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.
Cherriyoni Alias Avinhat Moothavar Styled Bayyornala KoThe Raman Vs. N ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1911
Reported in: (1912)22MLJ47
1. The first defendant, a Stani, executed a hypothecation bond in favor of the plaintiff for a debt borrowed for the purpose of paying arrears of Government revenue on properties belonging to the Stanom. The document, Exhibit A, after setting out the purpose for which the loan was taken says. ' I shall pay you the said sum of Rs. 200 before 30th Makaram 1078 next and receive back this deed. If I fail to pay the amount at the prescribed time I agree to your realising the principal with interest accruing at 18 per cent, a year from the prescribed time so long as it remains unpaid, by causing sale of my jenmatn and all other rights on the properties hypothecated and to pay deficit, if any, in person * * ' It will be observed that the parties depart from the phraseology ordinarily employed in hypothecation documents, that the amount may be recovered both from the property hypothecated and from the debtor personally and provide that the debt is to be recovered by sale of the hypotheca in th...
Perracheri Karummal Packrichi Vs. Perracheri Karummal Kumbacha
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1911
Reported in: (1912)22MLJ122
1. The plaintiff claims to recover one half of the property which was given to the defendant's husband under Exhibit I by the plaintiff's mother and the plaintiff.2. The ground on which the plaintiff's title is based is that prior to the death of the defendant's husband he divorced her and that according to the law by which the parties are governed, the gift became void in consequence of the divorce. The contention apparently is that the property then reverted to the donors, and as they held it as the heirs of the plaintiff's father, the plaintiff and the defendant who is her sister are entitled to it in equal shares. The document says that the property is given to the donee as stridhanam though that word means woman's property and the gift was to a man. It would appear that amongst the Marumakathayam Moplas of Malabar gifts are often made to the husband of a girl given in marriage, apparently as a contribution towards the maintenance of the girl and her future children. It was held in...
P.K. Pakrichi Vs. P.K. Kunhacha
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1911
Reported in: (1913)ILR36Mad385
1. The plaintiff claims to recover one-half of the property which was given to the defendant's husband under Exhibit I, by the plaintiff's mother and the plaintiff. The ground on which the plaintiff's title is based is that prior to the death of the defendant's husband he divorced her and that according to the law by which the parties are governed the gift became void in consequence of the divorce. The contention apparently is that the property then reverted to the donors, and as they held it as the heirs of the plaintiff's father, the plaintiff and the defendant who is her sister, are entitled to it in equal shares. The document says that the property is given to the donee as stridhanam though that word means woman's property and the gift was to a man. It would appear that amongst the Marumakkatayam Moplas of Malabar gifts are often made to the husband of a girl given in marriage apparently as a contribution towards the maintenance of the girl and her future children. It was held in M...
Cheriyonni Alias Aninhat Moothavar Styled Payyoramala KoThe Raman Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.174
1. The first defendant, a Stani, executed a hypothecation-bond in favour of the plaintiff for a debt borrowed for the purpose of paying arrears of Government revenue on properties belonging to the Satnom. The document, Exhibit A., after setting oat the purpose for which the loan was taken says: 'I shall pay you the said sum of Rs. 200 before 30th Makaram 1078 next and receive back this deed.... If I fail to pay the amount at the prescribed time, I agree to your realising the principal with interest accruing at lo per cent, a year from the prescribed time so long as it remains unpaid by causing sale of my jenmam and all other rights in the properties hypothecated, and to pay the deficit, if any, in person.... ' It will be observed that the parties depart from the phraseology ordinarily employed in hypothecation documents, that the amount may be recovered both from the property hypothecated and from the debtor personally and provide that the debt is to be recovered by sale of the hypothe...
Perincheri Kovummal Packrichi Vs. Perincheri Kovummal Keenhacha
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.236
1. The plaintiff claims to recover one-half of the property which was given to the defendant's husband under Exhibit I by the plaintiff's mother and the plaintiff. The ground on which the plaintiff's title is based is that prior to the death of the defendant's husband, he divorced her and that according to the law by which the parties are governed, the gift became void in consequence of the divorce. The contention apparently is that the property then reverted to the donors, and as they held it as the heirs of the plaintiff's father, the plaintiff and the defendant, who is her sister, are entitled to it in equal shares. The document says that the property is given to the donee as sridhanam, though the word means woman's property and the gift was to a man. It would appear that amongst the Marumakhatayam Moplas of Malabar, gifts are often made to the husband of a girl given in marriage, apparently as a contribution towards the maintenance of the girl and her future children. It was held i...
Kuppusami Iyengar and anr. Vs. Subbaraya Rowtha Minda Nainar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.324; 13Ind.Cas.324; (1912)22MLJ161
Abdur Rahim, J.Appeal Against Order No. 120 of 1910.1. I think the order of the Subordinate Judge is wrong in so far as it disallows the petition of the appellants who are decree-holders in Original Suit No. 62 of 1901 to proceed against the properties not mentioned in the sale-certificate dated the 16th December 1904 but included in the decree obtained by the Nadars, the judgment-debtors of the appellant, against the respondents. I have assumed that the properties now sought to be proceeded against are not covered by the sale-certificate in question because there is no evidence on record to show that they are, but the decrees obtained by the appellants against the Nadars entitle them to recover the judgment-debt from their persons and other properties. The properties in dispute are undisputedly included in the mortgage-decrees of the Nadars and so all their rights in those properties are liable to be sold if the decree obtained by the appellants is not satisfied by the sale of the Nad...
Malappurath Paramadhathil Narayana Nambi and ors. Vs. Channazhi Krishn ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.234
1. The plaintiff, one of three Uralers of a temple, instituted the suit for redeeming a Kanom without making the other two Ularers parties. The defenant raised the objection of non-joinder of the other trustees, besides contesting the suit on the merits. The pleas relating to the merits of the case have been decided in favour of the plaintiff, but we are of opinion that the suit was badly framed by the other Uralers not being made parties. Order XXXIV, Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure, is quite clear on the point. It is contended that by a Jrarar entered into between three trustees, the plaintiff was entitled to the sole executive management at the time of the plaint and that the harar expressly authorised the executive trustee for the time being to institute suits on behalf of the temple. The effect of such a karar has been fully explained in the judgn9nfc of this Court in Ramanathan v. Murayappa 27 M.P 192. The karar does not deprive the other trustees of their office of trustee thoug...
LakshminaraIn Apuram Subramanya Pattar Krishnier Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.213
1. In this case the appellant has been convicted under Section 409, Indian Penal Code, for criminal breach of trust by a Public servant in respect of Rs. 432, made up of five sums of money entrusted to him at different times during the year 1910, and he has also been convicted of five separate falsifications of accounts, under Section 477A, Indian Penal Code, each falsification being in respect of one of the five sums misappropriated. We are of opinion that each of these five separate falsifications was a distinct offence and that the trial of these five distinct offences (to say nothing of the criminal breach of trust) was illegal with reference to Section 234, Criminal Procedure Code, and vitiates the whole trial by Subramania Iyer's case 25 M. 61.2. The present case is in all essentials exactly on all fours with the case of Kasi Viswanathan v. Emperor 30 M. 328 : 5 CrI. L.J. 341 : 2 M.L.T. 177 : 17 M.L.J. 141 in which reasons for the decision are fully stated that the proper course ...
Gopal Row Gadey Ram Saheb Vs. Veerappen Servaikaran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.95; (1912)22MLJ121
Abdur Rahim, J.1. What happened in this case was this. The plaintiff was entitled to some money from the defendant on settlement of accounts, and the defendant to secure the amount due executed the promissory note sued on. By a mistake of the writer the name of the plaintiff's father was written as the person in whose favour it was executed instead of the plaintiff's name. The plaintiff's father was dead and his name was inserted by mistake, the parties intending all the time that the plaintiff was to be the promisee. The Subordinate Judge has non suited the plaintiff on the ground that a suit for rectification of the promissory note must be first brought and the instrument rectified before he can institute the suit. A suit for rectification of documents is not cognisable by the Small Cause Court but I do not see the necessity for such a suit. The case of the plaintiff is that he is in fact the promisee and was intended to be touch but only his father's name has been entered by mistake...
Sahib Thambi Marakayar Vs. Hamed Marakayar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-1911
Reported in: (1912)22MLJ109
1. The plaintiff obtained a decree in Suit No. 107 of 1904 on the file of the Supreme Court of Singapore against M.L.V. Sahib Malim and Co. for money due to him from the defendants in that suit. The plaintiff alleges that one L.V. Markayar (the father of the first defendant and the husband of the second defendant in the present suit) the third defendant, and the fourth defendant in the present suit were the persons constituting the partnership of M.L.V. Sahib Malim and Co.; that the third defendant defended the suit on behalf of the firm and that a decree was passed by the Supreme Court of Singapore against the firm. The present suit is based on the judgment of the Singapore Court and is for the recovery of the amount due under that judgment The plaint alleges that L.V. Marakayar and the fourth defendant were aware of the proceedings in the Singapore Court and that the suit was defended by the third defendant with their consent. The plaintiff's case is that the judgment of the Singapor...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »