131
1. This is a lease for a term of 12 months only and under Section 111, Transfer of Property Act, was determined at the expiry of the term. I', is not suggested that the tenancy was renewed under Section 116 of the Act; and we think the suit is barred under Article 139 of the 2nd schedule of the Limitation Act of 1877. The case to which the District Judge refers was a case of tenancy from year to year determinable by notice.2. We reverse the decree of the District Judge and restore that of the District Munsif with costs in this and the lower appellate Court....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »