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.
Medai DalavIn Tirumalai Appa Modeliar Vs. Rama Subbier and ors., Trust ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1910
Reported in: (1910)20MLJ374
1. The plaintiffs and defendants Nos. 4 to 6 are the managers of a Kattalai in a temple. Defendants Nos. 1 to 3 are the trustees of the temple. Since the days of Government management of the temple, a sum of 1 1/16 fanam per diem was being paid to the managers of the Kattalai for the performance of the Kattalai. From the time the defendants' predecessors were appointed trustees on the retirement of Government from management they and their successors received the amount from Government along with the other tasdik monies and paid it over to the managers of the Kattalai.2. The present suit relates to arrears for 1 and odd years. The District Judge has held the claim barred except for the last three years before suit under Article 62 of the Limitation Act.3. We think the suit falls under Section 10 of the Limitation Act and no portion of the claim is therefore barred. It is found that the trustees of the temple have received the monies and paid them to the manager of the Kattalai for a pe...
A. Shanmugappa Vs. A. Mariappa and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.267a
Sankarn Nair, J.1. The 1st defendant, as the decree-holder in O.S. No. 15 of 1893, was entitled to get from the plaintiffs, the judgment-debtors, the sum of Rs. 7,735. Between the 29hh October 1901 and the 25th February 1902, he was paid the sum of Rs. 1,700. (A series B and C). On the 1st November 1902, the 1st defendant acknowledged that the amount remaining due to him under the decree was only Rs. 1,893-0-9. The 2nd and 3rd defendants decree-holders of the 1st defendant attached this decree and demanded payment from the plaintiffs (B) and they agreed to recognise any payments that may have been made to the 1st defendant (F. & G.). They received from the plaintiffs on the 2nd January 1904, a sum of Rs. 1,140-11-5. (K.F. 2 shows how this was arrived at) and granted the; Receipt (4) on the 2nd January 1904 in which it is recited that out of the amount of Rs. 3,717-12-9, which was due to 1st defendant, under the decree on 1st October 1901, the plaintiffs have paid him Rs. 2,222-4-0 and ...
Venkata Reddiar Vs. Krishna Iyerngar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.684
1. This suit is brought under Section 14 of the Religious Endowments Act 1863. We are of opinion that the question of jurisdiction is governed by the decisions of this Court in Elayalwar Reddiar v. Numberumal Chettiar 23 M. 298. In Krishuasawmi Aiyangar v. Samaram Singarachariar 30 Ma. 158 : 2 M.L.T. 69 : 17 M.L.J. 1 a case on which the appellant relied, the proceedings were not under the Act in question. That a Civil Court has jurisdiction in a case of this sort, when the proceedings are instituted, under the Act of 1863, was clearly recognised in Vanamalai Bhashyakar v. Krishnasawami Thathachariar 16 M.L.J. 150. The point that the defendants are only trustees of the Nachiar temple and not of the Desikar shrine, was not raised in the written statement nor in the issues and it was not taken in the Court below. We decline to allow the appellant to take it here. The appeal is dismissed with costs....
Chaturvedula Suryanarayana Vs. Chaturvedula Ramamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-1910
Reported in: (1911)ILR34Mad88
Miller, J.1. No one appeared for respondent. I think the hearing of the application was barred by Section 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act as the security was not deposited until after the petition was disposed of. No doubt in Ramasiuami v. Kurisu I.L.R. (1890) Mad. 178, Parkar and Wilkinson, JJ., held that Section 17 is 'merely directory,' but they did not decide that the Judge of the Small Cause Court could allow the deposit at any time. The District Munsif was in my opinion clearly wrong in hearing the petition before the security was deposited, but in as much as he heard it without objection on that ground by the plaintiff, and received the deposit, I should not be inclined to set aside the order in revision. I think, however, that the application was barred by limitation, I agree with the decision in Bimola Soonduree Dassee v. Kalee Kishen Meojoomdar (1874) 22 W.R. 5 which held that the notice under Section 248 is a process for enforcing the decree and I think that that...
Chadurnedulu Suryanarayana Vs. Chaturnedulu Ramanna
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.400
Miller, J.1. No one appears for the respondent. I think the hearing of the application was barred by Section 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act as the security was not deposited, until after the petition was disposed of. No doubt in Ramasami v. Kurisu 13 Ma. 178, Parker and Wilkinson, JJ. held that Section 17 is merely directory but they did not decide that the Judge of the Small Cause Court could allow the deposit at any; time. The District Munsif was, in my opinion, clearly wrong in hearing the petition before the security was deposited, but inasmuch as he heard it without objection on that ground by the plaintiff, and received the deposit, I should not be inclined to set aside the order in revision. I think, however, that the application was barred by limitation. I agree with the decision in Bimola Soonduree Vassee v. Kalee Kishan Mojoomdar 22 W.R. 5, which held that the notice under Section 2^8 is a process for enforcing the decree and I think that that process is executed...
Santhalva Vs. Manjanna Shetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-1910
Reported in: (1911)ILR34Mad1
Arnold White, C.J.1. The main question raised in this appeal is no doubt one of great importance and so far as we know, the question in this precise form has never come before the courts for determination. But as we had the benefit of hearing the question fully argued by Mr. Sundara Ayyar, and as we have made up our minds with regard to it, we do not think any advantage is ho be gained by further consideration of the point. The question is whether the appointment of a trustee of a temple which is made by two members of a temple committee who purported to act as the committee, although they were only two out of three trustees originally appointed, there being only two members of the committee at the time the appointment was made, is good, The learned District Judge has held that it is not and I think that he is right Section 7 of the Act of 1863 provides that ' 'the Local Government' in certain circumstances, 'is once for all to appoint a committee to exercise the powers of the Board of...
Mahadeva Aiyar Vs. Gopala Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-1910
Reported in: (1911)ILR34Mad51
1. It is to be regretted that the respondent is not represented in this appeal.2. It is found that the survey numbers in the two mortgage deeds executed by the first defendant to the plaintiff 49D and 194-0 were by mutual mistake inserted instead of 49-A and 194-W, respectively. The second defendant was a subsequent mortgagee. His evidence, as we understand the case, was that he knew of this mistake and that it was on the strength of this mistake that ha advanced money on second mortgage. The Judge; finds that the second defendant made the advance without notice of the error in the mortgage to the plaintiff, 'though', he says 'he was aware of it'. We cannot follow this finding. If the second defendant made the advance with knowledge of the mistake,. we do not see how it can be said that he did so without notice or that be acquired rights in good faith (Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act). The plaint does not contain a prayer for rectification, of the first defendant's mortgage, but ...
Saminada Sastrigal Vs. Pathma Bibi Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.175; (1910)20MLJ716
1. There were three matters involved in the suit. The first of them relates to the construction resting on the plaintiff's kosalai. The kosalai is part of the plaintiff's house. The plaintiff's and the defendant's houses belonged originally to one owner. He conveyed the houses and the grounds attached to them to different vendees. We must hold that the kosalai attached to the eastern house passed to the plaintiff, the purchaser. The decision in Laybourn v. Gridley (1892) 2 Ch. 53 : 61 L.J. Ch. 352 : 40 W.R. 474 proceeded upon the special facts of that case. It is no authority for the position that the kosalai of the adjoining house which overhangs the ground of the house first sold passes to the purchaser of that house. The kosalai then being the plaintiff's, is she entitled to the space above and beneath it? We think not. See Corbett v. Hill (1871) L.R. 9 Eq. 671 : 39 L.J. Ch. 517 : 22 L.T. 263 Can the defendant, however, raise a construction resting on the plaintiff's kosalai? No aut...
Maddu Yerrayya Vs. Yadulla Kangali Naidu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1910
Reported in: (1910)20MLJ764
1. We are unable to uphold the decision of the District Judge. The plaintiffs are inamdars. They sue to eject the defendant, who and whose predecessors have been in possession for about fifty years. The plaintiffs have given no evidence of a right to eject the defendant which the Judge is inclined to accept. If the plaintiffs' inam were in a zemindari they could not be in a better position as regards the right to eject the defendant than the zemindar who created the inam. If the inam was situated outside a zemindari and was granted by Government there would be no presumption in their favour that they were entitled to eject. The decision in Achayya v. Hanumantrayudu I.L.R. (1891) M. 269 has been explained as based on the particular facts of that case in Cheekati Zamindar v. Ramasooroo Dhore I.L.R. (1899) M. 381. As the plaintiffs have failed to prove a right to eject the defendant we must reverse the District Judge's decree and restore that of the Munsif with costs here and in the lower...
Ranee Annapurni Nachiar Vs. Swaminatha Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1910
Reported in: (1910)20MLJ785
1. Two points have been taken in this appeal:(1) that a right to future maintenance is not transferable and that, consequently, the mortgage by the 1st defendant to the plaintiffs of her right to future maintenance is ineffective ; and (2) that the contract was induced by undue influence. 2. As regards the 1st point, we are of opinion that a right to future maintenance is not an interest in property restricted in its enjoyment to the owner personally within the meaning of Clause (d) of Section 6 of the Transfer of Property Act. Our attention was called to an observation in Shephard and BROWNE'S Commentaries on the Transfer of Property Act, 6th edition, page 45, occurring in the Notes to Clause (d) where the learned authors observe that it seems clear that a widow's right to future maintenance cannot be made the subject of a sale or other transfer by her since it exists for her personal benefit only, and they further observe that it may be doubted whether she could lawfully transfer her...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »