Chennai Court August 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.
S. Narayanan Chetti and ors. Vs. S. Ramasawmi Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.1069a
1. In this case the defendants have contended in the first place that the suit is barred by limitation on the face of the plaint. No such point was raised or considered at the trial. As regards the 1st defendant, admitting he was an agent, it is said that the plaint shows that the accounts were demanded from and refused by him more than three years before the institution of the. suit so as to bring the case within Article 89 of the Indian Limitation Act of 1877. It is, however, not at all clear that there was any demand for an account by the principals and refusal to account by the 1st defendant. Then it is farther argued that the plaint in. effect avers that the 1st defendant renounced the agency and so determined it, and that it is for the plaintiffs to show that the determination was within three years of the suit, but we do not think that the plaint contains any distinct averment of termination by the plaintiffs so as to put this burden on them. As regards the other defendants. Nos...
Nanammai Vs. the Collector of Trichinopoly
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1909
Reported in: (1910)20MLJ97
1. The decree for maintenance is a right to future maintenance and under Section 266(1) of the Civil Procedure Code of 1882 cannot be attached. It is not a money decree and cannot be attached under Section 273 of C.P.C. of 1882, as seems to have been done in this case. Perhaps the proper procedure would be that laid down in Monessur Dass v. Beer Pratap Sahu (1871) 15 W.R. 188. The appeal is allowed and the attachment set aside. There will be no costs....
Manammal Vs. the Collector of Trichinopoly
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.879
1. The decree for maintenance is a right to future maintenance and under Section 266(l) of the Civil Procedure Code of 1882 cannot be attached. It is not a money decree and cannot be attached under Section 273 of Civil Procedure Code of 1882, as seems to have been done in this case. Perhaps the proper procedure would be that laid down in Monessar Doss v. Beer Pratap Sahee 15 W.R. 188. The appeal is allowed and the attachment set aside. There will be no costs....
Sekharan Nair (Dead) and ors. Vs. Kongot Eacharan Nair and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-1909
Reported in: (1910)20MLJ121
1. The suit is to redeem a kanom. The District Munsif dismissed the suit, but the Subordinate Judge, on appeal, gave the plaintiff a decree for redemption on payment of the kanom amount and a certain sum for value of improvements. Against this decree certain of the defendants have filed the present second appeal, and in their appeal memorandum they 'question the plaintiff's right to redeem and also contend that if it is held that the plaintiff is entitled to redeem he can only do so on payment of a larger sum for improvements than that fixed by the Subordinate Judge. The extra amount claimed for improvements is not given in the Memorandum of Appeal, and Court-fee has been paid on the kanom amount only. The preliminary objection is taken on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent that the extra amount claimed for improvements should be stated and that Court-fee should be paid on that amount also.2. The Court-fee payable on a document of any of the kinds specified in the First or Second Sched...
Chettikulam Prasauna Venkatachella Reddiar Vs. Chettikulam Kumara Venk ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1909
Reported in: (1910)20MLJ394
1. We agree with the Subordinate Judge that Exh. V did not operate as a release by the plaintiff's father of all claims on behalf of himself and his family for maintenance. The learned Advocate-General then contended that in the case of an impartible Zemindari the junior members of the family have no legal right to maintenance, a conclusion which, he argues, follows logically from the recent decisions of the Privy Council as to the nature of an impartible Zemindari. We are not prepared to accept this contention which, we may observe, was given up in the Court below. In Raja Yarlagadda Mallikarjuna Prasada Nayadu v. Raja Yarlagadda Durga Prasada Nayadu I.L.R. (1900) M. 147 their Lordships distinctly recognise the right to maintenance of the junior members of a Raj or other impartible estate. A similar claim was allowed without opposition in the Udayarpalayam case I.L.R. (1905) M. 508 and, so far as our knowledge extends, is in accordance with the usage prevailing in Southern India.2. Th...
Manikkam Alias Manika Asari Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.77
ORDER1. The accused has been ordered to give a bond under Sections 109 and 110, Criminal Procedure Code. There is no provision for taking a bond under the two sections together. Further the evidence does not warrant the finding that the accused is a habitual thief so as to warrant an order under Section 110, Criminal Procedure Code. The order of the Magistrate is set aside and the accused is to be set at liberty....
Kaliswara Gurukkal Vs. Nataraja Tambiran and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.255
1. These are two connected appeals from the judgment of the District Judge of Madura, dismissing Suits Nos. 1 and 2 of 1905 which related to a mutt and a devasthanam respectively on the ground that they were not maintainable in law, because, firstly Section 539, C. P.C., (Act XIV of 1882), does not authorize an action instituted by two lay disciples of a mutt or by two worshippers at a devasthanam with the object of obtaining a declaration that neither of the two defendants-the defendants in both the suits being the same persons-is a lawful trustee entitled to be in charge of the matain and the devasthanam in question, for their removal from the management of the two institutions, for appointment of a new trustee for the administration of the trusts and for other appropriate reliefs; secondly the head of a mutt is not the trustee but holder of a life-estate in the (emoluments) of the mutt and, therefore, Section 539, C. P. C, has no application in his case, and thirdly though there may...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›