Chennai Court April 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.
T.S. Ayirantha Chetty Vs. Aramanathochi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-1910
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ73
1. The only question is whether the 1st defendant had authority to mortgage the interest of the 2nd defendant. It is contended that she had such authority because she was executor under the will; because she was the guardian of the 2nd defendant, and because she was in possession as life-tenant.2. The will does not expressly appoint the 1st defendant executor, nor does the language of the will justify us in holding that she is an executor by implication. There is no direction to her to perform the most important duties of an executor, viz., to realize the debts due to the testator and to pay the debts due by him. The 1st defendant is not the natural or testamentary guardian of the 2nd defendant, nor has she been appointed his guardian by the Court. Further she is not in possession of the property as the 2nd defendant's guardian, but in her capacity as life-tenant under the will. The proposition that as life-tenant the 1st defendant had the power to mortgage the 2nd defendant's interest...
Subbu Shettethi and ors. Vs. Krishnacharya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-1910
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ159
1 We do not think any general rule can be laid down for all cases of this kind; here a number of members of the family were charged with rioting. The Sessions Judge found that it was not proved that they were present at the riot and acquitted them on appeal. We think that it is impossible to say that the courts were wrong in holding the Karnavan was entitled in the circumstances to raise money on the security of the family property for the defence, of the members of the family, if the money could not otherwise be procured, a question which is not before us.2. The second appeal is dimissed with costs....
Ravutu Adinarayanamma Vs. Sahukara Syed Murtuza Saheb and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.571
1. On the suit property there is a buttress put up by the plaintiff which covers the whole site. The Judge finds that the plaintiff has been in enjoyment of the buttress for a period sufficient to give the plaintiff a right of easement to retain it as a protection of her wall. If the plaintiff has put this buttress and has been in possession thereof for more than twelve years, and this we take to be the finding of the Judge, we are of opinion that the plaintiff must be deemed to have acquired a title to the site covered by the buttress by adverse possession. We are unable to accept his conclusion that this only gives her an easement. The defendant has not proved his plea that this was built with his permission. We, therefore, reverse the decree of the District Judge and restore the decree of the District Munsif for possession with costs throughout....
Unnamalai Ammal Vs. Kandasawmy Madpanor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.199
1. An appeal lies against an order refusing to recognize an assignment of a decree, Subbuthayammal v. Chidmbaram Asari 25 M. 383.2. The appeal against appellate order is dismissed with costs....
In Re: K. Narayan Nair
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.409
ORDERAbdur Rahim, J.1. I think this conviction must be set aside. The gist of an offence under Section 193, Indian Penal Code, in which the accused is charged with making two contradictory statements, one of which he must have known to be false, is that the two statements, finding the words of those statements in their ordinary and natural meaning in the light of the context in which they are used, must be irreconcilable. Beading the two statements made by the accused with reference to his having seen the man, who was under trial in Calendar Case No. 228 of 1909, run away from the custody of the peon, I do not find they are irreconcilable. On the first occasion the present accused had said that he had seen Rama Pattar's son Lakshmana Pattar running away from custody and on the second occasion what he said was that he saw one Pattar going eastward and that he was not certain whether that mait was the accused. The Prosecutor in the Magistrate's Court was content to leave the matter there...
In Re: Sub-divisional Magistrate and 2nd Grade Pleader
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-1910
Reported in: (1910)20MLJ498
ORDER1. We are of opinion that in this case we are not called upon to make any order under the Legal Practitioners' Act....
Muniswami Chetty Vs. Maruthammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.176a
Arnold White, C.J.1. The point I have to consider has been referred to me in the form of an abstract question of law and I must deal with it in that form. The question is: Is an executor under a Will who has accepted the office of executor and acted as such estopped thereby from setting up any adverse title to property disposed of by the Will?2. In my opinion, the principle of the decision in Srinivasa Moorthi v. Venkata Varada Iyengar 29 Ma. 239 : 1 M.L.T. 71 : 13 M.L.J. 238 with reference to the point in question (see page 280) applies and I would answer the question in the affirmative. I agree with Wallis, J., that the fact that an executor has not taken out probate (at any rate where the law does not require him to do so) is immaterial.3. In the case in which this reference has been made it was contended that the executor was entitled to possession of the estate whether the Will was good or not. Assuming this to be so, I do not think it affects the question of estoppel. As I unders...
Padmanabhaya and ors. Vs. Ranga and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-1910
Reported in: (1911)ILR34Mad161; (1910)20MLJ930
1. The suit is in ejectment. The defendants are permanent lessees, They denied the title of the landlord, the plaintiff, by a notice dated the 28th August 1905, before the institution of this suit. The District Judge held that the terms of this letter did not create a forfeiture. He was also of opinion that the lessor has done no act to show his intention to determine the lease, and further that the forfeiture had been waived by the lessor suing for the rent subsequent to the data of the forfeiture.2. Dealing with the last question first, we observe that the prayer was for past and future profits and not for rent, though the rent previously fixed appears to have been taken as the measure of the annual profits But, apart from this, if the forfeiture bad been incurred, we fail to see how the suit for rent could operate as a waiver. If Section 112 of the Tranafer of Property Act applied, the suit in ejectment having been instituted, the second proviso to that section would prevent waiver ...
Vuppulri Tatayya Alias Veeranna Vs. Garimilla Ramakrishnamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-1910
Reported in: (1911)ILR34Mad288
1. The second appeal is argued as regards the validity of the gift of item No. II. Lakahmamma who succeeded to the property of her father on his death in the sixties, made a gift of 49 cents of her father's property to the third defendant. The extent of land which came to her from her father was about 39 acres apart from houses and house-sites and moveable property. The gift was made on the occasion of the Pushkaram at Rajahrnun-dry, a peculiarly holy event amongst Hindus which happens once in twelve years. She was the person to perform her father's sraddha on his death, there being no brothers and her mother having died before him. She performed the sraddha on the occasion of the Pushkaram and made gift of the land as part of the sraddha ceremony. The plaintiff, a reversioner, impeaches the gift. Under the Hindu Law in force in this Presidency the daughter is a limited owner like the widow and her powers of alienation as regards property which she has inherited from her father are no ...
Thimmakke and ors. Vs. Akku and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-1910
Reported in: (1911)ILR34Mad481; 7Ind.Cas.153
Arnold White, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs from the decree in a suit in which the plaintiffs are the same parties as the plaintiffs in the suit which we have just disposed of on appeal. The first and second defendants are respectively the older daughter of Chennamma and her son. They were the sixth and seventh defendants in the other suit. The plaintiffs in this suit ask for a declaration that two mortgages which stand in the name of the second defendant belong to the family and they also ask for an order removing the first defendant from the position of Ejman. 2. According to the finding in the other suit which we have accepted the first defendant in this suit is the de jure Ejman of this Aliyasantaua family and also de facto joint Ejman together with Devapparai. The finding of the learned Subordinate Judge with reference to these two mortgages is in paragraph 12 of his judgment. He says 'I find that exhibit I,' (that is the first mortgage) 'was obtained from private fun...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »