Chennai Court February 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.
K.P.A. D'Coutha and Anr. Vs. J.P. Assan Kunhu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1911
Reported in: (1912)22MLJ149
1. What happened in this case was that the respondent, a subject of the Travancore Government, to whom one Matheru, also a subject of the Travancore Government, had mortgaged his rights under a kuri chit which he held against the petitioner, an inhabitant of this presidency enforced his mortgage and bought his judgment-debtor's interest in the chit in a sale held by the Travancore court in pursuance of the mortgage decree, It is contended that the sale by the Travancore court of Matheru's interest in the chit was opposed to the principles of private international law and therefore void. For this position Ganshamlal v. Bhansaii I.L.R. (1881) B. 249 is cited as an authority. There the learned Judges held that a court of British India had 110 jurisdiction to attach in execution of a decree of a British Indian court a debt which was due from a person, a subject of a Native State, to the judgment debtor, a subject of British India. The case may be distinguished from this case on the ground ...
Kuppier Alias Venkata Subbier Vs. Kota Chinnasamier and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1911
Reported in: (1912)22MLJ488
1. One of the issues in the case was whether the plaintiff was estopped from questioning the alienation in favour of the defendants under Exhibit I. The District Munsif found this issue in favour of the plaintiff but the District Judge's finding on the point cannot be said to be satisfactory. But before stating the points on Which we think we ought to have a clearer finding it is necessary that we should state the effect of the rulings as we understand them, as to what would constitute estoppel under circumstances like those of present case preventing the reversioner claiming the estate on the death of a Hindu widow from questioning an alienation made by the widow with the consent of the person who was the next reversioner at the time the consent was given. The law as laid down by the Judicial Committee in Baj rangi Singh v. Manokarnika Baksh Singh I.L.R. (1907) A. 1 is that if the next reversioner either at the time of the alienation or after such alienation consents to or ratifies, t...
Desai Namberumal Chettiar Vs. Narainsawmi Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.1023
Wallis, J.1. There was a joint decree for costs against the plaintiff and the defendant's father and the plaintiff has satisfied the decree. Prima facie there is a liability on the part of the defendant's father Siva Panda v. Jugusti Panda 25 MP. 590 and such liability is enforceable against the defendant and his son. There is no evidence that the plaintiff has any trust funds in hand from which he can recoup himself. The decree will be set aside and there will be judgment for the plaintiff with casts throughout....
In Re: Duraisawmi Tevan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.885
1. We think there can be no doubt that the appellants took part in the riot and that the accused Nos. 1, 5, 7 and 8 have been rightfully convicted under Sections 302 and 149, Indian Penal Code. We confirm the sentence passed upon the accused Nos. 1, 5, 7, 8.2. The Sessions Judge had also found the accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 guilty under Sections 302 and 149 but has sentenced them to terms of imprisonment. For an offence under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, the lowest sentence is transportation for life. We think, however, we shall be justified in altering the conviction in the case of these accused to one under Sections 326 and 149, Indian Penal Code and the Public Prosecutor does not oppose this. The sentences are confirmed and the appeal is dismissed....
Siva Subramania Mudaliar and ors. Vs. Gnanasammanda Pandara Sannadhi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1911
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ359
1. The plaintiff in this suit is the present Pandara Sannadhi of the Dharmapuram Adhinam. The suit is for the recovery of a portion of the consideration which the plaintiff alleges to be due from the 1st defendant and from the defendants Nos. 16 to 20 for the sale of a village belonging to the Adhinam which was made by his predecessor in office in favour of the 1st. defendant on the 12th July, 1901, for Rs. 1,27,000. The plaintiff alleges that the portion of the consideration now sued for is still due from the vendee and he seeks in this suit to enforce his lien for the unpaid purchase money under Section 55, Sub-section 4, Clause (v) of the Transfer of Property Act. The vendor Pandara Sannidhi died subsequent to the sale and the plaintiff is his successor in the office. The defendants Nos. 16 to 20 are members of the undivided family to which the 1st defendant belongs and have been impleaded on the ground that the property was purchased for the benefit of the family. The defendants No...
Sreenivasa Varadachary Vs. Narasinga Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.796
1. The suit is for possession of certain lands which are attached as emoluments to the office of karnam, and the only question for determination in this second appeal is whether the suit is barred by limitation by reason of the defendant's adverse possession for more than 12 years. Until the Madras Act III of 1895 came into force, a suit like the present would only have been brought in a Revenue Court under Madras Regulation VI of 1831, and the Limitation Act of 1877 does not apply to suits under the Regulation. Until the Madras Act III of 1895 came into force, therefore, no title by prescription to the lands could be acquired, see Pichuvayyan v. Vilakkudayan Asari 21 MP. 134 and if no title by prescription could be acquired, it is difficult to see how possession prior to the Madras Act III of 1895, which was entirely ineffective, can be relied upon in a suit brought after the passing of that Act. In the present case 12 years have not elapsed since the Madras Act III of 1895 came into ...
In Re: Talari Narainasawmi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.978
ORDERAbdur Rahim, J.1. The petitioners before us (accused Nos. 3 and 4 before the Magistrate) have been convicted under Sections 161 (taking illegal gratification), 347 (wrongful confinement to extort money) and 384 (extortion) of the Indian Penal Code. They are police constables attached to the Tenali Station. The 2nd accused, whose case is not before us, was the Head Constable of that station. The whole case really depends on the testimony of the prosecution witnesses Nos.4 and 5 and Exhibit K, a statement, made to a Sub-Magistrate under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code by one Virayya who died by the time the petitioners were put on their trial. The statement; is to the effect, that he lent a certain sum of money (Rs. 200) to the prosecution witness No. 4 who came with the prosecution witness No. 5 and the 5th accused on the night of the occurrence and asked for a loan, saying that the money was wanted to be paid to the police in order to procure his (the prosecution 4th wi...
Bhagavatulu Suryanarayana and anr. Vs. Yelesvarapu Venkata Subarayadu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.648
1. A simple money-decree was obtained against the father of defendants Nos. 1 and 2. After the decree the father died and defendants Nos. 1 and 2 were brought on record as his representatives under Section 234, Civil Procedure Code, 1882, and in execution the suit property was sold. The Courts below have held that the execution proceeding's are binding on defendants Nos. 1 and 2, and this is in accordance with the decision in Kuriyali v. Mayan 7 MK. 255. This decision was held to be wrong in Zemindar of Karvetnagar v. Trustee of Tirumalai Devastanam 32 MK. 429 : 2 Ind. Cas. 18 : 19 M.L.J. 401 but that was only because the decree in Kuriyali v. Mayan 7 MK. 255 was a mortgage-decree which contained a direction for sale. The correctness of the decision as applied to a simple money-decree was not dealt with.2. The second appeal is dismissed with costs....
Pillamkattil Nallampurakkal Raman's son Kuppelan Vs. K.N. Kunjuvalli a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.790
1. The first point taken by Mr. Rosario is that the decision of the District Munsif on the question of the genuineness of the Will not being one on a preliminary point, it was not competent for the District Judge to set aside the District Munsif's judgment and to remand the case for trial on the other issues. It is not always easy to say what is or is not a preliminary point, but we are inclined to agree with Mr. Rosario that the question on which the District Munsif disposed of the case, involving as it does an important issue relating to the merits of the plaintiff's case was not a preliminary question. But we are not satisfied that the District Judge had no power to remand a case except on a point which can strictly be called preliminary. Even the case relied on by Mr. Rosario, Ramachandra Joishi v. Hassi Kassim 16 MP. 207, shows that in such matters the discretion of the Court is not altogether excluded. Furthermore, the omission of any proviso like that of Section 564 of the Code ...
Nanu and ors. Vs. Mundancheri Puvvayil theyyan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.849
1. The plaintiffs in this case, thirty-four in number, claim that they belong to the same Marumakkattayam tarwad as the thirty-one defendants. The tarwad of the defendants is known as Mundancheri. The plaintiffs say that theirs is known as Mundancheri Puvvayil; that both tarwads really constitute a single Marumark kattnyam family; that many years ago some members of the Mundancheri house went away to live separately in the Puvayil house, and received an allotment of lands for their maintenance, and have since continued to live apart; that the remaining tarwad property remained as tarwad property belonging to both branches, though the expenses of the maintenance of the defendants' branch were met out of the property. According to them, the senior member of the whole family is styled Mundancheri Mutha Nair, the next in age Kozhiseri Nair, and the senior lady Mundancheri Amma. The plaint alleges that the 1st defendant became Mundancheri Nair and the karnavan of the whole tarwad in January...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »