Chennai Court March 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.
Anivillah Sundararamaya Vs. Cherla Seethamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-1911
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ695
1. The plaintiff and his father were-members of an undivided family. The father made a gift of about eight acres of land which formed ancestral property to the first defendant, his daughter, in 1899, The father died in 1904, and the plaintiff sues to recover possession of the land given to the first defendant by his father, on the ground that the father was not competent to make a gift of joint family property. The family owned not less than 200 acres at the time of the gift.2. The lower appellate court was of opinion that the plaintiff's father had intended at the time of her marriage to give some properties to the first defendant and as he was only carrying out that intention by making this gift, it is valid.3. The marriage took place about forty years before the gift. There is no evidence that the father then had any intention to give any property to the first defendant. We are, therfore, unable to accept that finding. Is the gift then valid?4. The Hindu law texts fully support the ...
Nalam Padmanabham Vs. Sait Badrinatt Sarda and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-1911
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ425
1. The suit in this case is for the dissolution and winding up of a partnership relating to an opium business. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 were farmers of opium revenue under Government.2. They, through their agents, entered into an agreement with the plaintiff agreeing to take him as a partner in their business both with respect to their right to vend opium in the Godavari District which they had already obtained, and with respect to any further right they might thereafter obtain in adjoining districts. The partnership existed for some years. The District Judge has dismissed the suit on the ground that the agreement of partnership on which the suit is based was opposed to public policy and unenforceable in law. The plaintiff who preferred this appeal contends that the lower court's view as to the nature of the contract is incorrect.3. The 1st and 2nd defendants alone obtained a license from the Collector for the sale of opium. Clause 26 of the conditions, subject to which license was give...
P.R. Aiyanachariar Vs. Lakshmi Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-1911
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ500
1. This is an appeal from the decision of the District Court of Chingleput in a snit for a declaration that certain alienations made by the 1st defendant, the widow of one Srinivasa Raghavachari, were not binding on the plaintiff who claims to be the nearest reversioner of her husband entitled to succeed on the 1st defendant's death. The lower court has found that the plaintiff is not proved to be the nearest reversioner, and dismissed the suit on that ground without deciding the other issues. The plaintiff's father was adopted by the natural brother of (Rangadhari) the father of the 1st defendant's husband (Srinivasa Raghavachari). The case of the defendants is that Rangachari was given away in adoption to one Raghavachari and ceased to be a member of the plaintiff's family. The plaintiff denied the adoption of Rangachari and alleged that the adoption, even if true, was invalid. He also claimed to be Rangachari's reversionary heir, even if the adoption was true and valid. The factum o...
Fakir Nynar Muhamad Rowther Vs. Kandasawmy Kulatau Vandan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-1911
Reported in: (1912)ILR35Mad120
1. We are constrained to hold that the Lower Appellate Court has not satisfactorily determined the two main questions raised in the suit. The first question is whether the sale by the second defendant to the third defendant was nominal. That is the subject-matter of the first issue. On this there is no finding by the District Judge. The question involved in the second issue is whether the gift in favour of the plaintiff by the third defendant is valid. As to this what the Judge says is that having regard to the previous transactions between the parties it is clear that the gift was fraudulent. It is difficult to understand what the exact significance of the finding is. Supposing the sale to the third defendant was valid and effectual the property passed to her from the moment of the sale and any gift subsequently made by her of the property would be valid if it were in accordance with the provisions of the law. It does not appear to have been alleged that the third defendant made the g...
NalaIn Padmanabham Vs. Sait Badrinadh Sarda and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-1911
Reported in: (1912)ILR35Mad582
1. The suit in this ease is for the dissolution and winding up of a partnership relating to an opium business, Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 were farmers of opium revenue under Government. They through their agents, entered into an agreement with the plaintiff agreeing to take him as a partner in their business, both with respect to their right to vend opium in the Godavari district, which they had already obtained, and with respect to any further right they might thereafter obtain in adjoining districts. The partnership existed for some years. The District Judge has dismissed the suit on the ground that the agreement of partnership on which the suit is based, was opposed to public policy and unenforceable in law. The plaintiff who preferred this appeal, contends that the lower Court's view as to the nature of the contract is incorrect.2. The first and second defendants above obtained a license from the Collector for the sale of opium. Clause 26 of the conditions, subject to which the licens...
Fakir Nynar Muhamed Rowther, Minor by His Mother and Next Friend, Nath ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-1911
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.993
1. In response to our order of the 6th of May, the District Judge has submitted his finding on the question remitted to him, namely, whether the third defendant in the suit at the time of the gift to the plaintiff had possession of the property. Objection is taken to the manner in which the learned Judge has dealt with the matter and we have also heard the question argued at the Bar whether the gift would be invalid under the Muhammadan law, even if the donor, the third defendant, was not in possession of the property at the time she made the gift.2. We shall first of all dispose of the question of law, and the facts on which it arises appear to be these. One Fakir Naynar Rowthen died about 1880, leaving as his heirs, his wife, the third defendant, the second defendant, his son, and three daughters. There appear to have been certain dealings among the different heirs in respect of their respective shares. But all that we need mention is that in 1884 the second defendant sold a certain ...
Sree Rajah Tyada Poosapati Rudra and ors. Vs. the Maharaja of Jeypore
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1911
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.286
ORDER1. This case arises out of a petition to the Government of Madras which was referred to this Court under Rule 31 of the Ganjam and Vizagapatam Rules under Act XXCV of 1839 for the administration of justice and collection of revenue in Ganjam and Vizagapatam, The Maharajah of Bobbin obtained a mortgage decree against the zemindar of Pachipenta for a sum of about Rs. 2,75,000 which directed the sale of the mortgaged property in case of default of payment within the time fixed in the decree. The mortgaged property comprised 73 villages in all, 69 of them being situated in the Agency Tracts of Vizagapatam subject to the jurisdiction of the Collector and Agent to the Governor and the remaining 4 in the Non-Agency portion of the Vizagapatam district and subject to the jurisdiction of the District Court. The defendants in the suit having committed default in the payment of the decree amount, the decree-holder took steps to bring the mortgaged villages to sale. The four villages not compr...
In Re: the District Munsif of Tiruvellore
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1911
Reported in: (1913)24MLJ637
From THE DISTRICT MUNSIF, Tiruvellore.To, THE REGISTRAE, High Court, Madras.Sir,1. I have the honor to refer under Section 60 of Act II of 1899 for the decision of the High Court the proper stamp duty leviable on the document forwarded herewith.2. The document was executed by the 2nd defendant in O. S. 38 of 1909 on the file of the District Court of Chingleput and two sureties under Rule 7, page 31 of the Civil Courts guide, for the production when called for of the attached moveables left in their custody by an Amin of this Court. The warrant was sent to this Court for execution and was entrusted by my Deputy Nazir to the Amin. After attachment he obtained this bond as usual in this Court on axme rupee stamp paper (general) being the advalorem stamp on the value of the attached cattle. When the same was forwarded to the District Court it was returned to this Court with an order that a fresh bond should be taken on a paper with 8 annas Court fees label attached toitas required by Artic...
In Re: Gulam Ali ShamsuddIn Saheb, an Insolvent
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1911
Reported in: (1912)22MLJ441
Wallis, J.1. In these two connected cases the Official Assignee has rejected the claims of the petitioners to be entitled to rank as secured creditors against the sale-proceeds of the stock-in-trade of the insolvent which was in his possession and which, after the insolvent had absconded, they took possession of and directed to be sold by the Madras Sales Agency. The sale-proceeds were claimed and recovered by the Official Assignee and subsequently, as I have said, he refused to admit the petitioners' claim to rank as secured creditors and these two notices of motion, though they do not so state expressly, must be regarded as appeals from the decision of the Official Assignee.2. They-one of them at any rate-raise a question of very considerable importance. Hinduji Jeetaji, the first petitioner, made various advances to the insolvent and obtained promissory notes and, what I may call, letters of hypothecation in which one term was 'we agree to deliver to you the keys of the said busines...
Mulla Vittil Suthi Kutti Vs. Korambatt Painthali Achutan Nair and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1911
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ475
1. According to the ruling of the Full Bench the only suit that the plaintiffs in this suit were entitled to institute was one for sale on the footing of their mortgage; and as the plaint contains no prayer for sale of the properties mortgaged to them the suit is liable to be dismissed. They ask for leave to amend the plaint by substituting a prayer for sale for the relief asked for in the plaint. This request is strongly opposed by the learned Counsel for the appellant. His opposition is based on several grounds. He contends that the proposed amendment would convert the suit into one of a character inconsistent with its present character as the plaint proceeds purely on the title acquired by the purchase of the property by the 2nd plaintiff at the sale in execution of the decree obtained by the 1st plaintiff. This objection is altogether untenable. The suit is really to enforce the plaintiffs' rights on the mortgage and on the court sale, and the amendment the plaintiffs wish to make ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »