Chennai Court January 1910 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.
Duvvada Harikristna Chowdary Vs. Sripada Venkata Lakshmi Narayana Pant ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-1910
Reported in: (1911)ILR34Mad402
1. The father of the plaintiffs obtained a decree against the fifth defendant and in execution thereof brought to sale and purchased the fifth defendant's one- fifth share in the two suit villages. The plaintiffs in the suit out of which these appeals arise sued for partition and for possession of the fifth defendant's one-fifth share in the said villages. Balakrishnamma, adoptive father of the second defendant, and defendants Nos. 1, 3 and 5 were members of an undivided 'family. In 1871 they effected a partition. The bulk of the family property was divided by metes and bounds, but the suit villages and some other immoveable property were kept undivided for convenience of enjoyment and were held by the divided members as tenants in common, though the actual management was vested in Balakrishnamma, who was to pay to each of the tenants in common his share of the income. In January 1893, Balakrishnamma died and the management was thereafter with the first defendant.2. Two of the issues f...
Duvvada Hari Kristna Chowdhary and Vs. Sripada Venkata Lakshmi Narayan ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.491
1. The father of the plaintiffs obtained a decree against the 5th defendant and in execution thereof brought to sale and purchased the 5th defendant's one-fifth share in the two suit villages. The plaintiffs in the suit, out of which these appeals arise, sued for partition and for possession (sic) 5th defendant's one-fifth share in the (sic) villages.2. Balakrishnama, adoptive father of the 2nd defendant, and defendants Nos. 1, 3 and 5 were members of an undivided family. In 1871 they effected a partition. The bulk of the family property was divided by metes and bounds, but the suit villages and some other immovable property were kept undivided for convenience of enjoyment and were held by the divided members as tenants in common, though the actual management was vested in Balakrishnama, who was to pay to each of the tenants in common his share of the income. In January 1893, Balakrishnama died and the management was thereafter with the 1st defendant.3. Two of the issues framed in the ...
Her Highness Matusri Jijoyamba Bai Sahiba by Her Duly Authorzed Agent ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.827
Arnold White, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a decree of Mr. Justice Boddam dismissing the plaintiff's suit. The plaintiff's suit was in ejectment and the plaintiff relied upon an alleged lease which was set up in paragraph 4 of the plaint. The lease is alleged to have been executed in November 1845 by the then Maharajah of Tanjore and under the alleged lease one Aiya Dikshadar, according to the allegations in paragraph 4 of the plaint, became a tenant-at-will of the Maharajah. Certain documents were tendered in evidence in the Court below and were rejected by the learned Judge and the ground of this appeal is that these documents were wrongly rejected.2. With regard to the alleged lease a document was tendered in evidence which was produced by the 1st witness for the plaintiff who says that he found it among the records in an almirah in a room of the plaintiff. And he says it purports to be a copy and to bear the signature of the Rajah who is referred to in paragraph 4 of the plaint. N...
Manickam Pillai Vs. Audinarayana Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-1910
Reported in: (1911)ILR34Mad47; (1910)20MLJ407
Arnold White, C.J.1. The question which arises for determination in this appeal is whether certain words in Clause 5 of exhibit 'A create a charge within the meaning of Section 100 of the Transfer of Property Act. For the purpose of dealing with this question it is necessary to read the words which it is suggested create the charge by the light of the provisions of the deed as a whole. Now the deed in question is a partition deed entered into between two parties, one Sambasiva Pillai who is the first defendant in the present suit, and one. Manikkam Pillai who is the plaintiff in the present suit.2. The first clause provides that properties mentioned in schedule A should be enjoyed by Sambasiva Pillai and that properties; mentioned in schedule B should be enjoyed by Manikkam Pillai. Then clause No. 2 provides that, as the value of the properties in schedule A, i.e., Sambasiva Pillai's schedule, is more than that of the properties in schedule B, Manikkam's schedule, a sum of Rs. 875 shou...
A.N. Ramasami Aiyer and anr. Vs. Veerappa Chetti and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1910
Reported in: (1910)20MLJ308
Munro, J.1. The 1st plaintiff in these appeals brought O.S. No. 8 of 1900 against Subbaraya Chetti, Siva Chidambara Chetti and Narayana Row for dissolution of partnership, for winding up of the partnership accounts and for the recovery from Subbaraya Chetti of a certain sum of money. It was alleged that under the partnership agreement Subbaraya Chetti was the managing partner, that a sum of money was given to him by the plaintiff and Narayana Row's father and that he refused to furnish accounts. The cause of action was stated to have arisen in September 1899 when the partnership trade was stopped. A decree was passed dissolving the partnership and directing Subbaraya Chetti to pay the 1st appellant Rs. 2,976-8-2 3/4 with interest. Subbaraya Chetti having died before execution, the 1st appellant sought to execute the decree under Section 234, Civil Procedure Code, against Rathina Ammal, the widow, and Veerappa Chetti, the undivided brother of Subbaraya Chetti. The District Judge passed ...
A.N. Ramaswamy Aiyar and anr. Vs. Veerappa Chetty and and ors. and Aru ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.362
Munro, J.1. The 1st plaintiff in these appeals brought Original Suit No. 8, of 1900 against Subbaraya Chetty, Siva Chidambara Chetty, and Narayana Row, for dissolution of partnership, for winding up of the partnership accounts and for the recovery from Subbaraya Chetty of a certain sum of money. It was alleged that under the partnership agreement Subbaraya Chetty was the managing partner, that a sum of money was given to him by the plaintiff and Narayana Row's father and that he refused to furnish accounts. The cause of action was stated to have arisen in September 1899 when the partnership trade was stopped. A decree was passed dissolving the partnership and directing Subbaraya Chetti to pay the 1st appellant Rs. 2,976-8-2 with interest. Subbaraya Chetty having died before execution, the 1st appellant sought to execute the decree under Section 234, Civil Procedure Code, against Rathina Ammal, the widow, and Veerappa Chetty, the undivided brother of Subbaraya Chetty. The District Judge...
Guruvappa Chetty Vs. Srinivasa Row and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.680
1. It is conceded that the suit is not barred by Section 244 of the Code of 1882. There is no doubt that the order made by the District Judge must be taken to be an order under Section 335 of the Code of 1882; but it is clear that the plaint was presented on the 22nd March 1905 within a year of the date of that order. The suit is not, therefore, barred by limitation on the ground taken by the District Judge: but a plea is now raised that it was barred because the 3rd defendant, the purchaser from the 1st defendant, was added as a party after the period of one year had expired. This question was not before the lower Courts and the plaintiff has not had an opportunity of answering it. We do not now decide whether or not the 3rd defendant, who is not the party in whose favour the order was made, but a purchaser from him, can in any event rely on Article 11 as a bar to the suit. This is a question which at the present stage it is unnecessary to decide; but as the suit has to be remanded fo...
The Crown Prosecutor Vs. G. Kothandaramiah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1910
Reported in: (1910)20MLJ402
1. The appeal is by the Crown against an order of the 2nd Presidency Magistrate acquitting Mr. G. Kothandaramiah, Manager of a journal called the International Police Service Magazine of a charge preferred against him under Section 64 of the Post Office Act. On the 29th October 1908 the accused sent a copy of the Magazine by value payable post to Mr. Webster, Superintendent of Police, Haldwani, signing a declaration to the effect that the article was sent in execution of a bona fide order received by him. Without such declaration being made the Post Office would not, by reason of a rule issued under the Act by the Governor-General in Council, have accepted the V.P. article for transmission to the addressee. Mr. Webster refused to receive the article on the ground that he never gave an order for it and moved for the prosecution of the sender for making a false declaration to the contrary in violation of the Post Offices Act. The Magistrate found on the evidence that the accused had rece...
Arayil Kali Amma and ors. Vs. Palappakkara Manakal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-1910
Reported in: (1910)20MLJ347
1. In this case the 4th respondent died on the 9th December 1907. No application has been made till now to bring his legal representative on the record. The question is whether the second appeal abates under Section 108 read with Order XXII, Rule 11, and Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The time provided by the Limitation Act of 1877 was not six months under Article 175 (c) but 3 years under Article 178 according to the ruling of the Full Bench of this Court in Susya Pillai v. Aiyakannu Pillai I.L.R. (1906) M. 529. But this period has been cut down to six months under Article 177 of the Limitation Act of 1908, If this article applies the second appeal must abate as regards the 4th respondent.2. According to Section 3 of Act IX of 1908 an application to bring in the legal representative now made must be dealt with under this Act. Section 30 of the Act makes a special provision in respect of suits for which a shorter period is provided by the new Act than by the old, giving a furth...
Arayil Kali Amma and ors. Vs. Pelappakkara Man Aral Sankaran Nambudrip ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-1910
Reported in: (1911)ILR34Mad292
1. In this case the fourth respondent died on the 9th December 1907. No application has been made till now to bring his legal representative on the record. The question is whether the second appeal abates under Section 108 read with Order XXII, Rule 11 and Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The time provided by the Limitation Act of 1877 was not six months under Article 175 (c) but three years under Article 178 according to the ruling of the Pull Bench of this Court in Susya Pillai v. Aiyakannu Pillai I.L.R. (1906) Mad. 529.2. But this period has been cut down to six months under Article 177 of the Limitation Act of 1908. If this article applies the second appeal must abate as regards the fourth respondent.3. According to Section 3 of Act IX of 1908, an application to bring in the legal representative now made must be dealt with under this Act. Section 30 of the Act makes a special provision in respect of suits for which a shorter period is provided by the new Act than by the old, ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »