Chennai Court August 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.
J. China Pitchiah Vs. T. Pedakotiah and Three ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1911
Reported in: (1913)ILR36Mad29
Sundara Ayyar, J.1. This is a suit by the plaintiff to recover the amount due on a mortgage bond, executed to him by the first defendant by the sale of the mortgaged property. The question raised in the second appeal is whether the third defendant, who obtained a decree against the first defendant for money, is entitled to impeach the mortgage as altogether fraudulent and unenforceable. The finding of the Lower Appellate Court is that the mortgage was supported by consideration only to the extent of Rs. 1,055-5-6 and that the remainder of the consideration recited in the bond was not paid. The appellate court gave plaintiff a decree for the amount which was actually paid and held the mortgage not to be valid for the remainder of the amount. The Subordinate Judge observes in his judgment that at the time of the mortgage the first defendant was unable to pay his debts in full. Mr. Nagabhushanam for the third defendant appellant contends that, a portion of the consideration for the mortga...
Nataraja Mudaliar Vs. the Municipal Council of Mayavaram by Its Chairm ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-1911
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ878
1. The plaintiff was a candidate for a seat in the Mayavaram Municipal Council and at an election held on 13th December 1906 he received the largest number of votes. An objection was preferred on the ground of bribery and corruption and after an enquiry by the Divisional Officer the Collector passed an order under Rule 36 of the Election Rules declaring; the election invalid, and ordering a fresh election to be held.2. The plaintiff then brought the present suit. He prayed (1) for a declaration that he had been duly elected and in consequence was entitled as such to exercise the rights and privileges of a Councillor; (2) for an injunction restraining the Municipal Council from holding a fresh election. His suit was dismissed in both courts. The District Munsiff held that the Collector's order could be questioned in a civil suit, such as the present one, but on going into the merits he held that the bribery was proved, that the Collector's order was a proper one, and that the plaintiff ...
Rajah Venugopal Bahadur Vs. Thirumala Kandama Kondala Nagayya Ramakris ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-1911
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ885
1. Both the parties requested us to dispose of the petitions along with C.M.P. No. 866 of 1911. The petitioner, who alleges that the guardian of the minor Zemindar of Gundamanaikanur entered into a contract with him to grant a prospecting and mining lease of the zemindary, applied to the District Judge of Madura to be heard in the application made by the guardian of the zemindar under Section 31 of the Guardian and Wards Act for an order sanctioning a lease to be granted by the guardian to another person. The learned Judge refused to hear him, holding that the petitioner, not being a relative or friend of the minor, was not entitled to be heard. We think this is a wrong view of Sub-section (4) of Section 31 of the Act. It says : 'Before granting permission to a guardian to do an act mentioned in Section 29 the court may cause notice of the application for the permission to be given to any relative or friend of the ward who should, in its opinion, receive notice thereof and shall hear a...
Manja Pillai and ors. Vs. Sivabagyathachi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1911
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ850
Abdur Rahim, J.1. The contention of the appellants in the second appeal is that the plaintiff who is the daughter of a co-wile of one Parvathathachi is not entitled to succeed to the latter's stridhanam property, and it is argued that there are collateral sapindas of Parvathathachi's husband, for instance the 4th defendant, who is his father's brother's son, who would have preferential claim to the succession. Parvathathachi, it is found by the District Judge, was married in an approved form. There is no express authority which covers the exact point, but there can be very little doubt as to how the question raised by the appellant should be answered.2. The text of the Mitakshara bearing on the matter is Placitum II of Section XI, Chapter II, which is in these words : 'Of a woman dying without issue as before stated and who had become a wife by any of the four modes of marriage denominated Brahma, Arsha, Prajapatya and Gandharva the (whole) property as before described belongs in the f...
Arumuga Gounden Vs. Chinnammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1911
Reported in: 12Ind.Cas.185; (1911)21MLJ918
Sundara Aiyar, J.1. This second appeal which is preferred by the defendant arises out of a suit by the plaintiff for recovering the value of paddy secured to her for maintenance by an agreement between the defendant and his brother. The plaintiff says she was the concubine of the defendant's father. Whether she was an unmarried woman continuously kept by the defendant's father or not does not appear. It is alleged here that she was not such a concubine, but this position was not taken up in the courts below. There was a suit for partition between the defendant and his brother. That suit was referred to arbitration, and while the case was before the arbitrators the parties put in a razinama in pursuance of which an award was passed, and the award afterwards passed into a decree. According to this razinama the defendant and his brother agreed to give a certain quantity of paddy every year for plaintiff's maintenance. The plaintiff seems to have instituted a prior suit (i.e., prior to the...
T. Venkatachalla Reddi Vs. T. Rangiah Reddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1911
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ990
1. This is an appeal against an order of the District Judge of North Arcot under Schedule II, aragraph 17, Civil Procedure Code, filing an agreement to arbitrate presented by certain parties to O.S. 8 of 1907 on its file and making an order of reference thereon.2. The learned vakil for the respondent took the preliminary objection that under the old C.P.C., no appeal lay against such an order and that, although the order was passed after the new code came into force, jet in as much as the application to file was presented under the old code Section 104(d) of the new code cannot be given retrospective effect.3. It is unnecessary to discuss the somewhat knotty point involved in the latter part of this contention, in as much as we are clearly of opinion that there was a right of appeal even under the old code. This is laid down by their Lordships of the Privy Council in Gulam Khan v. Muhammad Hussan I.L.R. (1902) C. 167, which has been followed by a full bench of this Court in Suriyanaray...
Danakoti Ammal and anr. Vs. Balasundara Mudaliar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1911
Reported in: (1913)ILR36Mad19; 18Ind.Cas.989
Charles Arnold White, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a decree declaring an adoption invalid and not binding on the reversioners. The plaintiffs are the reversioners. The first defendant is the widow who adopted. The second defendant is the adopted son; and the third defendant, now deceased, is the sapinda whose consent was essential to the validity of the alleged adoption. The appeal was argued on that assumption.2. The factum of the adoption is not denied and the question we have to consider is, is the adoption valid in law? It is impeached on various grounds in paragraph 14 of the plaint. It is said that 'the consent of the third defendant was procured corruptly and improperly by paying him a bribe of... one thousand rupees.' It is also said that 'the consent of the third defendant was further procured by representing to him falsely that the first defendant had already authority from her son.'3. Those are the only two grounds which were seriously argued before us and so I need not ref...
Nanja Pillai and Two ors. Vs. Sivabagyathachi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1911
Reported in: (1913)ILR36Mad116
Abdur Rahim, J.1. The contention of the appellants in the Second Appeal is that the plaintiff who is the daughter of a co-wife of one Parvathathachi is not entitled to succeed to the latter's stridhanam property and it is argued that there are collateral sapindas of Parvathathachi's husband, for instance, the fourth defendant who is his father's brother's son who would have preferential claim to the succession. Parvathathachi, it is found by the District Judge, was married in an approved form. There is no express authority which covers the exact point but there can be very little doubt as to how the question raised by the appellants should be answered.2. The text of the Mitakshara bearing on the matter is placitum 11 of section XI of Chapter II which is in these words: 'Of a woman dying without issue as before stated, and who bad become a wife by any of the four modes of marriage denominated Brahma, Daiva, Arsha, Prajapatya, the (whole) property, as before described, belongs in the fir...
Subramania Pillai Vs. Seethai Ammal and
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1911
Reported in: 12Ind.Cas.38; (1913)24MLJ457
1. The question for decision is whether an order of the High Court passed in the exercise of its revisional powers under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is an order on an appeal within the meaning of Article 182 Sub-clause 2 of the Limitation Act so as to create a fresh starting point for the calculation of limitation. Wallis J. has held that it is not, and we are inclined to agree with him. The decisions in Chappan v. Moidin Kutti I.L.R. (1898) M. 68, Secretary of State for India in Council v. British India Steam Navigation Co. (1911) 15 C.W.N. 848 and Harish Chandra Acharya v. The Nawab Bahadur of Murshidabad do not really touch the question. They only consider the effect of orders passed by the High Court in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction as they stand in relation to the power of appeal conferred by Sections 15 and 39 of the Letters Patent.2. When a question was raised whether an order passed under Section 622--corresponding to Section 115 of the present Code...
Veeranan Ambalam and ors. and Peria Kampalam Ambalam and ors. Vs. Anna ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1911
Reported in: 12Ind.Cas.1; (1911)21MLJ845
1. The suit out of which this second appeal arises was instituted by the plaintiff for ejecting the first and second defendants from certain lauds of which they were in possession. The plaintiff alleges that the defendants are tenants at will or tenants from year to year, and that the tenancy was determined by notice to quit. The lands are held on ryotwari tenure under Government, and the plaintiff is admittedly the pattadar. On the other hand it is admitted that the defendants and their predecessors have been in possession for a very long time - about 100 years. The plaintiff produced no evidence to show that he let the defendants into possession of the lands, or any other evidence of a contract of tenancy entered into at any particular time. His case is that he is the kudivaramdar of the lauds and that the defendants are his tenants.2. The defendants allege, on the other hand, in their written statement, that they are persons entitled to hold the lands permanently; that they have bee...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »