Chennai Court February 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.
A.L.A.R. Arunachellam Chettiar Vs. P.S.K. Haji Sheek Meera Rowthar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1910
Reported in: (1911)ILR34Mad25
1. The second defendant who is the appellant before us claims ratable distribution out of moneys realised in execution of the decree in Original Suit No. 681 of 1904 on the file of the District; Munsif of Tinnevelly. In execution of that decree certain moveable properties which belonged to the ninth and tenth defendants were sold. The second defendant who had instituted Original Suit No. 701 of 1904 attached the same properties before judgment. The sale was held on the 10th March 1905, but the-proceeds were realised on various days up to the 1st of April. The second defendant applied for ratable distribution on the 11th March 1905. His application having been allowed the present suit is instituted by other decree holders against the same judgment-debtor, who raise the question as to the second defendant's right to ratable distribution. We may aasume, notwithstanding the fact that the sale was held on the day previous to the date of the application for ratable distribution, if that appl...
Mangalaswami Alias Muthu Vijiya Ragunatha thevar Vs. Subbia Pillai and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1910
Reported in: (1911)ILR34Mad64
1. The plaintiff is the owner of a fourth share in the melvaram right of Kavoor village. The first defendant having obtained a decree in Original Suit No. 24 of 1898 in the Subordinate Court of Madura East for a threa-twentieth share of the melvaram right, the plaintiff's guardian entered into an arrangement with the first defendant whereby the first defendant was to have a mortgage of the plaintiff's right to the fourth share of the rents due to him from fasli 1310 as security for the first defendant's share of the rents for faslis 1307 and 1308 unlawfully received by the plaintiffs father. The transaction was in substance a mortgage of future rents due for the plaintiff's share to the first defendant. Both the Courts below have held that the document being unregistered was inadmissible in evidence. The Munsif gave a decree to the plaintiff for the sum of Rs. 496-8-6 holding that the first defendant was a trespasser. The District Judge on appeal has dismissed the plaintiff's suit. Ha ...
Rangasawmy Padayachi and anr. Vs. Narayanasawmy Padayachi by His Agent ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.417
1. The suit was upon a promissory-note executed by the 1st defendant at Kimberley in Griqualand. He was adjudicated an insolvent by the High Court there before the institution of this suit at Mayavaram. The first objection to the jurisdiction of the Munsif that the cause of action arose out of British India need not be considered as the defendants resided within the jurisdiction at the date of suit. The second objection is that the insolvency operates as a discharge of the debt. No authority has been cited in support of that proposition. The 1st defendant was examined as a witness and he does not say in his deposition that an order of discharge was made. Insolvency does not by itself operate as a discharge in all jurisdictions. Even assuming that it does so under the French law--as to which see Quelin v. Moisson 1 Knapp. 266 : 12 E.R. 320 and Murugesa Chetti v. Annamalai Chetti 23 Ma. 458--it does not follow it is the law of Griqualand. No statute or decision or text-book of authority ...
The Secretary of State for India in Council, Represented by the Collec ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1910
Reported in: (1910)20MLJ766
1. The dispute in this case relates to the right of Government to levy water cess on two acres of Inam land cultivated with the aid of water drawn from an alleged Government source. The plaintiff is the owner of an Inam village and the lands which have been assessed with the water cess have been classed as dry. The dry assessment constituted the Inam. Two-fifths of a sheet of water known as Tharuvai was included in the Inam. It is found by the Subordinate Judge on appeal that water from a Government source flows through the Mudalore Odai into the part of the Tharuvai which belongs to Government and thence onwards into the deeper part belonging to the plaintiff. The Tharuvai receives its supplv of water generally from direct rainfall, but in certain seasons and in certain years the Odai water makes the Tharuvai overflow and submerge some of the dry lands of the Inamdar. It is found that in Fasli 1312, the plaintiff was compelled to make the best of the situation by raising wet crops on ...
Lakshminarayana Nainar Vs. Valliammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1910
Reported in: (1911)ILR34Mad250
1. The decision in this ease depends on the construction of exhibit A. That was' a raginamah filed before the District Munsif of Krishnagiri in Original Suit No. 256 of 189?. Peria Ramaswami, the vendor of the first defendant, was the plaintiff in that, case and the present third plaintiff was the then fourth defendant;--The razinamah provides that the properties therein referred to should be held and enjoyed in common by Peria Ramaswami and the then fourth defendant and that in the event of Peria Ramaswami becoming issueless the entire properties should belong to the then fourth defendant exclusively. Peria Ramaswami has died without leaving issue. The question is whether his alienation of the suit properties during his lifetime in favour of the first defendant can have any legal validity after his death. Assuming that Peria Ramaswami had an absolute estate in a moiety of the properties, there is a clear gift over that moiety on his dying without issue to the fourth defendant. In Sree...
The Secretary of State for India in Council Represented by the Collect ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.199a
1. The dispute in this case relates to the right of Government to levy water-cess on two acres of inam land cultivated with the aid of water drawn from an alleged Government source. The plaintiff is the owner of an inam village and the lands which have been assessed with the water cess have been classified as dry. The dry assessment constituted the inam. Two-fifths of a sheet of water known as Taruvai was included in the inam. It is found by the Subordinate Judge on appeal that water from a Government source flows through theMudalore Odai into the part of the Taruvai which belongs to Government and thence onwards into the deeper part belonging to the plaintiff. The Taruvai receives the supply of water generally from direct rainfall; but in certain seasons and in certain years the Odai water makes the Taruvai overflow and submerge some of the dry lands of the inamdars. It is found that in Fasli 1312, the plaintiff was compelled to make the best of the situation by raising wet crops on t...
The Secretary of State for India in Council Represented by the Collect ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1910
Reported in: (1911)ILR34Mad21
1. The dispute in this case relates to the right of Government to levy water-cess on 2 acres of inam land cultivated with the aid of water drawn from an alleged Government source. The plaintiff is the owner of an inam village and the lands which have been assessed with the water-cess have been classified as dry. The dry assessment constituted the inam. Two-fifths of a sheet of water known as taruvai was included in the inam. It is found by the Subordinate Judge on appeal that water from a Government source flows through the Mudalore odai into the part of the taruvai which belongs to Government and thence onwards into the deeper part belonging to the plaintiff. The taruvai receives its supply of water generally from direct rainfall; but in certain seasons and in certain years the odai water makes the taruvai overflow and submerge some of the dry lands of the inamdar. It is found that in fasli 1312, the plaintiff was compelled to make the best of the situation by raising wet crops on 2 a...
Arakal Joseph Gabriel Vs. Domingo Inas (Died); His Son Inas (Minor) Gu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1910
Reported in: (1910)20MLJ377
1. The 1st defendant, a Native Christian, made a gift of property to his three children. Two of them died. The father mortgaged the property to the plaintiff. The question is, whether the father had any interest in the property. It is argued that on the death of the two children the father inherited their two-thirds share to the exclusion of the surviving brother under the Indian Succession Act. We are unable to agree with this contention. There are no words in the instrument of gift which indicate an intention to create tenancies in common. The rule of English law is to presume that the donees are joint tenants. This principle is adopted by the Indian Legislature in the Illustration to Section 93 of the Succession Act. The illustration, no doubt, deals with the case of a legacy. But the same principle is applicable to wills as to gifts unless there are special rules justifying a deviation. We must, therefore, regard the gift in this case as joint. It has been argued that Courts of Equ...
Arakal Joseph Gabriel Vs. Domingo Inas and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1910
Reported in: (1911)ILR34Mad80
1. The first defendant, a Native Christian, made a gift of property to his three children: two of them died. The father mortgaged the property to the plaintiff. The question is, whether the father had any interest in the property? It is argued that on the death of the two children the father inherited their two-thirds share to the exclusion of the surviving brother under the Indian Succession Act. We are unable to agree with this contention; There are no words in the instrument of gift which indicate an intention to create tenancies in common. The rule of. English law is to presume that the doness are joint tenants, This principle is adopted by the Indian legislature in the illustration to Section 93 of the Succession Act. The illustration no doubt deals with the case of a legacy. But the same principle is applicable to wills as to gifts unless there are special rules justifying a deviation. We must therefore regard the gift in this case as joint. It has been argued that Courts of Equi...
Arkel Joseph Gabriel Vs. Domingo Inas and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.7a
1. The 1st defendant, a Native Christian, made a gift of property to his three children. Two of them died. The father mortgaged the property to the plaintiff. The question is whether the father had any interest in the property. It is argued that, on the death of the two children, the father inherited their two-thirds share to the exclusion of the surviving brother under the Indian Succession Act. We are unable to agree with this contention. There are no words in the instrument of gift which indicate an intention to create tenancies-in-common. The rule of English Law is to presume that the donees are joint tenants. This principle is adopted by the Indian Legislature in the illustration to Section 93 of the Succession Act. The illustration, no doubt, deals with the case of a legacy. But the same principle is applicable to Wills as to gifts unless there are special rules justifying a deviation. We must, therefore, regard the gift in this case as joint. It has been argued that Courts of Eq...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »