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.
Gadidass Suryanarayana Row Vs. Gadidass Rajya Lakshmamma Alias Rajyam ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.800
1. The District, Judge is wrong in holding that there were no alienations. The plaint is very clumsily drawn. It is not clear that alienations purporting to be beyond the life-time of the widow were set up. But taking the plaint with issues Nos. 4 and 5, we may assume that it is the plaintiff's case that there were such alienations. We cannot agree with the Judge that there was no evidence of such alienations. Ex. P. and the deposition of P.W. No. 7 are evidence of some of the alienations We must reverse the decree of the District Judge and remand the case for disposal according to law. We must point out that the suit is only brought upon the footing of reversionary right to the property of a Hindu widow. Though the plaintiff speaks of himself as a member of an undivided family with the deceased husband of the 1st defendant, the suit is not for recovery of property on that basis. It is admitted for the appellant that the plaintiff claims only as reversioner. No question of limitation, ...
In Re: Saravana Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.855
ORDERSankaran Nair, J.1. The accused are convicted for having trespassed into a vacant manai of the prosecution witness No. 1, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, pulled out the fence therein, broken down a wall and re-built it. They are convicted under Sections 426, 143 and 447, Indian Penal Code.2. The first prosecution witness admits that the wall pulled down and partly re-built is the eastern wall of the house of the 2nd accused, to whom, therefore, it prima facie belongs The evidence of title of prosecution witness No. 1 is the razinama decree (Ex. A.) to which the 2nd accused was not a party. In his own words 'I say that the wall belongs to me, because the defendant in the Civil suit has written that the wall belongs to me.' He also admits that the wall was not delivered to him by the Court Amin. He has, therefore, not proved his title or possession. He also admits that about 5 or 6 feet of wall had been erected before the 1st of July, the date of the offence. There is n...
G. Bangarayya Garu Vs. P. Jagannatha Raju Garu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.615
1. The plaintiff sues to recover arrears of a maintenance allowance of Rs. 300 per annum granted to her by an instrument dated the 21st December 1871. The defendants allege that by an agreement of 1877 she is as from its date occupying certain land in satisfaction of the allowance granted. This the plaintiff denies. She admits the occupation but alleges that the land which she occupies is her own inherited from her husband.2. Three questions are raised:(1) Whether the agreement of 1871 was without consideration:(2) Whether the alleged agreement of 1877 can be proved;(3) Whether the suit is barred by limitation.3. On the 1st question, the District Judge says that the point was not seriously argued before him and we think there is no doubt that there is sufficient consideration to support the agreement of 1871.4. As to the second question, Exhibit XVII is produced on behalf of the defendants to prove the agreement of the 10th April 1877. It is an instrument executed by the plaintiff in w...
Raman Nair and ors. Vs. Pannangat Chandu Kutti Nair and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.930
1. The only question argued in second appeal is about the validity of the melcharth. The plaintiffs are clearly barred from disputing it, as defendants Nos. 2 to 19 have been in receipt of rents as melcharthdars for more than 12 years. The ruling in Madhava v. Narayana 9 M. 244, is a clear authority in the defendants' favour.2. The second appeal is dismissed with costs....
Srinivasa Aiyangar and ors. Vs. Srinivasa Aiyengar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-1910
Reported in: (1910)20MLJ546
1. Judgment in this case was reserved as we wished to consider, in connection with an argument of Mr. P.R. Sundara Aiyar, to be noticed presently, the true effect, with reference to the present claim, of the adjudication in O.S. No. 2 of 1896 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court of Tinnevelly, where it was established that the right to the Adhyapakam office in the temple of Nachiar and Vatapatra Sayanar in Srivilliputhur as well as in all the shrines attached thereto was vested in the Thengalai and other Thirtakars, residents of that place, as found in the decree and judgment, and that the Vadagalais other than the Thirtakars possessed no interest whatsoever in the office. As was intimated by us in the course of the argument, t here can be no doubt that in that litigation the then plaintiffs acted on behalf of all the Thengalais, while the then defendants respresented the Vadagalais of the place, having been duly constituted so to represent by the notification issued by the Cou...
Mayan Thariyakath Kathijakutti Umma and anr. Vs. Ithikamparambil Kuthu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-1910
Reported in: (1910)20MLJ415
1. The plaintiffs alleged that they had given notice to the defendants to quit, but it has been found that none was given. The defendants alleged that the plaintiffs had no title to the land; that they (the defendants) were not in occupancy as their tenants but as jenmis by virtue of a purchase from the former jenmi. The tenancy alleged or found is a tenancy from year to year, terminable by a notice to quit, and this fact distinguishes the present case from Anandamoyee v. Lakhi Chandra Mitra I.L.R. (1906) C. 339, and Venkatramana Bhatta v. Gundaraya I.L.R. (1908) M. 403, where the tenancy was, in both cases, of a kind determinable only by forfeiture or efflux of time. In the case of a tenancy terminable by a notice to quit, the tenant, by denying the landlord's title before the suit, forfeits or is held to waive his right to the notice-Unhamma Devi v. Vaikunta Hegde I.L.R. (1893) M. 218 and when the tenant alleges facts which by necessary implication involve a denial of the landlord's ...
Nathamuri Narayana Aiyangar Vs. T.K. Balasubramania Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.797a
Arnold White, C.J.1.The receipt, which is relied on by the plaintiff, Ex. A2, is, (assuming the maistry had authority to give the receipt) on the authority of Kadiri Pakirappa v. Manki Husan Sahib 19 M.L.J. 650 : 6 M.L.T. 155 : 3 Ind. Cas. 1, an acknowledgment of liability within the meaning of Section 19 of the Limitation Act. There is no reference to this receipt in the judgment and it is not set up in the plaint as a ground of exemption from limitation--the case made in the plaint being that the defendant was liable on a settlement of account. Apparently this settlement was found against. I do not think, however, the plaintiff ought to be shut out from asking for the price of goods delivered. On payment of the costs of the petition to this Court in any event, he may amend his plaint, by setting up as a ground of exemption from the law of limitation, the receipt of the 19th December 1904 (Ex. A2) and the case will be restored to the file of the Subordinate Judge. The other costs will...
Sammantha Gramany and ors. Vs. Devasikamany Gramany and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1910
Reported in: (1910)20MLJ364
1. The plaintiffs sued for partition of a one- third share in undivided family property. Both the Courts below have given them a decree. Defendants Nos. 1 to 4 have preferred this second appeal making the plaintiffs alone respondents without impleading defendants Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 11 to 14 who would be entitled to a third share on the basis of the lower Court's decrees. The respondents contend that the appeal fails for non-joinder of the other defendants. The appellants rely on the fact that they alone are in possession of the suit properties, and on Order 1, Rule 9, which declares that no suit shall be dismissed for non-joinder. The rule proceeds to lay down that the Court may deal with the matter in controversy so far as regards the rights and interests of the parties actually before it. We are inclined to think that the fact of the appellants alone being in possession does not affect the question. Nor can we accept the contention that we have no power to dismiss the second appeal. In...
Garapaty Venkatarayudu, Minor, by Next Friend, Kamma Butchi Pattabhira ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1910
Reported in: (1910)20MLJ759
1. Chinna Sanyasi v. Suriya I.L.R. (1882} M. 186 and Subramania Chettiar v. Padmanabha Chettiar I.L.R. (1896) M. 267 are clear authority that the plaintiff was entitled to sue for partition and recovery of his share of the property purchased by Ist defendant. This is a further relief other than a mere declaration of title which the plaintiff was entitled to ask for, and this being so, his suit for a mere declaration is bad.2. The appeal is dismissed with costs....
In Re: H. Nabi Khan Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.929
ORDERArnold White, C.J.1. In this case the first point taken by Mr. Cowdell on behalf of the petitioner, as I understand it, was that the finding of the Chairman after inspection under Section 23 of Act II of 1907 that the work was otherwise than in accordance with the approved plan was wrong. In regard to this point, it seems to me, that the finding of the Chairman on this question is, subject to the right of appeal, given by Section 23, final.2. With regard to the other point taken by Mr. Cowdell, I have felt some difficulty and that is the point on which the petition was admitted by the learned Judge who made the order of admission. Mr. Cowdell's point is that the proceedings for the recovery of penalty are premature. The history of these proceedings, as I understand them, is this: On the 4th May 1909, the Chairman issued a notice under Section 23 of the Act in question requiring the owner of the building to make such alterations as were specified in the notice with the object of br...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »