Chennai Court October 1912 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.
Seshagiri Aiyar and anr. Vs. Tirumalai Ambalam and anr. and
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.481
1. Appeal Suit No. 148 of 1910 is an appeal by the defendants Nos. 1 and 3 from the decree in Original Suit No. 17 of 1909 on the file of the lower Court, and the plaintiffs have filed an objection memo. Appeals Suits Nos. 154 and 155 are cross-appeals by the plaintiffs and defendants Nos. 1 and 2, respectively, in Original Suit No. 16 of 1909 on the file of the lower Court. These suits are closely connected with each other and refer to certain items of land, which were originally classed as 'karnam manibham' or karnam service inam in the village of Sathamangalam, and have been recently enfranchised by the Revenue Authorities in the names of defendants in Original Suits Nos. 16 and 17 of 1909. The plaintiffs in both the suits are the present karnam of the village and his minor son, They sue both for the kudivaram and melvararm rights in the items and contend that they should not have been enfranchised in the names of any of the defendants in the two suits.2. The District Munsif has cle...
C. Naku Amma and Three ors. Vs. C. Raghava Menon and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1912
Reported in: (1915)ILR38Mad79
Miller, J.1. These appeals relate to the property known as Kulachamatu. The first question is whether this property belongs to Naku Amma alone or to her tavazhi; and I have Do doubt that the Subordinate Judge's conclusion on this question is the right one. Exhibits XXXIV and XIV make it clear that the gift was to her and her children and I find no warrant for construing a gift so expressed as conferring on the donee an absolute title to the property given, where, as here, the donee is the wife of the donor and a member of a marumakkattayam tarwad. And it seams to me to make no difference that the karnavan of the tavazhi joined in the gifts. The next question with which I propose to deal is whether or not the plaintiffs in Original Suit No. 45 of 1907 can maintain the suit for maintenance against Naku Amma. The contention is that they are bound to sue the karnavan of their tarwad now whatever be the rights of members of a tavazhi in the tavazhi property. I think there can be no doubt th...
Chakkingal Tavazhi Tharavathil Kunhamma's Daughter, Naku Amma Vs. Chak ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1912
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.1
Miller, J.1. These appeals relate to the property known as Kula Chumatu, The first question is, whether this property belongs to Naka Amma alone or to her tavazhi and I have no doubt that the Subordinate Judge's conclusion on this question is the right one. Exhibits XXXIV and XIV make it clear that the gift was to her and her children and I find no warrant for construing a gift so expressed as conferring on the donee an absolute title to the property given where, as here, the donee is the wife of the donor and a member of a Marumakattayam tarwad. And it seems to me to make no difference that the karnavan of the tavazhi joined in the gifts. The next question, with which I propose to deal, is whether or not the plaintiffs in Original Suit No. 45 of 1907 can maintain the suit for maintenance against Naka Ammah. The contention is that they are bound to sue the karnavan of their tarwad. Now, whatever, be the rights of members of a twazhi in the tavazhi property, I think there can be no doub...
In Re: Chabumian Sahib--accused in C.C. No. 57 of 1912, on the File of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1912
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.269
ORDER1. One Roshanibee was suffering from plague and the house in which she was living was examined by the doctor and disinfected. The accused removed her on the 20th February 1912, to another house, where there were several persons living. It is the case for the prosecution that a result of this removal of the patient, one Chottabai, living in the house to which the patient was removed, was attacked with plague on the 27th February 1912. On these facts found to be proved by the Sub-Magistrate, he convicted the accused of an offence under Section 263 of the Indian Penal Code.2. On appeal, the Joint Magistrate directed the Sub-Magistrate to take 'any further evidence which prosecution can produce to prove illegality or negligence.'3. We do not think that in this case it was necessary to direct such further evidence to be taken. According to the prosecution, witnesses show prima facie that the accused was guilty of negligence unless he proves that he has taken the necessary precautions. ...
Neelam Tirupatirayudu Naidu Garu and ors. Vs. Vinjamuri Lakshminarasam ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-23-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.597; (1912)23MLJ599
1. The question for decision in this second appeal is whether the defendants have been rightly held liable by the District Judge for the damages caused to the plaintiff in consequence of the investment of the money drawn by them from the Oriental Life Insurance Company as trustees under the will of one Appala Charlu with the late Messrs. Arbuthnot & Company. In consequence of the failure of Messrs. Arbuthnot and Company most of the investment was lost and the plaintiff who was appointed by the Court as trustee in the place of the defendants seeks to recover from them the amount lost with interest. According to the provisions of the will the trustees after realising the amount of the insurance were to pay Rs. 200 to the testator's brother, Rs. 400 to his daughter for her bride's jewels and the remainder to his minor son. The first sum of Rs. 200 was paid to the brother by the trustees. The remaining amount was invested by them with Messrs. Arbuthnot and Company in 1902 on fixed deposit ...
M. Coopoosami Chetty Vs. A.T. Duraisamy Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-23-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.527
1. The plaintiff gave his daughter in marriage to Mr. Venugopaul Chetty, a High Court Vakil. Both of them belong to the Vaisya caste but are members of different divisions of that caste. As might be expected, some members of the sub-caste to which the plaintiff belongs disapproved the marriage on the ground that it was opposed to custom with the result that on occasions of marriages, funeral ceremonies etc in their families, the plaintiff and those who took his side were not invited and they also refused the invitations of the plaintiff and his friends to attend at similar functions in their houses. The defendants are among those who disapproved the marriage. They and their friends form a separate faction; some members of the plaintiffs faction were admitted by the defendants into their faction only on the performance of certain expiatory ceremonies required on account of their association with the plaintiff and his friends in social and religious functions.2. It is the plaintiff's cas...
Baggu Simmanna Vs. Itragulu Chinnaya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-23-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.375
1. This is a suit by the reversioners of the 1st defendant's husband. The prayer in the plaint is for a declaration that a petition put in by the 1st defendant before the Revenue Authorities for the transfer of the patta of her husband's lands to the 2nd defendant, her daughter's husband, cannot affect the plaintiff's reversionary right to succeed to the property on the 1st defendant's death. The only allegation in the plaint in support of this prayer is that the 1st defendant presented a petition to the Revenue Authorities asking for transfer of the patta standing in her name to the 2nd defendant's name. There is no allegation in the plaint that, prior to the suit, either the 1st or the 2nd defendant set up that the 2nd defendant was the illatom son-in-law of the 1st defendant. The question for decision is whether this plaint discloses a cause of action for a declaration that the plaintiff's reversionary right is unaffected by any act of the widow which would be prejudicial to their r...
Mothey Atcheyya Garu and ors. Vs. Vennavalli Seshagiri Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-22-1912
Reported in: 20Ind.Cas.844; (1913)25MLJ32
1. Exhibit A clearly shows that the sale was made to the defendants' father on behalf of the Committee. He was therefore only an agent of the Committee and would have no right to enforce the provisions himself. Nor would any action lie against him on the document. We must therefore reverse the judgment of the learned Judge and the decree of the District Munsif and dismiss the suit with costs throughout....
Srinivasa Iyer and ors. Vs. Krishnaswamy Iyengar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-22-1912
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.274
Miller, J.1. The only question that we have to decide in this appeal is, whether the sale to the plaintiffs evidenced by Exhibit A was intended to convey to the plaintiffs any interest in the property which the instrument purports to convey. It was suggested at the outset of his argument by Mr. Ramachandra Iyer that we must take the sale to be an actual and real conveyance because the vendor has come into Court and said that it was so. If the vendor comes and says that he has received the sale price, then we are to take it as concluded that the sale was a real conveyance. Certainly the two cases Mr. Ramachandra Aiyar cited do not support that conclusion, and there are, on the other hand, authorities against it. The fact that the vendor says that he has received money in consideration of the sale is, no doubt, evidence in support of the sale, but there is no authority, I think, and certainly it seems to me it is not right to hold, that his statement is to be conclusive proof of an actua...
A. Thupran alias Kumaran Vs. Haji Esa Sait's son, Mamad Kasim Sait, an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-22-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.433
1. We agree with the learned Judge that the question whether the alienation by Tulsu was for family necessity was not raised in the lower Courts. We must, however, hold that he was wrong in not allowing to 2nd defendant compensation for the improvements on the lands in 2nd defendant's possession. According to Section 5 of the Malabar Compensation for Tenants Improvements Act, 'every tenant shall, on ejectment, be entitled to compensation for improvements which have been made by him, his predecessor-in-interest, or by any person not in occupation at the time of the ejectment who derived title from either of them, and for which compensation has not already been paid.' Both the lower Courts have found that the 2nd defendant was in possession under the lease, Exhibit B. It is immaterial whether the improvements were made by the 2nd defendant himself or by any other person in possession before him. It is quite sufficient that the improvements are on the land even if they were made by some p...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »