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.
Periyathambi Gounden Vs. Periya Gounden
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-1912
Reported in: (1912)23MLJ593
1. The defendant in the suit applied for the grant of certain land to the Revenue officers of Government in 1903. The plaintiff who was an adjoining owner and who according to the dharkast rules had a preferential claim to have the land allotted to him, then stated that he did not want it. The Revenue Inspector required the defendant to clear the land of prickly pear. While enquiries for allotting the land were in progress, the defendant spent a considerable amount of money on the land. Subsequently when the dharkast enquiry was resumed, the plaintiff broke faith with the defendant and made an application for the land. Unfortunately the Revenue authorities granted it to him and ignored the claims of the defendant. The Plaintiff having got a patta from Government instituted this suit for recovery of possession from the defendant.2. Both the lower Courts disallowed his claim on the ground that the plaintiff was estopped by his previous disclaimer from setting up a claim to recover the la...
Kolandavelu Pillai Vs. Armugatha Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-1912
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.493
Miller, J.1. This is a suit for partition. The plaintiff's father, the 1st defendant and another (deceased) were three brothers. The 2nd defendant, son of the 1st defendant, is alleged to have been adopted by the deceased 3rd brother. The question in the suit is whether this adoption was made or not. If it was made, as the family now stands, the plaintiff would be entitled to one-third of the family property. If it was not, he would be entitled to one-half of the family property. The Subordinate Judge has held, by reason of the period of limitation prescribed by Article 113 of the Limitation Act, that the plaintiff is not now entitled to question the adoption and, consequently, he must be allowed only an one-third share. The decision of the Subordinate Judge was passed at a time when it had been held in this Court that the period of limitation provided by Article 118 was applicable to all suits whether for possession or not which involved the question of the existence of an adoption Th...
T.V. Rajaram Rao Vs. T.V. Tuljaram Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.43
1. Civil Suit No. 266 of 1836 was brought by a member of the family to which the parties belonged for partition against the other members of the family, the plaintiff, Rajaram Rao being the 3rd defendant and the present defendant, Tuljaram Rao, being the 4th defendant, in that suit. The present defendant, Tuljaram Rao, was the managing member of the family. He was held liable to account for Rs. 3,23,000 odd by the final decree passed on the original side of this Court. On appeal against the preliminary decree, he was held accountable for an additional sum of Rs. 1,40,000. The decree on the original side also declared that a half share of the Scottish Press which was purchased by Tuljaram Rao had been purchased by him on behalf of the family and that he must account to the family for a half of his drawings from the Press, which half amounted to Rs. 1,03,000 odd, so that he was accountable for a sum of Rs. 5,70,000 in all. The amount payable to the plaintiff in the present suit, who was ...
Allah Bakhsh Vs. Ram Lal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.865
ORDER1. An unclassed suit of value not exceeding Rs. 100 for redemption of a house from mortgage was instituted in the Court of a Munsif and a decree for redemption on payment of Rs. 110 was passed.2. An appeal was instituted in the Court of the Divisional Judge who, following Muhammad Khan. v. Ashak Muhammad Khan 106 P.R. 1895 returned it for presentation to the District Judge. The District Judge has disagreed with the Divisional Judge, and, citing Kishan Chnnd v. Taj-ud-Din 23 P.R. 1909 : 197 P.L.R. 1908 : 37 P.W.R. 1909 : 1 Ind. Cas. 870 has referred the question of jurisdiction to this Court for decision.2. Kishan Chand v. Taj-ud-Din 23 P.R. 1909 : 197 P.L.R. 1908 : 37 P.W.R. 1909 : 1 Ind. Cas. 870 has reference to the valuation for purposes of farther appeal under Section 40, Punjab Courts Act. This section differs materially in its language from Section 39 of the same Act, and in Kishan Chand v. Taj-ud-Din 23 P.R. 1909 : 197 P.L.R. 1908 : 37 P.W.R. 1909 : 1 Ind. Cas. 870 a clear ...
Mandaram Narumayya Chetti and anr. Vs. Mandaram Tiruvangadathan Chetti ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-1912
Reported in: (1913)24MLJ223
1. We see no reason to interfere with the tending of the Judge that the properties which form the subject-matter, of the appeal before us belonged to Lakshmamma.2. The next question for decision is who is her heir. The second plaintiff is the daughter of Kanakamma the legitimate daughter of Lakshmamma who survived her daughter. The 1st and 2nd defendants are the illegitimate sons of Lakshmanma born to her after she deserted her husband, the father of Kanakamma and while she was living with the 1st plaintiff. She lived with him till her death as his concubine. She was an outcaste. If all her children were legitimate it is conceded that the 2nd plaintift as the daughter's daughter would exclude the sons. But it is contended that as Lakshmamma was put out of caste, the legal relation of a respectable daughter ceased, and Kanakamma lost all her rights to succeed to her mother. It is also contended that even if the legal relation did not cease, as the defendants were living with her in her ...
Mamabi and ors. Vs. Acharath Parakat--maliga Purazil Cheriye Kunhifapp ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.337; (1912)23MLJ607
1. This appeal arises in a suit instituted by an ottidar to enforce his right of pre-emption and the question argued before us is, whether the lower courts are right in dismissing the suit on the ground that it is barred by limitation without finding that six years had elapsed since the date the plaintiff came to know of the sale by auction. There is no finding when the plaintiff had knowledge of the auction sale. We are asked to consider whether it is enough for an ottidar who seeks to enforce his right of pre-emption to show that he has come to court before the expiry of six years from the date he came to know of the sale to a third person.2. It is contended on behalf of the respondents that Article 120 of the Limitation Act does not imply that time runs from the date when the ottidar came to know of the sale, in other words, the right to sue arises from the date of the sale or the contract to sell, independently of when he had knowledge of such sale or contract. We may mention that ...
Moideen Kutti Vs. Koman Nair and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-1912
Reported in: (1912)23MLJ618
1. This is. a suit for damages sustained by the plaintiff by the defendant's unlawfully setting fire to and destroying pepper vines on his land. Both courts have found that the act assigned by the plaintiff was committed at the instigation of the 1st defendant by the 5th defendant, a tenant of his. It is contended that there is no legal evidence to support the finding of instigation by the 1st defendant. This observation is only correct in the sense that there is no direct evidence of any one who actually saw the act of instigation. There was strong circumstantial evidence against the 1st defendant and we must accept the concurrent findings of the courts below that it was proved against him. The Subordinate Judge reversing the District Munsif's decree dismissed the suit on the ground that it was barred by limitation. He applies Article 36 of the Limitation Act which provides 'for compensation for any malfeasance, misfeasance or nonfeasance independent of contract and not herein special...
G.T. Gilmore Vs. State of Travancore
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.444; (1912)23MLJ605
1. This is an appeal against the order of Wallis, J., on the original side dismissing the plaintiff's suit under Rule 57, of the Original Side Rules, which provides that when the plaint discloses no reasonable cause of action or is vexatious, the Judge may strike out the plaint and dismiss the suit.2. The claim is to recover the sum of Rs. 94,000 from the State of Travancore, or Dewan of Travancore, as damages for wrongful dismissal from the service of that State.3. His Highness the Maharajah of Travancore is a 'Sovereign Prince or Baling Chief' within the meaning of Sections 85 to 87 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and may not be sued in our Courts without the consent of the Governor-General in Council, which admittedly has not been given in this case.4. It is contended that the present suit is not against the Maharajah, but against the State of Travancore, or the Dawan as representing the State.5. We do not think that any such distinction can be drawn.6. The Code of Civil Procedure m...
In Re: Narayana Padayachi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-1912
Reported in: (1914)ILR37Mad280; 25Ind.Cas.1008
ORDERNapier, J.1. The accused in this case was charged with an offence under Section 26 of Act V of 1882. This offence is compound-able under Section 55 of the Act. It is Admitted that the accused has paid Rs. 2 by way of compensation to the village monegar for the Forest Authorities.2. Section 53 provides that on such payment no farther proceedings shall be taken against such person. This section must mean that proceedings in progress must lapse. That being so, the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to convict the accused. I set aside the conviction and order the fine to be refunded....
The Secretary of State for India in Council Represented by the Collect ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-1912
Reported in: (1913)24MLJ538
Sundara Aiyar, J.1. This is a suit for a declaration that Government had no right to resume and assess certain lands which the Government treated as Karnam Service inam and enfranchised under the provisions of Section 17 of Act II of 1894. The plaintiff's case is that the lands were never Karnam service Inam and that they were jeroyati land held by his predecessors in title at a special rate of rent under an Agraharamdar. The District Munsif held that the lands were enjoyed as emoluments for service on favorable rents under the Agraharamdar and that they must be held to be Inam lands. On Appeal the Subordinate Judge reversed the Mun-sif's finding and held that it was not proved that the lands were service Inam landsExhibit B, an extract from the Inam Register shows that in 1787 the lands were in the possession of the Kar-nams on favorable rates of rent. The Agraharam was in the Zamin-dary of Mogalapore at that time. There is nothing to show, assuming that the lands were Karnam Service ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »