Chennai Court December 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.
Kandalam Venkubayamma and anr. Vs. Kandalam Narasimha Row and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1910
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.163a
1. The first question in the case is whether the plaintiffs are the reversioners of the first defendant. The plaintiffs claim to be six degrees from the common ancestor of themselves and 1st defendant's husband. The Subordinate Judge finds that the relationship set up by the plaintiffs is true. No serious attempt has been made before us to show that this finding is incorrect. We have no doubt that Exhibits A and B are genuine, Exhibits A and B are engrossed on stamp papers purchased just before the dates of their execution. They show that Chetti Vencatacharlu, the grandfather of the plaintiffs, was the grandson of another Chetti Vencatacharlu, and Rajacharlu, the grandfather of the 1st defendant's husband, was the grandson of one Anantachatlu, and also that Chetti Vencatacharlu No. 1 was a brother of Ananthacharlu. Exhibits Nos. I, III and IV, which are inam statements, show the pedigrees of the plaintiffs branch and of the 1st defendants' branch. The plaintiff's pedigree is stated up ...
Sri Satoda Bihara Mahapatra Kondamodalu Linga Reddi Alias Sullee Abhoy ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1910
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ166
1. This is a suit by the Zamindar of Polavaram to recover a certain village named Kondamadulu described in Schedule A attached to the plaint, and the forest which formed part of the same village and is described in Schedule B. The plaintiff's case is that the defendant is only a tenant from year to year and that the tenancy has been determined by due notice to quit. The defendant alleges that1 he is a Mokhasadar entitled to a perpetual tenure. He is not a cultivating tenant of the property but an intermediate holder between the Zamindar and the cultivating tenants. The Kabuliat executed by the Zamindar to Government under the permanent settlement, which is Exhibit A, shows that Kondamodulu is not amongst the Mokhasas of which a list is given. There is no dispute in the case that Kondamodulu is included in the Zamindari, although the name does not appear in the list of Jirayati villages given in that document. It is stated for the respondent, and there is evidence in support of the view...
Yereni Anjayya and ors. Vs. Vappulapati Bapaya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1910
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.157
1. The District Judge is clearly wrong in holding that the application is barred by limitation, because it was re-presented some three months after the date of its return by the District Munsif. The applicant is entitled to the deduction of the time spent in the District Munsif's Court under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. There is no suggestion in the case that the petitioner was lacking in due diligence in prosecuting his proceeding before the District Munsif.2. Mr. Prakasam, for the respondent, takes the objection that the plaint does not state in terms, as it should under Section 50 of the Civil Procedure Code, that the petitioner was entitled to the deduction of the time under Section 14 of the Limitation Act by reason of his prosecution of the previous proceeding with due diligence in another Court. If this objection had been taken in the Court of first instance, we have no doubt that the proper order would have been to require the plaintiff to supply the omission. But the obje...
Lank Ramaswami Being Minor by Natural Father Verunasi Suryanarayana Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1910
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.435
1. This is a suit by two minors, represented by a next friend, to set aside the adoption of the second defendant, who is also a minor. The second defendant's natural father was appointed guardian ad litem on the 28th September 1906. The issues were settled on the 5th October 1906 and the case was posted for final hearing to the 27th November 1906. In the meantime there was an application by the second defendant's guardian for an order to place him in funds directed against the plaintiff's next friend. Such an order was made by the Subordinate Judge apparently accepting the guardian's statement that he was unable to defend the suit as no funds are available to him. But the plaintiff's next friend on the 27th November 1906, the day fixed for final hearing, put in a petition stating that he was unable to find funds as he himself was only the next friend of the minors, and he prayed that the second defendant's guardian might be discharged or that the suit might be stayed until the attainme...
Kunapareddi Venkamma and anr. Vs. Kanapareddi Ramayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1910
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.727
1. This is a suit to set aside an adoption and to declare a Will not to be genuine. The plaintiff is the stepmother of one Krishnama, deceased. Krishnama died on the 7th August 1904. The 2nd defendant is the alleged adopted son and the 1st defendant is the widow of Krishnama. They rely upon a Will said to have been executed by Krishnama about 36 hours before his death, which is filed as Exhibit I in the case. It is said to have been executed in the evening, between 4 and 5 P.M. on the 5th August 1904. The Will was presented for registration about 25 days after Krishnama's death on the 2nd September 1904 and though objection was raised to the registration, the Sub-Registrar ordered the registration of the Will on the 21st December 1904. The validity of the adoption depends upon the genuineness of the Will. The onus of proving the Will rests upon the defendants, and we agree with the District. Judge in coming to the conclusion that the defendants have not discharged that burden. The test...
K. Chandra Mauliah Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1910
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.329
ORDERWallis, J.1. I think the lower Courts have erred in treating the question whether the erection is on a public road or not as immaterial. The notice was given under Section 98, as is expressly stated therein. That section only applies to obstructions and encroachments on any public road and under the definition of street, a public road only extends up to the boundaries of the adjacent property. I set aside the conviction and direct a re-trial....
Sulaiman Rowthan Vs. Pattuna Bivi Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1910
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.136
1. The appeal is by the 28th defendant. It relates to item 1 of schedule B. It is a mortgage evidenced by Exhibit B. The original of Exhibit B was executed in 1892 by the 4th defendant and the 28th defendant in favour of Ismailsa Rowthan Ismailsa Rowthan being dead, the plaintiff as one of the heirs to Ismailsa Rowthan's property claims a share in it. Ismailsa Rowthan died in 1899 and the present suit was brought in 1904. The case of this defendant is that the mortgagee bond was executed in favour of Ismailsa Rowthan merely with the object of preventing the 28th defendant from making a second marriage. The document itself appears to have been filed in a suit during his (Ismailsa Rowthan's) time. Ismailsa Rowthan having died before the proceedings in that suit terminated finally, the document was not taken back, and Exhibit B is a registration copy of it, The 23th defendant does not argue the 11th ground of appeal which is that opportunity ought to have been given to him to adduce evide...
Seshan Pattar and ors. Vs. Yakkanath Easwaran Unni Avergal Styled Ayin ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1910
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.940a
1. This is a suit for redemption. The first plaintiff was the jemni and the second plaintiff melcharatdar or second mortgagee. A decree was passed by the Subordinate Judge for redemption in favour of the second plaintiff. A further direction was made that if the second plaintiff failed to pay the amount specified within the period provided in the decree the mortgaged property was to be sold. This direction for sale is in accordance with the provisions of Section 92 of the Transfer of Property Act. Defendants Nos. 1 to 8 have preferred this appeal claiming a larger amount by way of compensation for improvements than was allowed by the decree of the original Court. Since the appeal was filed, the first plaintiff the jemni has died. It is said two years and a half have elapsed since the date of his death. His representatives have not been brought upon the record.2. A preliminary objection is taken that the appeal is liable to be dismissed as the mortgagor is not a party to the appeal. We ...
Srimath Deivasikamani Pandara Sannadhi Alias Nataraja Desikar Vs. E.K. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1910
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ129
1. The plantiff sues the Pandara Sannadhi of the Tiruvannamalai Mutt to recover, with interest, the amount due to him in respect of certain dealings with the late Pandara Sannadhi. The dealings mainly consisted in the supply of goods and payments for goods supplied by others and are alleged to have been entered into for the purpose of certain festivals celebrated in the mutt. It is found by the lower appellate court that the late Pandara Sannadhi kept a running account with the plaintiff for mutt purposes, either because he found it inconvenient to pay cash down for everything he purchased for the mutt or because he had not sufficient ready money, as some of the plaintiff's witnesses say, to pay cash down, and that, be that as it may, it was not improper for him to have such an account. The District Judge has allowed the whole of the plaintiff's claim with the exception of a claim for Rs. 50 advanced for the purchase of a carriage which he finds was not required for the purposes of the...
Chera Shankaranaranappya Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Counc ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1910
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.329a
1. The suit was brought for a declaration that the plaintiff was entitled to certain forest lands, that he was entitled to enjoy the same and that the Government was bound to grant patta for the lands without charging what the plaintiff calls 'seigniorage.' The District Judge has dismissed the suit. He has proceeded upon the documents filed by both sides in the case. He has taken no oral evidence and apparently the parties did not desire him to do so. There is nothing to show that the plaintiff wanted oral evidence to be taken which the Judge declined to record. There is no ground of appeal in the memorandum of appeal before us that the Judge has excluded evidence which he should have been taken in the case. We must, therefore, consider the question raised in the case on the documents filed by both the parties.2. The first document which Mr. Naraina Row invited our attention to is Exhibit A which is called Durmathi Chittah, or the accounts of 1803. The forest land now claimed by the pl...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »