Chennai Court September 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.
M. Krishna Aiyar Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council Repre ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-1909
Reported in: (1910)20MLJ71
1. It is found that the plaintiff has proved possession of item 1 in himself and his vendor for 30 years and of item 2 in himself for 40 years. The defendant, who is the Secretary of State for India in Council, has failed to establish his title to the land, or any possession within 60 years before suit. The only circumstance put forward to show a title in the defendant is the fact that at the settlement in 1874 the Revenue authorities classed the items as Nattam Poramboke. This at the utmost was an assertion of title, and is not by itself sufficient to prove the title of the defendant. The judgment of this Court reported in Kattai Mahammad Meera Mohideen v. The Secretary of State for India in Council (1908) 18 M.L.J. 269 has been entirely misunderstood by the Subordinate Judge. That judgment does not lay down that the mere classification by Government of the lands as Nattam Poramboke has any legal effect whatever except in so far as it may be regarded as an assertion of title. It may b...
M. Krishna Aiyar Vs. the Sectetary of State for India in Council Repre ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.121
1. It is, found, that the plaintiff has proved possession of item 1 in himself and his vendor for 30 years and of item 2 in himself for 40 years. The defendant, who is the Secretary of State for India in Council, has failed to establish his title to the land, or any possession within 60 years before suit. The only circumstance put forward to show a title in the defendant is the fact that at the settlement in 1874 the Revenue authorities classed the items as natham poramboke. This at the utmost was an assertion of title, and is not by itself sufficient to prove the title of the defendant. The judgment of this Court reported in Kothai Mahomed Meera Moideen v. The Secretary of State for India in Council 13 M.L.J. 269, has been entirely misunderstood by the Subordinate Judge. That judgment does not lay down that the mere classification by Government of the lands as natham poramboke has any legal effect whatever, except in so far as it may be regarded as an assertion of title. It may be reg...
Sambasiva Mudali Vs. Krishnan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.758
1. We agree with the District Judge that the application of the 10th January 1902, was a step-in-aid of execution. It is contended that after the sale no receiver could be appointed. It is not disputed that after decree a receiver might have been appointed for the preservation of the property. We see no reason why after sale and while that sale was pending confirmation, a receiver should not be appointed for the same purpose. A long time might elapse between the sale and its ultimate confirmation and the appointment of a receiver might be absolutely necessary in the interval for the preservation of the property. The object of applying for the appointment of a receiver was that the execution proceedings might not be infructuous, and we are clearly of opinion that such an application is a step-ii-aid of execution.2. The appeal is dismissed with costs....
Kasim Moideen Rowther Vs. Annamalai thevan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.936
1. The question upon this petition is whether the decree of the Small Cause Court against the 1st defendant is right. He sold certain land to one Sheik Mahomad by a vernacular deed of sale. Exhibit-A (dated the 20th August 1900) which recites, ' save the hypothecation lien which I have already created in favour of another person, there is no kind of incumbrance on this property. I myself shall discharge the said hypothecation lien and the other in-cumbrances, if any, which may crop up. In default, I shall refund the aforesaid purchase-money received by me and profit thereon as well as the damages you may sustain in respect of the property.' It is upon a breach of the covenant to discharge the hypothecation mentioned above that the Subordinate Judge bases the liability of the 1st defendant to the plaintiff who purchased the land from Sheik Mahomad's representatives in 1905 by a deed of sale marked as Exhibit-B in the case. It appears that the hypothecation debt was not paid and under a ...
Samudrala Varaha Narasimhacharlu and ors. Vs. Samudrala Vencata Singar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.741
1. In Appeal Suit No. 170 of 1901, three learned Judges of this Court Subramania Iyer, Benson and Bhashiam Iyengar JJ. decided that succession in a re-united family governed by Mitakshara Law is by survivorship, and that the son of a re-united member of the family is Re-united'. They say that the contrary contention is not supported by any text of Hindu Law and is not in accord with the principles of the Mitakshara Law.2. This decision, if we follow it, is sufficient to dispose of the present case. We have here a contest as to the succession to the son of re-united member of a family, the widow: claiming on the one hand and on the other the brothers of her husband's father, re-union having been effected between the brothers before the birth of the deceased.3. If the decision, in Appeal Suit No. 170 of 1901, is to be followed, the widow's claim cannot be supported and the appeal must be allowed, and we are asked to decline to follow that decision and to hold that in a re-united family t...
Chillakore Yerra Musala Reddy Vs. Pattangi Ramayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.125
1. The facts are stated in appeal against the Order No. 157 of 1908. As pointed out in the judgment in that case the petitioner's remedy was to put in a claim in the District Munsif's Court. This the petitioner did, but the District Munsif without going into the merits dismissed the claim on the ground that the District Judge had refused to recognise the assignment. We think the District Munsif was wrong in refusing to investigate the claim and that he failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him. We, therefore, set aside his order and direct him to dispose of the claim of the petitioner according to law. Costs will abide the result....
Chillaloor Yerra Musala Reddi Vs. Pathangi Ramaiya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.1010
1. In this case the decree was transferred to the appellant on the 21st February 1908 and on the 24th February 1908, the appellant applied for execution in the District Court. On the 14th March 1908, the decree was attached by the District Munsif under the second paragraph of Section 273, Civil Procedure Code, Act XIV of 1882, and a notice of attachment was sent to the District Court requesting that Court to abstain from executing the decree until the notice was cancelled by the District Munsif. On the 27th March 1908, the execution application came on for orders and was rejected on the ground that the decree could not be executed owing to the attachment thereof by the District Munsif. We think this order was right. The terms of the second paragraph of Section 273, Civil Procedure Code, Act XIV of 1882, are imperative, and the District Court had no alternative, but to stay execution and refuse to grant the appellant's application. We have been referred to the judgment in appeal against...
Veda Muppan and ors. Vs. Kathan Padayachi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.57a
1. There was clearly a sale and possession of the property sold was delivered by the vendor to the purchaser. The sale is, therefore, valid see Ganga Narain Gope V. Kali Churn Goola 22 C.k 179.2. We see no reason to differ from that ruling.3. We accordingly reverse the decree of the lower appellate Court, and restore that of the Munsif with costs in this and the lower appellate Court....
In Re: Vencataramanuja Reddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.828
ORDER1. What the Joint Magistrate finds is that the intention of the accused was to take possession unlawfully of the land, and having found this he says that the act of the accused necessarily involved annoyance to the complainant. To bring the case under Section 447, Indian Penal Code, it must be found that the accused intended to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy the complainant. The act of the accused may have caused annoyance to the complainant when he became aware of it but unless the intention of the accused was to annoy, and this is not found, they cannot be found guilty under Section 447, Indian Penal Code, tide Queen-Empress v. Rajapadayachi 19 M.j 240 Emperor v. Jangi Singh 26 A.n 194 and Emperor v. Bazid 27 A.n 2982. We, therefore, set aside the conviction and acquit the accused. The fines if paid will be refunded....
M. Cuppusawmi Chetty Vs. A.T. Doraisawmy Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.955
1. The plaintiff who it is alleged belongs to the januva class, a subdivision of the Vaisya community, married in June 1905 with the sanction of the caste Guru one of his daughters to one Venugopala Chetty, a High Court Vakil, who also is alleged to belong to the same sub-division. The plaint alleges that the defendants in collusion with others 'intending to disgrace the plaintiff and to cause it to be believed that the marriage connection was improper and low and that the plaintiff thereby became an outcaste, falsely and maliciously from time to time performed or caused to be performed prayaschitham or purification ceremony to various persons that dined in the plaintiff's house or ousted or caused to be ousted such persons from private houses when assembled forfeasts, &c;,' and after referring to a few instances states : Finally on the occasion of the death of the mother of one Vilvapathi Chetty, and Ruckmangotha Chetty, plaintiff himself attended the Karu-manthiram ceremony on invita...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »