Chennai Court September 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.
V. Rama Das and ors. Vs. K. Hanumantha Row
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1911
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ952
1. The plaintiff's suit is for a declaration that he is the rightful Dharmakartha of the plaint temple and for reinstatement in the office and also for an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with him in that office. The plaintiff's father was dismissed from the office of Dharmakartha in 1902 and died in 1905. In 1903 a suit was filed by the 1st defendant and another under Section 539, Civil Procedure Code, and a scheme of management was framed in December 1903 under which the defendants were appointed trustees of the temple (O.S. No. 10 of 1903 in the District Court of Kistna). The plaintiff has filed the suit on attaining majority. In this appeal three points arise for determination : - (1) Is the suit maintainable without a prayer for possession of the property belonging to the temple? (2) Can the plaintiff bring this Suit in view of the scheme framed under Section 539, Civil Procedure Code? (3) Has the plaintiff a hereditary right to the office of Dharmakartha?2. ...
Doraisawmi and anr. Vs. Nondisawmy Saluvan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1911
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ1041
Abdur Rahim, J.1. This appeal raises two questions relating to the construction of Section 8 of the Limitation Act - (1) whether the section has any application; to a, suit to which Article 44 of the same Act would be applicable, that is, a suit to recover possession of properties from a person holding them under invalid alienations made by the plaintiff's guardian during his minority, and (2) whether the section in question is applicable to a case where the property sought to be recovered belonged to more than one plaintiff as Hindu co-parceners, all of whom were minors at the date of alienation, but one or more of whom attained majority more than three years before the institution of the suit. As regards the first, the contention is that under Article 44 the time from which the period of limitation provided for by the article : begins to run is the date of attainment of majority by the minor, while Section 8 contemplates cases in which time would have run during minority but for the ...
A.R. Krishnan Chetty (Died) and ors. Vs. Vellaichami thevan (Died) and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1911
Reported in: 12Ind.Cas.568; (1911)21MLJ1077
1. The plaintiff in the lower court, a money-leader by profession, based his claim upon two hypothecation bonds, Exhibit Z, for Rs. 1,000 executed on July 27th, 1898 and Ex. A for Rs. 3,000 executed on June 28th, 1899, and as his suit was dismissed he now appeals, On account of the first defendant's minority, a guardian named Krishnasawmy Iyer was appointed on January 18th, 1897, under the order of the District Court of Madura, marked Ex. CC. On November 20th, 1899, by force of orders marked Ex. EE and FF, the first defendant's mother who had by Ex. CC been made guardian of the persons of the first defendant and his minor sister jointly with the guardian of their property was appointed guardian of their property also and Krishnasawmi Iyer was discharged from his office. On October 31st, 1900, the first defendant was declared by the court to have attained majority and the guardian's powers ceased.2. Exhibit L was executed by the first defendant's mother Rukku Nachiar alone, purporting t...
Arumugam Chetti and anr. (Legal Representatives of Krishnan Chetti) Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1911
Reported in: (1914)ILR37Mad38
1. The plaintiff in the lower Court, a money-lender by profession, based his claim upon two hypothecation bonds. Exhibit L for Rs. 1,000 executed on July 27, 1898, and Exhibit A for Rs. 3,000 executed on June 28, 1899 and as his suit was dismissed, he now appeals. On account of the 1st defendant's minority a guardian named Krishnaswami Iyer was appointed on January 18, 1897, under the order of the District Court of Madura marked Exhibit CC, On November 20, 1899 by force of orders marked Exhibits EE and FF, the first defendant's mother, who had by Exhibit CC been made guardian of the persons of the first defendant and his minor sister jointly with the guardian of their property, was appointed guardian of their property also, and Krishnaswami Iyer was discharged from his office. On October 31, 1900, the first defendant was declared by the Court to have attained majority and the guardian's powers ceased.2. Exhibit L was executed by the first defendant's mother Rakku Nachiar alone purporti...
Sreevadhu Yerranna Vs. Donkira Kannamma and five Ors., Addooru Viranna ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1911
Reported in: (1912)ILR35Mad704
1. (Second Appeal No. 1569 of 1909.)--The plaintiff (appellant) is the vendee of fifth defendant and sixth defendant's deceased husband, who held the plaint lands as service inam. They mortgaged the lands to defendants Nos. 1 and 2 in 1892 and in 1898. Government resumed the inam and imposed full assessment. On the strength of his sale-deed patta was transferred in plaintiff's name,2. Two main questions are raised in this appeal. It is first contended that the resumption by Government put an end to all prior encumbrances and that the issue of a ryotwati patta amounted to a re-grant. Admittedly Government had actually resumed possession of the land, which was in the possession of the mortgagees from the date of mortgage. We think therefore that the so called resumption did not operate to extinguish prior encumbrances. In a somewhat similar case of resumption by a zamindar the Privy Council remarked: 'The resumption consists in putting an end to the grant, remitting the services and requ...
Ponnusami Nadar and Ten ors. Vs. Letchmanan Chettiar and Three ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1911
Reported in: (1912)ILR35Mad659
Abdur Rahim, J.1. This appeal raises a question, of some nicety with reference to the construction of Order XXI, Rule 2, corresponding to Section 258 of the old Civil Procedure Code, 1882.2. The first respondent applied for execution of a decree which he alleged had been assigned to his father by the original decree-holders, Objection is made to execution by the second appellant who is one of the judgment-debtors, on the ground that the assignment which is in the name of the first respondent's father was made under an arrangement by which the first respondent's father was to be a mere benamidar for the judgment-debtors. On the date of the assignment the amount due under the decree was Rs. 60,000, and the allegation of the judgment-debtors is that Rs. 15,000 out of this sum was actually paid to the original decree-holders, and that an assignment of the decree was obtained in the name of the first respondent's father on the understanding that he was to hold it for the appellants' benefit...
V. Ramados and Two ors. Vs. K. Hanumantha Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1911
Reported in: (1913)ILR36Mad364
1. The plaintiff's suit is for a declaration that he is the rightful Dharmakarta of the plaint; temple and for reinstatement in the office and also for an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with him in that office. The plaintiff's father was dismissed from the office of Dhurmakarta in 1902 and died in 1905. In 1903 a suit was filed by the first defendant and another under Section 539, Civil Procedure Code, and a scheme of management was framed in December 1903 under which the defendants were appointed trustees of the temple (Original Suit No. 10 of 1903 in the District Court of Kistna). The plaintiff has filed this suit on attaining majority. In this appeal three points arise for determination:(1) Is the suit maintainable without a prayer for possession of the property belonging to the temple?(2) Can the plaintiff bring this suit in view of the scheme framed under Section 539, Civil Procedure Code?(3) Has plaintiff a hereditary right to the office of Dharmakarta?2. ...
Karumathil Puthiaveettil Kalliani Amma Vs. Karumathil Puthiaveettil Go ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-1911
Reported in: (1912)22MLJ23
1. These two second appeals arise out of a suit by the plaintiff to recover a paramba demised by the 2nd defendant in favour of the 1st defendant. The parties to the suit are all members of a Marumakkathayam Tarwad. The plaintiff, 1st defendant, and defendants Nos. 3 to 6 are the children of the and defendant who is the senior lady of the Tarwad. The other defendants are the children and grand-children of the 2nd defendant's children. The plaintiff is the senior male member and according to the Marumakkathayam law the Karnavan of the Tarwad. Until about a year before the date of the suit the 2nd defendant was in actual management of the Tarwad. But in April 1907 she gave up the management to the plaintiff under Exhibit I. Prior to her doing so the executed in April 1906 a kanom deed, (Exhibit T), demising the paramba in question in favour of a junior sou, the 1st defendant, for a period of sixty years. The demise purports to be made expressly for the purpose of enabling the 1st defenda...
P.B. Vedachella Mudaliar and anr. Vs. Vijayaraghavachariar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.71; (1912)22MLJ219
1. In this case the Sub-Collector and the District Judge concurred in holding that a suit for interest on arrears of rent is not cognisable by the Revenue courts under the provisions of Madras Act 1 of 1908. The definitions of 'rent' and of 'arrears' in the Act no doubt prima facie support that view, rent being defined in Section 3 as whatever is lawfully payable in money or in kind or in both to a landholder for the use or occupation of land in his estate for the purpose of agriculture' and arrear being defined in Section 60 as ' installment of rent not paid on the day on which it falls due.' Section 61 then enacts that an arrear shall bear simple interest at the rate of one half per centum per mensem for the days on which the arrear fell due until it is liquidated.' Section 77, Clause (1), lays down that at any time after an arrear of rent has become due the landholder may institute a suit before the Collector for the recovery of the arrear.' It does not say of a suit for ' arrear an...
Mathunsa Rowthan and ors. Vs. Apsa Bin
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-1911
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ969
1. In the suit which gave rise to this second appeal the plaintiffs claimed to recover from the defendants Rs. 800 as compensation for improvements made by them while they were in possession, as auction-purchasers, of a house from which they were subsequently ejected by the defendants. The house belonged to one Johnsa Levvai and one Ramachandra Sastriar. These two persons mortgaged the house to one Samboo Ammal, the 4th defendant in the suit. The latter instituted a suit on the mortgage to which the defendants Nos. 1 to 3 in this suit were made parties as heirs of Johnsa Levvai, defendants Nos. 1 and 2 being his widows and the 3rd defendant his daughter. A decree was obtained on the mortgage and the properties were brought to sale. The plaintiffs became the purchasers at the sale and obtained possession of the house on the 7th August 1903. The 3rd defendant was a minor while the suit was going on and was represented by his uncle as guardian ad litem. Notice of the execution proceedings...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »