Chennai Court May 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.
Kolathathil Illatt Vishnu Nambudri, Karnavan of His Tarwad Vs. Melooth ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-04-1910
Reported in: (1910)20MLJ938
Sankaran Nair, J.1. The plaintiff sues to recover a debt contracted by the deceased Parameswaran Nambudri, a junior member of an Illom of which the 1st defendant is the head. His wife and child are also defendants.2. Parameswaran Nambudri was in possession of a piece of land belonging to the family and it is found that he built thereon a house worth Rs. 1,000 out of his own funds and also planted pepper vines on the land. It was conceded in the lower Courts that the house, which was built by the deceased out of his own funds though on land belonging to the family, was his self-acquisition and the point is not raised by the memorandum of second appeal. We accordingly accept that finding.3. As to the utensils &c;, worth Rs. 500, they are in the house left by the deceased and were admittedly the property of the deceased. The first question is whether the self-acquisition of Parameswarau devolved on the family to which he belonged or on his son, the 4th defendant.4. All the previous decisi...
K. Vishnu Nambudri Vs. M.C. Akkamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-04-1910
Reported in: (1911)ILR34Mad496
Sankaran-Nair, J.1. The plaintiff sues to re- cover a debt contracted by the deceased Parameawaran Nambu-dri, a junior member of an illom, of which the first defendant is the head. His wife and child are also defendants. Parameswaran Nambudri was in possession of a piece of land belonging to the family and it is found that he built thereon a house worth Rs. 1,000 out of his own funds and also planted pepper vines on the land. It was conceded in the lower Courts that the house which was built by the deceased out of his own funds though on land belonging to the family was his self-acquisition and the point is not raised by the memorandum of second appeal. We accordingly accept that finding. As to the utensils, etc., worth Rs. 500 they are in the house left by the deceased and were admittedly the property of the deceased, The first question is whether the self-acquisition of Parameswaran devolved on the family to which he belonged or on his son, the fourth defendant. All the previous deci...
Pandarathile Alias Vakkayil Raru Nair and anr. Vs. Naduvile Madathil V ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-04-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.698
1. The main question in the case is whether the plaintiff is entitled to redeem under the terms of Exhibit I and its counter-part Exhibit A. Exhibit I was executed in discharge of an Anubhava kanom held by a third party subsequently assigned to the defendants. Having regard to the terms of Exhibit I we do not think that the old anubhavam right is kept alive. Nor are we satisfied that the documents referred to create a perpetual kanom like the documents relied on in Kottal Uppi v. Edavalath Thathan Nambudri 6 M.H.C.R. 258 and Second Appeals Nos. 561 of 1890 and 1641 of 1898. Whether such perpetual kanoms are invalid so far as regards the clause against redemption on the ground that it creates a clog upon the equity of redemption or are entirely valid as a species of mortgage in accordance with the usage in Malabar or as anomalous mortgages, [See N.V. Silapani v. V.M. Ashtamurti Nambudri 3 M. 382], under the Transfer of Property Act to be enforced in accordance with Section 98 of the Act...
In Re: Periasawmi Kangani Vs. Â
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-04-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.503
1. There is evidence sufficient to prove that the appellant was guilty of kidnapping from British India. The women were taken to Ceylon to work as coolies on tea estates and were induced to go by a misrepresentation that they were to be married to the sons of the 1st accused; they were, therefore, taken without their consent within the meaning of the Penal Code. There is, however, nothing in the evidence to show that the accused intended that they should be subjected to a state of slavery. The conviction under Section 367 will be altered to a conviction under Section 363 and the other conviction and the sentence will stand....
Gangadhara Padayachi and ors. Vs. Velayada Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-04-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.358
ORDER1. The District Magistrate must forward the orders to the Magistrates to whom they are addressed. He has no right to withhold an order of the Sessions Judge on the ground that in his opinion it is not a legal order.2. If he desires to obtain a revision of the orders of the Sessions Judge, he should move this Court through the Law Officers of the Government [Vide Queen-Empress v. Shere Singh 9 A. 362], and Hurniandi v. Ramkunantu 18 C 186....
Kolathathul Illath Vishun Nambudri, Karnavan of His Tarward Vs. Meloot ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-04-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.583
Sankaran Nair, J.1. The plaintiff sues to recover a debt, contracted by the deceased Parameswaran Nambudri, a Junior Member of an Illom, of which the 1st defendant is the head. His wife and children are also defendants.2. Paremeswaran Nambudri was in possession of a piece of land belonging to the family and it is found that he built thereon a house worth Rs. 1,000, out of his own funds and also planted pepper vines on the land. It was conceded in the lower Courts that the house, which was built by the deceased out of his own funds though on land belonging to the family, was his self-acquisition and the point is not raised by the memorandum of second appeal. We accordingly accept that finding.3. As to the utensils &c.; worth Rs. 500, they are in the house left by the deceased and were admittedly the propertyof thedeceased The first question is whether the self-acquisition of Parameswaran devolved on the family to which he belonged or on his son, the 4th defendant. All the previous decis...
M.S.M.S. Meyappa Chetty and ors. Vs. Perianan Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-04-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.217a
1. The plaintiffs do not press the appeal against defendants Nos. 1 to 3. It is dismissed with costs against them. As regards the 4th defendant, the question depends on the construction of Exhibit III. After the termination of the agency, the plaintiffs charged the 4th defendant with misappropriation and false entries in the accounts. Exhibits VI and XV show that the plaintiff did not believe that the advance to M.R.A.M. was true. The plaintiffs and the 4th defendant then settled their differences and Exhibit III is the result. We think the Subordinate Judge is right in his interpretation. The settlement was intended to be complete. We accept the Subordinate Judge's reason in paragraphs Nos. 16 and 17 of his judgment for coming to that conclusion. We may point out that although the English word 'mistake' is used in the Tamil document, the word, according to its common use in such a context, is wide enough to cover all kinds of default and error including fraud. We do not think there is...
Parapurath Kalliani Amma Vs. A. Chinnan Alias Mammad Rowthen
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-04-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.565
1. The Subordinate Judge is of opinion that the 1st defendant is entitled to be relieved against forfeiture as a matter of course. Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act, though it does not in terms apply, may be taken as a correct statement of the law even in case of forfeiture not governed by it. The cases of Narayana Kamti v. Handu Shetty 15 M.L.J. 210, refers to certain cases in which relief will not be given. If the facts found against the 1st defendant by the Munsif are accepted, we do not think there is any case for relief. The Subordinate Judge will return findings on issues Nos. 1 to 5, on the evidence of record. Findings should be submitted within six weeks from this date, and seven days will be allowed for filing objections.2. In compliance with the order contained in the above judgment, the Subordinate Judge submitted the followingFINDINGS.3. I am asked to submit findings on Issues Nos. 1 to 5. I will consider 1st to 3rd Issues separately, and 4th and 5th issues jointl...
Nandikolla Gopalan and ors. Vs. Sri Raja Manyam Mahalakshmi Amma Zemin ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-03-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.8
1. It is not necessary for us to consider whether we should be prepared to accept the finding of the Subordinate Judge on issue No. 5 for the reasons stated by the learned Judge in paragraph 8 of his judgment.2. We are of opinion that there is no evidence from which, after the death of Subbarayadu, a tenancy from year to year as between plaintiff and defendants Nos. 2 and 3 can be inferred.3. Even assuming that the plaintiff's distraint in September 1904 was in part for rent for Fasli 1314,--and this is not clear--the plaintiff's case was that Subbarayadu's interest in the lands in question passed on Subbarayadu's death to his widow, the 1st defendant, by inheritance and not to defendants Nos. 2 and 3 by survivorship. He gave notice of distraint to the widow in September and in October 1904, he took a muchilika from the widow on this footing.4. Assuming, for the purposes of this case, that the finding of the Subordinate Judge that Subbarayadu's family is undivided was right, the family...
In Re: Krishnaswamy Udayan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-02-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.712
ORDERSankaran Nair, J.1. It seem to be clear that the petition said to have been presented by one of the accused to the Deputy Magistrate ought to have been received in evidence.2. If the letter alleged to have been written by some of the prosecution witnesses would show that the evidence now given is unreliable, then the accused ought to have been allowed to recall those prosecution witnesses to be examined about that letter. I, therefore, set aside the judgment in appeal, direct the Sessions Judge to cause the production of the petition by the Deputy Magistrate, re-call and examine the prosecution witnesses about the letter alleged to have been written by them and dispose of the appeal in accordance with law....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »