Chennai Court July 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.
Thattan Kontner's son Kunhan of thekkumangalam Desam Vs. Mangalath Man ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-1910
Reported in: (1910)20MLJ951
1. This is a suit for redemption. The plaintiff is one of the Uralars of the Killikurishi Devaswom. The kanom sought to be redeemed is of the year 1884. It was granted to the family of the defendants Nos. 1 to 3. Defendants Nos. 5 to 10 are impleaded as the remaining Uralars of the temple. The defendants set up a renewal in 1905 to which the plaintiff was no party. The 11th defendant is the assignee of the rights of the kanomdars. The Courts below have held the renewal to be invalid and given a decree to the plaintiff for redemption. The nth defendant has preferred the second appeal.2. A preliminary objection was taken that the nth defendant had no right to prefer the second appeal in as much as the plaintiff's co-uralars did not contest the decree of the lower appellate Court. We see no force in this objection. The 11th defendant as assignee of the mortgage interest is entitled to question the right of one of the co-mortgagors to redemption, whether or not the remaining co-mortgagors ...
Thattan Kother's Son Kunhan Vs. Mangalath Manakal Narayanan Nambudripa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-1910
Reported in: (1911)ILR34Mad406
1. This is a suit for redemption. The plaintiff is one of the Urallers of the Killikurishi devaswom. The kanom sought to be redeemed is of the year 1884. It was granted to the family of defendants Nos. 1 to 3. Defendants Nos. 5 to 10 are impleaded as the remaining Urallers of the temple. The defendants set up a renewal in 1905 to which the plaintiff was no party. The eleventh defendant is the assignee of the rights of the Kanomdars. The Courts below have held the renewal to be invalid and given a decree to the plaintiff for the redemption. The eleventh defendant has preferred this second appeal.2. A preliminary objection was taken that the eleventh defendant had no right to prefer the second appeal inasmuch as the plaintiff's co-urallers did not contest the decree of the lower Appellate Court. We see no force in this objection. The eleventh defendant as the assignee of the mortgage interset is entitled to question the right of one of the co-mortgagors to redemption, whether or not the ...
Nanjundier and anr. Vs. T. Venkata Rao and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.797
1. The appeal ought to have been presented under Section 588 of the Civil Procedure Code. We allow the heading to lie amended and hear it under that section. We think that in this case the plaintiff could not have obtained all the reliefs he sought for without asking for a declaration. The decision in Ramachandrier v. Nur Mukammad Noorullah Sahib 30 M. 101 : 1 M.L.T. 314 : 16 M.L.J. 477, therefore, does not apply. We allow the appeal and direct the lower Court to re-place the case on its file and dispose of it according to law.2. Costs will abide the result....
Alagappa Mudaliyar Vs. Thiyagaraja Mudaliyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.864
ORDER1. Since the order calling for findings from the Subordinate Judge of Tuticorin was made by this Court, the local area in which the suit arose has been transferred to the Ramnad District and the question is whether the effect of such transfer is by operation of law to divest the Subordinate Judge of Tuticorin of jurisdiction to return the findings and to confer such jurisdiction on the Rarnnad Court. In Panduranga Mudaliyar v. Vylhilinga Reddi 30 M. 537 : 2 M.L.T. 466; 17 M.L.J. 417, to which one of us was a party, the Court was disposed to take the view that such a transfer would not divest the Original Court of jurisdiction over pending suits. The learned Advocate-General, to whom weare much indebted has now called our attention to conflicting rulings of American State Courts on the point. See State v. Lackey 2 (2 Cart) 285; Lindsay v. M.C. Cornak 2 A.K. Marsh. 229 : 12 All. M. Dec. 387; Perkins v. Pattern 10 Ga. 241. Metanghton v. Bank of Potamac 7 Grat 68, quoted in Cols. 1943...
Hari Kamayya Vs. Ayyagari Somayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.217
1. The suit was dismissed in the first Court as against the 1st defendant. There was no appeal or memorandum of objections put in against this by the plaintiff and the District Judge was wrong in passing a decree against the 1st defendant on the 2nd defendant's appeal ; Kulaihada Villay v. Visioanatha Pillay 28 M. 229 : 15 M.L.J. 2122. As regards the 2nd defendant, he has rightly been made liable as the plaintiff's indorser.3. We must set aside the decree of the lower appellate Court and restore that of the District Munsif with costs here and in the lower appellate Court payable by the plaintiff....
Sundaram Iyer and anr. Vs. Venkateswara Iyer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.391
1. This suit is to remove defendants Nos. 1 and 2 from the offices of Kishi and Pattola of a village Devasom. The plaintiffs are some of the Urallars. Defendants Nos. 5 to 33 are the other urallars of the temple. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 had no hereditary right. They are liable to be removed by the urallars. The plaintiffs are only a small minority of the whole body. They took no steps to remove them and they did not consult the other urallars It is not alleged that the trustees defendants are acting in collusion with the Kishi and Pattola. The plaintiffs cannot throw upon the Court the duty which lay on them; Srinivasaswami v. Ramanuia Chariar 22 M. 117.2. On this short ground, the suit fails and the second appeal must be dismissed with costs....
Thattan kouther's son, Kumban of thekkumanglam Desam Lakkidi Amsham Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.422
1. This is a suit for redemption. The plaintiff is one of the urallars of the Killikurishi devasom. The Kanom sought to be redeemed is of the year 1884. It was granted to the family of the defendants Nos. 1 to 3, defendants Nos. 5 to 10 are impleaded as the remaining urallars of the temple. The defendants set up a renewal in 1905, to which the plaintiff was no party. The 11th defendant is the assignee of the rights of the Kanomdars. The Courts below have held the renewal to be invalid and given a decree to the plaintiff for redemption. The 11th defendant has preferred the second appeal.2. A preliminary objection was taken that the 11th defendant had no right to prefer the second appeal inasmuch as the plaintiff's co-urallars did not contest the decree of the lower appellate Court. We see no force in this objection. The 11th defendant, as the assignee of the mortgage interest, is entitled to question the right of one of the co-mortgagors to redemption, whether or not the remaining co-mo...
Chirakkal Kovilagath Kerala Varma Valia Rajah Avergal the Representati ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.253
1. The plaintiff sues to eject under a lease of 1857. The Munsiff found against it. Bat the District Judge has given no finding about it. He relies on the Saswathom, Exhibit III. But we cannot hold that the Uralan of a Devaswom is competent to give a permanent lease of temple properties under the circumstances set out by the Judge--Vide Mayandi Chettiar v. Chokalingam Pillay 27 M. 291 : 14 M.L.J. 200 : 8 C.W.N. 545 : 31 I.A. 88, and the cases following it. If Exhibit III is, then, invalid,' the question arises whether the defendants have acquired a title by prescription to the permanent interest. But it has been held, and we think quite rightly, that the implied surrender of the former lease must be deemed to be cancelled and the rights of the parties under that lease would revive. See Ramunni V. Kerala Varma Valia Raja 15 M. 166. As observed by the Queen's Bench in Doe Dem Earl of Egremont v. Courtney 11 Q.B.D. 702 : 17 L.J.O.B. 151 : 12 Jur. 454, in the case of a surrender implied by...
K. Seshadri Aiyangar Vs. Arayar Srinivasa Chariar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.558
1. Both the lower Courts have found that according to the usage of this temple, the plaintiffs have the exclusive right they claim. No attempt has been made to show that the evidence is insufficient to support the finding, which we accordingly accept. The District Judge has, however, granted the plaintiffs an injunction restraining the appellant from allowing others to sing or recite. We think this form of injunction is open to objection, and that in the decree the words' from interfering with the plaintiffs and the 1st defendant in their singing or reciting of ' must be substituted for the words from allowing the members of the Adhyapaka Sangam to sing or recite.' Otherwise the decree is confirmed. The appellant will pay the respondents' costs....
Lal Batcha Sahib Vs. Arcot Narainaswami Mudaliyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-1910
Reported in: (1911)ILR34Mad320
Arnold White, C.J.1. The main question raised in this appeal is as to the interest payable by the defendant to the representatives of the late Pinavelu on money due by the defendant to Pinavelu on the death of the latter.2. Mr. Sundara Ayyar on behalf of the defendant contended that the effect of exhibit IV, a letter dated 4th November 1901, from the defendant to Pinavelu's brother was to stop interest running as against the defendant from the date of that letter. He contended, in the alternative, that at any rate exhibit VII, a letter dated 7th January 1902 from the defendant to Pinavelu'a widow relieved the defendant from any obligation to pay interest as from the date of that letter.3. It is not necessary to consider whether the taking out of a succession certificate was necessary for the recovery of the debt. For the purposes of my judgment, I assume that the defendant was entitled to decline to pay until a succession certificate had been taken out, though as a matter of fact no su...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »