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.
Meenakshi Ayee Vs. Andi Nadan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.996
1. The respondents having put in a memorandum of objections in which they object to the finding of the Subordinate Judge that the whole of the consideration of Exhibits, Al and A2 was not paid in cash on the dates of these documents but we have no hesitation in confirming the finding. The plaintiff's story of the point is utterly improbable. The executant of the bonds had admittedly no other property than what was mortgaged under Exhibits Al and A2. We cannot believe the evidence of the witnesses who say that Vellia Nadan, who was risking his money by lending it to the first defendant for recovering her property by litigation, was content to pay the whole amount into her hands without any security for the money being expended for the purpose for which it was intended. The Subordinate Judge has fully dealt with the evidence relating to the question and we agree with the reasons he has given for his finding. On the finding the appellant contends that the suit should have been dismissed. ...
T. Venkatachala Pillai (Died) and anr. Vs. the Taluq Board, Represente ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1911
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ305
1. In this case the Taluk Board of Saidapet sues for recovery of possession from the defendants of three items of property, alleging that they are trust properties, the first item being a Chattram, and items Nos. 2 and 3 being two houses endowed for the use of the Chattram. One Kanagammal, by her will dated the 5th February 1885, directed that twelve Brahmins should be fed on every Dwadasi day in the Chattram building, item No. 1, by means of the proceeds of the properties, items Nos. 2 and 3. She also directed that a sum of one rupee should be spent on every Friday for performing archana to the goddess in a temple. The balance, after deducting the expense of feeding, was to be devoted under the provisions of the will to defray the expenses of giving neermoru or buttermilk, tambulam or betel and nut, fans and sugar to people attending the festival of Moluvaddee Servai in Tiruvottiyur. She appointed three executors to her will but directed that Paupiah Chetti, who was the 1st defendant ...
Parthasarathi Naikan and ors. Vs. Lakshmana Naikan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1911
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ467
Munro, J.1. The suit is to recover, by sale of the mortgaged property, the amount remaining due under a registered simple mortgage-bond executed in favour of the 1st plaintiff by the paternal grandfather of the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 in 1871. It is found that in execution of a simple money decree obtained against the mortgagor, after the execution of the mortgage-bond (the suit property was attached and sold in court auction) that delivery was obtained by the purchaser in 1873, and that thereafter the property was held by him and those claiming under him adversely to the mortgagor, so that before the present suit was brought, the mortgagor's right to the property had become extinguished. It was contended that the plaintiff's mortgage-right had also become extinguished at the same time as the right of the mortgagor. The District Judge negatived the contention and the main question in this appeal, which is by defendants Nos. 1 and 3 to 5, is whether the District Judge was wrong in so do...
Venkatachala Pillai and anr. Vs. the Taluq Board, Saidapet, Represente ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1911
Reported in: (1911)ILR34Mad375
1. In this ease the Taluq Board of Saidapet sues for recovery of possession from the defendants of three items of property, alleging that they are trust properties, the first item being a Chattram, and items Nos. 2 and 3 being two houses endowed for the use of the Chattram. One Kanagammal by her will, dated the 5th February 1885, directed that twelve Brahmins should be fed on every Dwadasi day in the Chattram building, item No. 1, by means of the proceeds of the properties, items Nos. 2 and 3, She also directed that a sum of one rupee should be spent on every Friday for performing Archana to the Goddess in a temple, The balance after deducting the expenses of feeding was to be devoted under the provisions of the will to defray the expenses of giving Neermoru or buttermilk, Tambulam or betel and nut, fans and sugar to people attending the festival of Moluvaddee Servai in Tiruvettiyur. She appointed three executors to her will, but directed that Paupiah Chetti, who was the first defendan...
Parthasarathy Naicken Alias Subbiah Naicker and ors. Vs. Lakshmana Nai ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1911
Reported in: (1912)ILR35Mad231
Munro, J.1. The suit is to recover by sale of the mortgaged property the amount remaining due under a registered simple mortgage bond executed in favour of the first plaintiff by the paternal grandfather of defendants at Original Suits Nos. 1 and 2 in 1871, It is found that in execution of a simple money decree obtained against the mortgagor after the execution of the mortgage bond the suit property was attached and sold in Court auction, that delivery was obtained by the purchaser in 1873, and that thereafter the property was held by him and those claiming under him adversely to the mortgagor, so that before the present suit was brought the mortgagor's right to the property had become extinguished. It was contended that the plaintiff's mortgage right bad also become extinguished at the same time as the right of the mortgagor. The District Judge negative the contention and the main question in this appeal, which is by defendants Nos. 1 and 3 be 5, is whether the District Judge was wron...
Parthasarathi Naikan Alias Subbiah Naikan and ors. Vs. Lakshmana Naick ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.791
Munro, J.1. The suit is to recover, by sale of the mortgaged property, the amount remaining due under a registered simple mortgage-bond executed in favour of the Ist plaintiff by the paternal grandfather of defendants Nos. 1 and 2 in 1871. It is found that in execution of a simple money-decree obtained against the mortgagor, after the execution of the mortgage-bond (the suit property was attached and sold in Court auction), that delivery was obtained by the purchaser in 1873, and that thereafter the property was held by him and those claiming under him adversely to the mortgagor, so that, before the present suit was brought, the mortgagor's right to the property had become extinguished. It was contended that the plaintiff's mortgage-right had also become extinguished, at the same time as the right of the mortgagor. The District Judge negatived the contention and the main question in this appeal which is by defendants Nos. 1 and 3 to 5, is whether the District Judge was wrong in so doin...
Thandayuthapani Kangiar and ors. Vs. Ragunatha Kangiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-1911
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ240
Wallis, J.1. The plaintiff obtained a preliminary decree for partition which was confirmed with modification on appeal and died while a second appeal was pending. His legal representatives have petitioned to be brought on record and the petition is opposed on the ground that the plaintiff's share passed on his death by survivorship and that there is nothing for the representatives to succeed to. Whether this be so or not is a question to be decided in the appeal itself after hearing both sides. The legal representatives deny that the plaintiff's share passed by survivorship on his death and say they are entitled to be brought on the record for the purpose of contesting the point. We therefore overrule the objection and direct the legal representatives to be brought on the record.2. On the main question it was held by this Court in Subbaraya Mudali v. Manuka Mudali I.L.R. (1896) M. 345, differing from Sakharam Mahadev v. Hari Krishna Dangha I.L.R. (1881) B. 113, that a decree for partit...
Bakhtavatsala Ammal Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council, R ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.636
1. This appeal is against the decision of the District Court of Chingleput in a suit by the Secretary of State for India in Council against the holder of the inam village of Kilakudi in the Chingleput District. This village has two tanks the Chitteri and the Periya Eri having a common bund, the latter tank being on a lower level than the former. Kamaravadi and Pulipakkam are two roytwary villages adjacent to Chitteri, the former lying towards the South and the latter towards the west of Kilakudi. According to the plaint it is stated that the surplus water of the Chitteri used to flow to the Kumaravadi tank through a channel taking off from the southern bund, that this channel is the main source of supply to that tank and that the Periya Eri is not entitled to any portion of the surplus of the Chitteri. The plaint alleges that the Kamaravadi tank is entitled to the interrupted flow of water through the channel subject only to the defendant's right of using the water of the channel for i...
Sankara Bhatta Vs. Subraya Bhatta and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.763
1. We think the appeal must be allowed. The appellant was not at the Trivandrum house when the summons was left with his brother, but was employed at Alatur, which is far away from Trivandrum and no attempt appears to have been made to serve him personally. The ex parte decree will be set aside and the suit as against the appellant will be heard by the District Munsif. Costs will abide the result....
In Re: Chinnathambi Rowthan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.594
ORDER1. This is a petition to revise the order of the Head Assistant Magistrate, Palghat, dated the 31st May 1910, calling on the petitioners under Section 107, Criminal Procedure Code, to give security for keeping the peace for one year.2. The petitioners are members of the Rowthar community of Koduvayur in Malabar. For two years prior to the date of the order there appears to have been a dispute between the Rowthars on the one hand and the Chetties and Nairs of the place on the other in consequence of the Rowthar's objections to allow Hindu processions to pass their mosques. On three occasions projected processions have, in consequence of threatened opposition, been either prohibited by Magisterial Order or abandoned or taken by another route. On the 7th September 1909 a civil suit for damages was filed by the Head of the Nair family of Kuthiravettah against 75 of the Rowthars (including all the petitioners). On the 18th October 1909 Prosecution witness No. 1, a member of that family...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »