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.
Bayya Sao Vs. Narasinga Mahapatro and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1911
Reported in: (1912)ILR35Mad209
1. The facts necessary for the decision of this appeal may be briefly stated. Defendants Nos. 1 to 11 are related to one another, but are not members of an undivided family, Defendant:) Nos. 1 to 3 belong to one family, defendants Nos. 4 to 7 to another and defendants Nos. 1 to 11 to a third family. The other defendants in the suit are only formal parties. The eleven defendants, who are the owners of an inam village, executed three registered usufructuary mortgage deeds in 1885 in favour of the plaintiffs, according to the terms of which the debt was to be discharged out of the usufruct of certain lands by the end of the harvest of the year Krodhi (1904-1905). In the years 1899-1900 further sums ware borrowed under exhibits E, D, C and A. These amounts were also to be paid up at the time stipulated for the discharge of the previous bonds, and, if the defendants failed to do so, the mortgaged lands were to continue in the possession of the plaintiffs for a further period of five years. ...
Chitravelu Servai and ors. Vs. Samanna Iyer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1911
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.108
1. The plaintiffs sue the defendants for recovering1 possession of certain land, which, according to them, was granted by the Zemindar of Ramnad in 1869 to one Pachamuthu and subsequently passed to the plaintiffs by transfer. The land formed originally part of the bed of a tank, but as the zemindarthought it unnecessary to have so extensive a bed for the tank, he granted the land for cultivation. The defendants denied the grant of 1869 and the possession of the grantee and the subsequent transferees including the plaintiffs, and contended that the grant, even if true, was illegal and void and that the suit was barred by limitation. The Subordinate Judge decided all the questions in the plaintiffs' favour and gave them a decree for possession. Three points have been argued before us in appeal.2. The first point is that the grant was a lease in writing, and being unregistered could not confer a valid title on the grantee. The only documents that have been filed to prove the original gran...
In Re: P.V. Vyasa Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1911
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ283
ORDERSankaran Nair, J.1. The petitioner, Vyasa Row, was convicted of having received bribes on three occasions, the 13th August 1908, the 6th February 1909 and the 30th April 1909. The conviction for having received illegal gratification on the 6th February has been set aside by Abdur Rahim and Ayling JJ. As to the other two charges, Abdur Rahim J. was of opinion that the conviction is based only on the evidence of accomplices, and as such uncorroborated testimony cannot be accepted except under special circumstances which do not exist in this case, the conviction should be set aside Mr. Justice Ayling, on the other hand, was of opinion that the conviction on such uncorroborated testimony is not illegal, though ordinarily it should be corroborated, and therefore there is no reason for this Court to interfere in revision.2. Both the learned Judges held that the appellant is not entitled to a fresh trial and the conviction is not illegal on the ground that the petitioner was not allowed ...
The Oriental Government Security Life Assurance, Limited Vs. Vanteddu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1911
Reported in: (1912)ILR35Mad162
1. This is an appeal from the decision of the District Court of Rajahmunchy in a suit by the four sons of one Nagayya against the Oriental Government Life Assurance Company to recover the amount alleged to be due to them on a life insurance policy dated the 9th December 1896, executed by the company in favour of the said Nagayya. The policy was intended for the benefit of Nagayya's wife and children. He died in 1902, leaving four sons and two daughters. The sons a were all minors. A succession certificate, exhibit B, was obtained on their behalf by their maternal uncle as their guardian for the amount due on the policy. The four sons claimed to be entitled to the amount to the exclusion of the two daughters of Nagayya on the ground that the policy was the ancestral property of Nagayya, But the, Company repudiated their exclusive claim, being of opinion that under the contract of insurance all the children of Nagayya including the daughters were entitled to the amount due under the poli...
Kuttayan Alias Kosikani Ravuthan and Eight ors. Vs. Mammanna Ravuthan ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1911
Reported in: (1912)ILR35Mad681
1. The suit in which the second appeal has arisen was instituted by the plaintiffs representing the Shafei residents of a place called Pudunagaram in Koduvayur Amsam in Palghat taluk under the provisions of Section 30, Civil Procedure Code (1882), against defendants as representatives of the Hanafls of the same locality praying for an injunction restraining the latter from enlarging a certain howth or reservoir attached to a mosque which has been found by both the Courts to be in their exclusive management ever since another mosque was built a long time ago by the Shafeis in the same compound, from using some granite stones lying in the compound in the construction of the reservoir and from obstructing a pathway extending from the gate of the older mosque by the side of its reservoir to the mosque which is in the exclusive possession of the plaintiffs alleging that the extension of the reservoir would obstruct the right of way. One of the questions raised by the issues framed by the Di...
Kuttayan Alias Kosikani Ravuthan and ors. Vs. Mammanna Ravuthan and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1911
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.195
1. The suit in which the second appeal has arisen was instituted by the plaintiffs representing the Shafie residents of a place called Pudunagaram in Koduvayur Amsam in Palghat taluk under the provisions of Section 30, Civil Procedure Code (1882), against defendants as representatives of the Hanafis of the same locality praying for an injunction restraining the latter from enlarging a certain howth or reservoir attached to a mosque, which has been found by both the Courts to be in their exclusive management ever since another mosque was built a long time ago by the Shafies in the same compound, from using some granite stones lying in the compound in the construction of the reservoir and from obstructing a pathway extending from the gate of the older mosque by the side of its reservoir to the mosque which is in the exclusive possession of the plaintiffs alleging that the extension of the reservoir would obstruct the right of way. One of the questions raised by the issues, framed by the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›