Chennai Court November 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.
Kosuri Rajagopala Raju and ors. Vs. Datla Radhayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.205; (1912)22MLJ159
1. The plaintiff and defendants Nos. 1 and 2 are sisters of defendant Nos. 3 to 5. By an instrument of partition entered into between defendants Nos.3 to 5 it was stipulated that certain land was to be enjoyed by the mother of the parties for her life and to be taken by her daughters, that is the plaintiff and defendants Nos. 1 and 2, after her death. The mother is now dead. This suit by the plaintiff is to recover one third of that property, defendants Nos. 1 and 2 being entitled to the remaining two thirds.2. Defendants Nos. 3 to 5, the brothers, contend that the plaintiff, not being a party to the partition instrument, has no cause of action for the recovery of the property. They plead that by a subsequent arrangement soon after the partition they cancelled the allotment to the mother and sisters. It was suggested during the course of the argument here that the partition deed never became operative but we do not read the written statement as raising this question. The issue was whet...
Kosuri Rajagopal Raja and ors. Vs. Dalta Radhayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.205
1. The plaintiff and defendants Nos. 1 and 2 are sisters of defendants Nos. 3 to 5. By an instrument of partition entered into between defendants Nos. 3 to 5 it was stipulated that certain land, was to be enjoyed by the mother of the parties for her life and to be taken by her daughters, that is the plaintiff and defendants Nos. 1 and 2, after her death. The mother is now dead. This suit by the plaintiff is to recover one-third of that property, defendants Nos. 1 and 2 being entitled to the remaining two-thirds.2. Defendants Nos. 3 to 5, the brothers, contend that the plaintiff not being a party to the partition instrument has no cause of action for the recovery of the property. They plead that by a subsequent arrangement soon after the partition they cancelled the allotment to the mother and sisters. It was suggested during the course of the argument here that the partition deed never became operative, but we do not read the written statement as raising this question. The issue was wh...
Koipalli Ramiah Vs. Sajja Subbiah and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.315
1. The first defendant entered into an agreement with the plaintiff and defendants Nos. 2 and 3 to convey certain land. The plaintiff alone instituted this suit for specific performance. Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 repudiate the contract and say that they are not willing to get any sale-deed from the 1st defendant. The lower Courts have dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff alone had no right to demand performance of the agreement. In oar opinion they are obviously right. Section 45 of the Contract Act lays down the rule on the point. The second and third defendants do not want the land, the first defendant is not bound to compel them to take it along with the plaintiff.2. We agree with the decision in Safiur Rahman v. Maharamunnessa Bibi 24 C.P 832 and dismiss the second appeal with costs....
Malla Veeranna and anr. Vs. Malla Chelamayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.467
1. The finding is that the title to the property belongs to the plaintiff. The lower Appellate Court has also found that the defendant had not effective possession of the plot for more than 12 years before the suit. He at first had only what may be called fugitive possession by tying his cattle at the place.2. Now, so long as the defendant had not taken effective possession, the legal possession of the land remained in the plaintiff, who was the owner.3. It is contended that effective possession must be taken to have commenced at least on the date of Exhibit V, that is, in 1894, more than 12 years prior to the suit. Exhibit V is relied on as an admission of the defendant's title to the property by a stranger. But if the defendant's possession was not effective in its character, it is not easy to see how an admission of his title by a stranger would make it effective possession. Reliance is placed on a passage in Mitra on Limitation, 4th Edition, page 146, where it is stated 'in the abs...
Sunkara Ramiah and ors. Vs. Sunkara Subbammah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.489
1. The plaintiffs are the reversionary heirs entitled to the estate of one Ramiah after the death of the 1st defendant who is his widow. The 2nd defendant is Ramiah's daughter's daughter. On the 6th May 1906, the second defendant, who was a minor, through her guardian the 1st defendant executed a mortgage-deed of certain property, alleged to form part of Ramiah's estate in favour of the 3rd and 4th defendants. The plaintiffs ask for a declaration which may substantially be stated to be of their reversionary right to the property unaffected by the mortgage in favour of the 3rd and 4th defendants. The defendants contended that the 1st defendant had orally transferred the property to the 2nd defendant's father long before 190S and that the alienation by the 2nd defendant in 1906 could give no cause of action to the plaintiff for a declaratory suit. This plea has been upheld by the lower Courts and the suit has been dismissed. The plaintiff prefers this second appeal. We are of opinion tha...
Tadikonda Venkayya and ors. Vs. Kodali Venkatasubbamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.486
Ralph Benson, J.1. The Subordinate Judge was in error in refusing to admit evidence and to consider whether the debt was incurred by the widow as representing her late husband's estate and was, therefore, binding on the estate in her hands. Regulla Jogayya v. N. Vencatarathnamma 33 M.P 492 : 5 Ind. Cas. 271 : 7 M.L.T. 112 : 20 M.L.J. 412.2. I must set aside the decree of the Subordinate Judge and direct him to restore the suit to his file and dispose of it afresh in accordance with law. Costs will abide the result....
In Re: Chockalingam Pillay
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.819
ORDERSundara Aiyar, J.1. Both the learned Judges who heard the revision petition were of opinion that the water was in the possession of the Government. With that opinion I agree, and need, therefore, only consider the further question upon which their opinions differ.2. Now, when once it is decided that the water was capable of being stolen, it seems to me impossible to resist the conclusion that it has been stolen in this case. The petitioner certainly intended to take it to petitioner certainly intended to take it to his own field, and he took steps which he must have considered were calculated to bring it there. He did not have it in his custody during the transit, but that, as Bensor, J., points out, is not necessary. If the petitioner's intention had been merely to let the water run to waste, possibly the case might have been different, though with regard to illustration (c) to Section 425, Indian Penal Code, it is to be observed that the illustration does not show that A too the...
The Assistant Sessions Judge of North Arcot Vs. Ramaniammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-1911
Reported in: (1912)22MLJ141
ORDER1. This is a reference made by the Assistant Sessions Judge of North Arcot asking this court to quash the commitment of the accused in Sessions Case No. 55 of 1911 to the Court of North Arcot. The order of commitment was made by the Second Class Magistrate of Tirupattur. There are five accused in the case. The first accused Ramammah is the widow of one Rammakrishnier whose mother is the complainant. The second and third accussed are respectively the father and brother of the first accused. The fourth accused is also a relation of accused Nos. 1 to 3. The first accused executed on the 20th July I905 a mortgage deed for Rs. 3,000 in favour of the third and fourth accused and the consideration for this deed is stated in it to be the amount due for principal and interest on a promissory note dated the 10th August 1902, alleged to have been executed by the first accused's deceased husband in favour of the 4th accused for Rs. 2,400. The deed further recites that the executant, the first...
Subbaraya Iyer and ors. Vs. Ramasawmy Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-1911
Reported in: (1912)22MLJ166
1. In the course of executing the decree in O.S. No. 28 of 1903 on the file of the District Court of Trichinopoly obtained upon a deed of hypothecation the parties entered into an agreement whereby the second defendant was given time to satisfy the decree on condition of his paying interest at 12 per cent, per annum instead of 9 per cent, per annum and the decree was made executable against the person of the second defendant as well as by sale of the hypotheca. The court sanctioned the arrangement under Section 257-A of the Code of Civil Procedure on 26th July 1905. On August 2nd, 1909, the plaintiff's legal representatives sought to execute the decree for the unpaid balance by arresting the second defendant. The District Judge dismissed the application relying on the ruling in Venkatagiri Iyer v. Sadagopachariar (1900) 14 M.L.J 359. It was held in that decision that the court's sanction of an agreement between the decree-holder and the judgment-debtor by which the former is benefited ...
Mutyala Papayya Vs. Kosuri Muramullu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-1911
Reported in: (1912)22MLJ156
1. The question argued in this second appeal is whether Revenue courts have jurisdiction to try a claim to the office and emoluments of a village carpenter in a proprietary estate. Both the lower courts hold that they have and we are of opinion that they are right.2. Mr. Ramadoss, for the appellant, contends that Section 3 of the Madras Hereditary Village Offices Act III of 1895 excludes from the operation of the Act the office of a village carpenter and the other offices mentioned in Sub-clause (4). The section divides into four classes the village offices to which the Act is applicable. The third class is mentioned in Sub-clause (3) in these terms: 'Other hereditary village offices in proprietary estates except (I) the offices forming class (4) below.' Then the fourth class runs thus-' The hereditary offices of village artizans and village servants such as the following.' The first office enumerated is the village carpenter. The argument for the appellant is that inasmuch as Clause (...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »