Chennai Court April 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.
T. Subbarayulu Chetty and ors. Vs. T. Kamalavalli Thayaramma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-1911
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ493
Charles Arnold White, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Mr. Justice Sankaran Nair awarding the plaintiff Rs. 25 a month by way of maintenance and giving a decree in her favour for a sum of Rs. 700 which represents the value or certain jewels which she claimed as her property. Three points were raised on behalf of the appellant. The first was that the decree was wrong in as much as it was given against all the members of the family of the plaintiff's deceased husband. The second point was that Rs. 25 a month was too much for her maintenance. The third point was that the learned judge was wrong in giving plaintiff a decree for Rs. 700 - for the jewels which she claimed.2. I can deal with the 2nd and 3rd points quite shortly and I will take them first. In arriving at Rs. 25 a month as the proper sum to be awarded to the plaintiff for maintenance the learned Judge refers to a discussion that took place after the plaintiff's husband's death and to a decision by certain arbitr...
H. Vydianatha Aiyar Vs. K. Subramanian Pattar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-1911
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ546
1. The question in this case is whether the execution of the decree in S.A. 915 of 1903 of this Court is barred by limitation. The decree which was dated the 30th July 1906 provided that the appellant in the second appeal (defendant) should pay the respondent (plaintiff) 'Rs 64-11-4 for his costs in this second appeal, Rs. 78-3-7 for his costs in the memorandum of objections and also his costs in the lower appellate court which will be ascertained and taxed by that court.' The costs in the lower appellate court were ascertained by that court on the 1st December 1906. The aplication for the execution of the whole decree war. presented on the 7th August 1909, i.e., more than 3 years from the date of the High Court decree in S.A. No. 915 of 1903 but within 3 years after the date of the ascertainment of the costs, of the lower appellate court by that court. The District Munsif held that the application for execution was barred except with regard to the costs of the lower appellate court. T...
K. Seshadri Iyengar and ors. Vs. Ranga Pattar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-1911
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ580
1. The plaintiff in this suit was an archakar in the great Vishnu temple of Srirangam. He instituted the suit against the managers of the temple for the cancellation of an order of suspension passed against him by the managers and to recover damages alleged to have been sustained by him and the value of perquisites which he would have earned if the suspension had not taken place. The only question for decision in this second appeal is whether the suspension which is found to have been otherwise justifiable in the circumstances was illegal on the ground that no notice was given to the plaintiff to show cause against it before the order was passed. The District Judge held it to be illegal on the authority of certain observations contained in Seshadri Aiyangar v. Nataraja Aiyar I.L.R. (1897) M. 179. It may be stated that at the enquiry held after the suspension, the plaintiff was found by the managers to be guilty of the offence complained of against him and he was suspended from office f...
T. Subbarayalu Chetti and ors. Vs. T. Kamalavallithayaramma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-1911
Reported in: (1912)ILR35Mad147
Arnold White, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Sankran Nair, J., awarding the plaintiff Rs. 25 a month by way of maintenance and giving a decree in her favour for a sum of Rs. 700 which represents the value of certain jewels which she claimed as her property.2. Three points were raised on behalf of the appellants. The first was that the decree was wrong inasmuch as it was given against all the members of the family of the plaintiff's deceased husband, The second point was that Rs. 25 a month was too much for her maintenance. The third point was that the learned Judge was wrong in giving plaintiff a decree for Rs. 700 for the jewels which she claimed,3. I can deal with the second and third points quite shortly and I will take them first l am not prepared to hold that the learned Judge was wrong in assessing the mainteaanse at that amount. The third point was not seriously pressed by Mr. Anantakrishna Ayyar. The learned Judge says that he is inclined to accept the evidence of ...
K. Seshadri Aiyangar and Two ors. Vs. Ranga Bhattar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-1911
Reported in: (1912)ILR35Mad631
1. The plaintiff in this suit was an archaka in the great Vishnu temple of Srirangam. He instituted the suit against the managers of the temple for the cancellation of an order of suspension passed against him by the managers and to recover damages alleged to have bean sustained by him and the value of perquisites which he would have earned if the suspension had not taken place. The only question for decision in this second appeal is whether the suspension which is found to have been otherwise justifiable in the circumstances was illegal on the ground that no notice was given to the plaintiff to show cause against it before the order was passed. The District Judge held it to be illegal on the authority of certain observations contained in Seshadri Ayyangar v. Nataraja Ayyar I.L.R. (1898) Mad. 179, It may be stated that at the enquiry held after the suspension the plaintiff was found by the managers to be guilty of the offences complained of against him and he was suspended from office ...
H. Vydianatha Aiyar Vs. K. Subramania Patter
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-1911
Reported in: (1913)ILR36Mad104
1. The question in this case is whether the execution of the decree in S.A. No. 915 of 1903 of this Court is barred by limitation. The decree which was dated the 30th July 1906 provided that the appellant in the Second Appeal (defendant) should pay the respondent (plaintiff) 'Rs. 64-11-4 for his costs in this second appeal, Rs. 78-3-7 for his costs in the memorandum of objections and also his costs in the lower Appellate Court which will be ascertained and taxed by that Court.' The costs in the lower Appellate Court were ascertained by that Court on the 1st December 1906. The application for the execution of the whole decree was presented on the 7th August 1909, that is, more than three years from the date of the High Court decree in S.A. No. 915 of 1903, but within three years after the date of the ascertainment of the costs of the lower Appellate Court by that Court. The District Munsif held that the application for execution was barred except with regard to the costs of the lower Ap...
Arji Marappa Chetti Vs. Arji Shunmugappa Chetti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-1911
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ518
1. Assuming that when the judgment-debtor sues to recover money paid in respect of what the judgment-creditor has failed to certify, limitation begins to run against the judgment-debtor on the expiry of 90 days from the date of payment (though there appears to be no direct authority on the point) we are not prepared to apply this period of limitation to a case where, by reason of the judgment-creditor's failure to certify, the judgment-debtor has been compelled to pay a third party. In the first class of cases the plaintiff sues to recover money paid on a consideration which has failed. In the 2nd class he sues to recover damages for loss sustained by reason of the judgment-creditor having failed to discharge the duty cast upon him by the law. We agree with Sankaran Nair J. that in the 2nd class of cases, the cause of action arises when the judgment-debtor has to pay the second time. The case in In the matter of Medai Kalliani Annt I.L.R. (1907) M. 545 does not touch the question of li...
Chinnasami Pillai Alias Subramania Pillai Vs. Kunju Pillai Alias Muthu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-1911
Reported in: (1912)ILR35Mad152; (1911)21MLJ856
1. The question involved in these appeals is one relating to succession under the Hindu Law and has arisen among certain sapindas of one Samia Pillai alleged to have been adopted by one Siva Subramania Pillai. There are several claimants to the properties which originally belonged to Siva Subramania Pillai who died in 1844, but the dispute arose only on the death of the widow of Samia Pillai in 1900. The genealogical tree, exhibit A, shows in full the relationship of the parties in all the suits to the daceased, but if the claim of Avadia Pillai, the plaintiff in Original Suit No. 16, is entitled to 'preference, as held by the. Subordinate Judge, over the claim of Chinnasatni Pillai the plaintiff in Original Suit No. 31 and the appellant in Appeal No 68, then, it is conceded, the plaintiffs in the other suits would have no right to the properties. We have come to the conclusion that Avadia Pillai's claim is preferable to that of Chinnasanai Pillai, and on this view the following table ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›