Chennai Court October 1911 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.
Munia Konan Vs. Perumal Konan and Two ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-1911
Reported in: (1914)ILR37Mad390
1. The facts found in this case are that certain immoveable property was purchased for the benefit of the plaintiff in the suit by one Ramaswami Konan, his maternal uncle, and that it was subsequently sold by the third defendant, the plaintiff's father, as if it belonged to the family of which he and the plaintiff were members. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 claim under the sale by the third defendant. The contention on the merits in the Lower Courts was that the purchase in the name of the minor was really benami for the third defendant or the family, and that therefore the plaintiff has no exclusive right to the property, and the sale by the third defendant was valid.2. On the finding of the District Court that the purchase was made by the maternal uncle for the benefit of the minor, the sale by the third defendant cannot be upheld and defendants Nos. 1 and 2 have no title. It is contended that on the finding that the sale was for the benefit of the minor, it must be held to be a void trans...
V. Vydinadier Vs. G. Krishnaswami Iyer,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-1911
Reported in: (1913)ILR36Mad375
1. The judgment of the Lower Appellate Court is unsatisfactory. The suit in each of the three Second Appeals was for damages for malicious prosecution. The defendant charged the plaintiff in each of the suits with abetting the offence of assault committed by certain other persons. He says that each of the plaintiffs used certain language which showed that he was guilty of abetment. The complaint against the three plaintiffs was dismissed. The Subordinate Judge has not recorded a finding on the question whether, as a matter of fact, the language imputed to the plaintiff in each suit was used by him or not. But he says that assuming he did so, there was no reasonable and probable cause for the charge of abetment against him. In arriving at this finding the Subordinate Judge has apparently thrown the onus on the defendant. He observes 'Taking the defence evidence at its best, it makes out no further than the use of the expressions set forth at the outset, by the respective appellants. Fro...
T.N. Muthuveerappa Chetti Alias T.N. Batcha Chetti and anr. Vs. T.R. P ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.16
1. This is an appeal against the order of Bakewell, J., in an application by the respondent to be declared the guardian of his minor girl aged about five years. The petitioner is living in the Civil and Military Station, Bangalore, and the child at the time of the application was and now is in custody of her deceased mother's mother and father living in Madras. The learned Judge bases his order on the only ground that nothing was shown 'disqualifying the respondent either in his conduct or in his opinion from having the custody of his child.'2. It would appear that the learned Judge treated the application as one to enforce the petitioner's legal right to the custody of his child and as similar to an action to recover the child from the appellants. The appellants, the child's maternal grandfather and maternal grandmother, alleged in their affidavits that the petitioner and his wife (now deceased) had not been getting on well for sometime before her death, that she had been living with ...
Mani Alias Nagappan, Minor by Next Friend Palayam Subbarayar Vs. Subba ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-1911
Reported in: 19Ind.Cas.668; (1913)24MLJ484
1. The question in this case relates to the Hindu Law of adoption and is not covered by any reported decision or the authority of any text. It is this: whether an adoption which is made by a Hindu widow with the authority of her son granted under a will is valid. The learned Advocate General who supports the adoption contends that the son while he was living, was the nearest sapinda of his father, and he having assented to the adoption being made it should be held to be valid, although after the son's death the nearest sapinda at the time objected to the adoption. The only thing in the nature of authority which the Advocate General is able to cite in favour of his proposition is the opinion of a Pundit of Vizagapatam reported in Sir Thomas Strange's Hindu Law (Vol. I p. 80 and Vol. II p. 95). It does not appear that this opinion formed the basis of decision in any case, and all that Sir Thomas Strange says in connection with it is that it has been thought that adoption under such autho...
Batchu Raju Abbayi Alias Bapiraju and ors. Vs. Sri Raja Rao Venkata Ku ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-1911
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ1031
1. The late Rajah of Pithapuram granted the village of Karappa oil an Izara Patta (Exhibit A) to one Madhava Rao, the predecessor in title of the defendant, in 1885. Madhava Rao executed the Muchilika (Exhibit A). The Rajah died in 1890 and the estate was under the Court of Wards till the institution of the suit. The present Rajah has since attained majority. The suit was brought by the Court of Wards in 1906 for the recovery of the amount due under Exhibit A from the death of the late Rajah. Exhibit A, so far as it is now material, is in the following terms : 'You should continue to enjoy Karappa village, with the exception of Devabramana Mirasi Inamulu and Salabadu Khatamanyamulu, paying Rs. 3,976-11-0, the amount fixed till the last 1294 fasli, on the remaining jerayathi, etc., yourself enjoying a remission of Rs. 1,026 just as your father Karapa Rao Venkata has been enjoying ; deducting this amount of Rs. 150 for Mamulu Mujamulu and Rs. 184 for Maniyapalasayani, total Rs. 1,360. Ou...
H.H.M. Jijamba Bai Sahib by Her Authorised Agent K. Ramachandra Rao Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-1911
Reported in: (1912)22MLJ45
1. The first point on which the judgment of the District Judge is assailed is that although the present plaintiff was not made a party to the previous suit instituted by the predecessor in title of the appellant m the present appeal who was aware of the plaintiff's existence and interest in the property yet the mortgage-debt having been incurred by the father of the plaintiff, and as such binding on him and his brothers, the sale in execution of the decree obtained by the predecessor in title of the appellant against the three brothers other than the plaintiff would be binding on the plaintiff. It has been settled that if a suit is brought against a managing member of a Hindu family to enforce a debt binding on the family property and a decree is passed, that decree will bind the other members of the family who are not parties to the suit if it appears that by the suit relief was sought to be, and was in fact, obtained against the defendant as representing the family and not merely in ...
Subba Naidu Alias Subbarayulu Naidu Vs. Ethirajammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-1911
Reported in: (1912)22MLJ14
Abdur Rahim, J.1. In my opinion the judgment of the learned District Judge must be reversed and he should be asked to re-hear the appeal. The appeal was filed in a suit instituted by the appellant, a minor, through his next friend, to obtain a declaration that a deed of usufructuary mortgage (Exhibit IX), executed in favour of the first defendant on the, 26th April 1902 with respect to certain property belonging to the plaintiff, by defendants Nos. 2 and 5, two of his guardians appointed by the District Judge of Madura, is not binding on him, surd for recovery of possession of the property. The mortgage was executed without the sanction of the court and it has been held that it does not bind the appellant. But the District Munsif found that of the amount of Rs. 1,179-6-4, for which Exhibit IX was executed, the appellant was liable only for Rs. 147-120 , while the District Judge, relying on further evidence admitted by him during the hearing of the appeal, has held that the minor is lia...
Sayam Ramamoorthi Dhora and ors. Vs. the Secretary of State for India ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-1911
Reported in: 19Ind.Cas.656; (1913)24MLJ469
1. In the suit out of which this Second Appeal arises the plaintiffs prayed for a declaration that the defendant, the Secretary of State for India in Council, was not entitled to levy any assessment on certain lands which they claimed, as part of their Lingabhupalapuram Agraharam. The defendants contended that the lands in question did not belong to the plaintiffs, that in O.S. No. 588 of 1891 in the Chodavaram District Munsif's Court, one Kannigadu and Sonigadu sued the present plaintiffs for a declaration that the lands belonged to them as barikis (i.e. village watchmen) and obtained a decree which was affirmed on appeal and Second appeal, that subsequently they instituted another suit under the Madras Regulation VI of 1831 in the Revenue Court for the recovery of the lands and it was decided that they were entitled to the assessment of the lands from the present plaintiffs, that the plaintiffs could not therefore now be permitted to claim the lands as their own and that there is no ...
Challapalli Hanumanulu Pantulu Vs. the Secretary of State for India in ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-1911
Reported in: (1912)22MLJ445
1. The plaintiff's suit is for a declaration that the Government is not entitled to levy ground rent for certain land in his occupation and for the recovery of the amount collected from him by the Government as ground rent.2. The District Judge has decided, and in our opinion, quite rightly, that the plaintiff has not made out any cause of action. Two points are argued in second appeal. The first is that the Municipality acquired, by the land acquisition proceedings, the inam right which belonged to the original owners of the land and that by successive sales the plaintiff now owns that right. The Government, it is contended, is entitled only to quit-rent as from the inamdar and not ground rent. Assuming that a civil court could go into this question, there is really no basis for the contention. The land was acquired by the Government for the requirements of the Bezwada Municipality under the Land Acquisition Act. It is quite clear that when the land was acquired, the title to it veste...
C. Hanumanlu Pantulu Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council R ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-1911
Reported in: (1913)ILR36Mad373
1. The plaintiff's suit is for a declaration that the Government is not entitled to levy ground-rent for certain land in his occupation and for the recovery of the amount collected from him by the Government as ground-rent.2. The District Judge has decided, and, in our opinion, quite rightly, that the plaintiff has not made out any cause of action. Two points are argued in Second Appeal. The first is that the Municipality acquired by the Land Acquisition proceedings the inam right which belonged to the original owners of the land and that by successive sales the plaintiff now owns that; right. The Government, it is contended, is entitled only to quit-rent as from the inamdar and not ground-rent. Assuming that a Civil Court could go into this question, there is really no basis for the contention. The land was acquired by the Government for the requirements of the Bezwada Municipality under the Land Acquisition Act. It is quite clear that when the land was acquired, the title to it veste...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »