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.
Ankepeti Subba Reddi (Died) and ors. Vs. Tippana Narayana Reddi and Ga ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-1911
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ1027
1. This is a suit to establish the plaintiff's right to worship the idol of a temple at his house, the idol being required to go in procession to the place for the purpose. The defendant denies that the plaintiff has any such right enforceable in a court of law.2. The facts as found by the Munsif are that there used to be a procession called 'kantakorika' conducted by the authorities of the temple. The 'shadai' and 'chamarams' belonging to the idol used to be placed in-a palanquin and the palanquin was taken in a procession with the paraphernalia belonging to the temple along the street where the plaintiff's house was situated. The terminus of the procession was in front of the plaintiff's house. There the weaver community, living apparently in adjoining villages, used to bring presents of betel nut and other things. After the temple authorities had finally accepted them, distribution of thamboolam (i.e., betel and nut) used to take place and the palanquin would then be taken back to t...
In Re: Mania Goundan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-1911
Reported in: (1914)ILR37Mad47
ORDERSpencer, J.1. The petitioner has been convicted of an offence under Section 423, Indian Penal Code. This little used section of the Penal Code makes punishable the act of a person who dishonestly or fraudulently executes an instrument which purports to transfer any property and which contains any false statement relating to the consideration for such transfer, or relating to the person or persons for whose use or benefit it is really intended to operate. What the accused did in the present case is stated in the Sub-Magistrate's judgment. Knowing that the prosecution second witness was in undisturbed enjoyment of half the portion of the land in question, that the prosecution second witness had sold that portion to the prosecution first witness for Rs. 75, and that the prosecution first witness was in the enjoyment of that portion, the accused in order to cause loss to the prosecution first witness and gain to himself sold the whole land for Rs. 120 only, while the half of it was so...
Gujjalapadi Subba Naidu and ors. Vs. Gujjalapadi Vencatasubba Naidu Mi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-09-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.113
ORDER1. In this appeal which was originally heard by one of us and Mr. Justice Krishnasawmi Iyer and was pronounced by him as judgment of the Court on the 12th January 1911, at the time he pronounced judgment, the learned Vakil for the appellants objected to certain conclusions apparently on the ground that they were not in accordance with the rest of the judgment.2. Mr. Justice Krishnasawmi Iyer noted the objection and ordered the case to be sent down for being spoken to when we would next sit together. The matter was not brought up before the same Bench before Krishnasawami Iyer, J., ceased to exercise the office of Judge of this Court.3. The objection taken is that the direction in the judgment that there shall be a decree for the plaintiff for 1/5th share in all the family lands except certain houses is not in accordance with the rest of the judgment but that the lands which stand in the name of the fourth defendant, namely, those mentioned in the third issue should have been exclu...
Karuthappa Rowthan Vs. Bava Moideen Saib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-06-1911
Reported in: (1913)24MLJ513
1. We are clearly of opinion that Exhibit A is a promissory note. It is called a promissory note in the phraseology of the document. The executant states that he agreed on the date of the promissory note to pay the amount of Rs. 600 found due on demand. The argument that it is not a promissory note is based on the form of the sentence which is that the amount which the executant agreed to pay on demand for the price of cloths purchased by him on the date of the document was Rs. 600; but we have got the important fact that the document begins with saying that it was the promissory note exected by the executant.in favour of the appellant's transferor. In other words we may say that not only does the document say that the amount which the executant agreed to pay on demand was Rs. 600, but that Exhibit A was a promissory note for it. It appears to us to be impossible to hold that such an instru. ment can be read otherwise than as a promissory note. It is no doubt true that the question whe...
Nallappa Reddi Vs. Vridhachala Reddi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-06-1911
Reported in: (1914)ILR37Mad270
1. The question raised in this case is one of some importance. The second defendant had agreed, while the plaintiff was a minor, to manage the plaintiff's properties and to hand over possession to him after his attainment of majority. One of the duties that the second defendant undertook to perform was the payment of interest due on the debts. He did not pay the interest on one of the debts and in consequence the creditor instituted a suit (Original Suit No. 521 of 1897) in the Kulitalai District Munsifs Court. The plaintiff and the second defendant were both parties to that suit, the second defendant being the third defendant there. He contended in that suit that he had paid up the interest, but failed to adduce evidence to prove his contention. The plaintiff subsequently paid the amount to the creditor, and instituted this suit to recover the damages sustained by him in consequence of the second defendant's failure to pay.2. The Lower Appellate Court has held that the second defendan...
Govinda Pillai Vs. Meenatchi Achi and Ganapatti Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-04-1911
Reported in: (1912)22MLJ204
1. The first question argued is whether the crops growing on one veli of land which, under the terms of the will, the second defendant, one of the two widows of the testator, is to enjoy for her maintenance, are liable to be attached in execution of the plaintiff's decree. The Subordinate Judge is of opinion that the crops in question are precluded from attachment by virtue of the provisions of Section 60, Civil Procedure Code, which by Clause (n) exempts a right to future maintenance for seizure in execution of a decree. We shall assume for the purposes of this argument that the clause would apply whether the right to maintenance is derived under the general Hindu or Mahomedan law or under instruments in the nature of deed or will. But it seems to us that the Subordinate Judge is quite wrong in his view that what is attached in this case can be said to be a right to future maintenance. It may be well that the second defendant is given the land to be enjoyed by her during life in lieu ...
The Rajah of Kalahasti Vs. Rajah Kumara Venkata Perumal Raj Bahadur Va ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-04-1911
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ1036
Abdur Rahim, J.1. There can be no doubt that the appellant's contention, that the decree in question is a decree for payment of money, must prevail. The decree directs 'that the defendant do pay plaintiffs Rs. 91,288-9-11 with interest at one per cent, per mensem from date of plaint (7th November 1884) to date of payment if payment be made within six months from this date, viz., on or before 17th June 1885; that if payment be not made within six months from this date (17th December 1884) then up to the 17th June 1885 from date of plaint interest shall be at one per cent, per mensem, and thereafter at 1/2 per cent, per mensem; that the plaintiffs shall have their costs with interest at 1/2 per cent, per mensem from this date and that the property mortgaged be held liable to this decree.' It was passed in 1884 after the passing of the Transfer of Property Act. Under the Act the proper form of a mortgage decree is that given in Form No. 75, Schedule D, of the Civil Procedure Code. The. de...
T.V. Veera Raghavan Pattar Vs. Vatasseri Para Mannadissier and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-04-1911
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.920; (1912)23MLJ585
Spencer, J.1. A sale of immoveable property having been held in execution of a decree and other decree-holders having come in under Section 73 C.P.C. for a rateable distribution of the assets, a prior mortgagee applied under Order 21 Rule 89 to have the sale set aside on his depositing 5 par cent of the purchase money and the amount specified in the proclamation of sale as that for the recovery of which the sale was ordered. The District Munsif dismissed the application holding that the latter amount included ' the amounts of all the decree holders' claimable rateable share,' an expression from which it is not clear whether he meant the whole of their decrees or only so much as they would have got on a rateable distribution taking place. On appeal the District Judge reversed the Munsiff's order and set aside the sale. It is now contended that the District Judge's order was wrong, as the deposit should have included the amounts of the decrees of the decree holders applying for rateable ...
Thiruvengadathamiah Vs. Mungiah and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-04-1911
Reported in: (1912)ILR35Mad26
ORDER1. It has been the practice in the Registrar's office to require the parties to pay the stamp duty leviable upon a partition under the Stamp Act. 1899, schedule I, Article 45 before the issue of the final decree in a partition suit, on the ground that the decree is a final order for effecting a partition passed by a Civil Court within the meaning of Section 2 (15) of the Act, which defines an 'instrument of partition.'2. The learned vakil for the plaintiff has argued that the duty is not chargeable upon the decree in this case, since it is not a final order within this definition, and that final order means an order made in execution delivering to the parties the shares which have been determined by the decree of the Court.3. To make an order chirgeabla under the section it must effect an actual division of the property and therefore an order declaring the rights of the parties and directing further proceedings for the ascertainment of the specific portion to be taken by each part...
Govinda Pillay Vs. Meenatchi Achi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-04-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.152
1. The first question argued is whether the crops growing on one veli of the land which, under the terms of the Will, the second defendant, one of the two widows of the testator, is to enjoy for her maintenance, are liable to be attached in execution of the plaintiff's decree. The Subordinate Judge is of opinion that the crops in question are precluded from attachment by virtue of the provisions of Section 60, Civil Procedure Code, which by Clause (n), exempts a right to future maintenance from seizure in execution of a decree. We shall assume, for the purpose of this argument that the Clause would apply whether the right to maintenance is derived under the general Hindu or Muhammadan Law or under an instrument in the nature of deed or Will. But it seems to us that the Subordinate Judge is quite wrong in his view that what is attached in this case can be said to be a right to future maintenance. It may be well that the second defendant is given the land to be enjoyed by her during life...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›