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.
S.T.P.L. Palaniappa Chettiar Vs. T.R.M.A.R.R.M. Arunachella Chettiar a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.139; (1912)23MLJ595
1. The Subordinate Judge has dismissed the assignee's application for execution in this case on the ground that Aiyavier who executed the assignment in his favour acted beyond the powers given to him under the power of attorney, Ex. A, in making the assignment. The scope of Aiyavier's agency under the power of attorney has been discussed at length at the bar and we have examined the provisions of the document carefully. We are obliged to arrive at the same conclusion as the Subordinate fudge did. Arunachella Chetti authorizes Aiyavier by Ex. A. to act for him for the purposes enumerated in the power of attorney. The enumerated powers include mortgaging and hypothecating lands, houses and property for debts due or to become due by the principal, selling immoveable properties for any lawful purpose, demanding, suing for debts and other claims, giving valid discharges, receipts and releases for payments made, negotiating, accepting, endorsing and making promissory notes and negotiable ins...
Sree Rajah Venkatragayya Appa Row Bahadur Zemindar Garu Vs. Murala Sri ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.593
1. The question in this case is whether the plaintiff's suit is barred by limitation. The suit has been treated as one for rent. The plaintiff instituted the suit at first in the District Munsif's Court of Gudivada on the regular side and it was returned to the plaintiff for presentation to the proper Court on the ground that the suit was one cognizable by a Small Cause Court. The plaintiff did not accept the view taken by the Munsif on the question of jurisdiction, but appealed against it to the District Court, and, on that Court confirming the Munsif's view, he put in a revision petition under Section 622 of the repealed Civil Procedure Code to the High Court. The High Court refused to interfere on the ground that there was no question of jurisdiction involved in the petition. If the period occupied by the plaintiff in prosecuting his suit, appeal and revision petition in the Munsif's Court, the District Court and the High Court respectively, be deducted in computing the period of li...
thekkumkattil Krishnan Nair and ors. Vs. thekkumkattil Damodaran Nair ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.769; (1913)24MLJ240
1. The question referred for our decision is 'whether the self-acquisition of a female member of a Marumakkathayam tarwad would, on her death, lapse to the tarwad of which she dies a member, or whether they would descend to her nearest heirs or her tavazhi.'2. I have no doubt but that, according to the customary or common law of Malabar, such self-acquisitions descend to her tavazhi. That was the customary law, as I understood it, when I was District Judge of that District for several years before I became a Judge of this Court. That there is abundant evidence to support that view is clear from the order of reference to the Full Bench in the case of Govindan Nair v. Sankaran Nair I.L.R. (1909) M. 351. It is, however, contended before us that the majority of the Full Bench in that case held that the case law of this Court since Kallati Kunju Menon v. Palat Erracha Menon (1864) 2 M.H.C.R. 162 shows that the self-acquisitions of a male lapse to his tarwad, and do not pass by inheritance t...
V. Balakrishnudu Vs. Narayanasawmy Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-1912
Reported in: (1914)ILR37Mad175; 24Ind.Cas.852
Wallis, J.1. The plaintiff in this case sues as executor of the will of the deceased V. Nagammal to recover with interest the sum of Rs. 10,680-9-9 alleged to have been deposited by her with her brother's son the defendant on 15th August 1900. It is common ground that this sum was due by the defendant to Nagammal on the date mentioned, but the plaintiff's case is that at that time a suit for waste was about to be filed against Nagammal by the reversioner of her minor son's estate, to which she had succeeded more than twenty years previously, and that, to prevent this sum getting into the hands of the Receiver in that suit, it was arranged between Nagammal and the defendant at the defendant's suggestion that Nagammal should give him a receipt for the money which could be used against the Receiver in case of his seeking to recover the above sum from the defendant as part of the estate of Nagammal's son and that the defendant should execute in her favour a document stating that though she...
T. Krishnan Nair and Eleven ors. Vs. T. Damodaran Nair and Thirteen or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-1912
Reported in: (1915)ILR38Mad47
Ralph Sillery Benson, C.J.1. The question referred for our decision is 'whether the self-acquisitions of a female member of a Marumakkattayam tarwad would, on her death, lapse to the tarwad of which she dies a member, or whether they would descend to her nearest heirs or her tavazhi.'2. I have no doubt but that, according to the customary or common law of Malabar, such self-acquisitions descend to her Savazhi. That was the customary law, as I understood it, when [ was District Judge of that district for several years before I became a Judge of this Court. That there is abundant evidence to support that view is clear from the order of reference to the Full Bench in Govindan Nair v. Sankaran Nair I.L.R.(1909) Mad. 851, It is, however, contended before us that the majority of the Full Bench in that case held that the case law of this Court since Kallati Kunju v. Palat Erracha Menon (1864) 2 M.H.C.R. 162, shows that the self-acquisitions of a male lapse to his tarwad, and do not pass by in...
Panikkarchatt Ukkajithanthavita Puthia Purajil Abdulla and ors. Vs. Pa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.429; (1912)23MLJ537
Sankaran Nair, J.1. One Aramullan who was the Karnavan of his tarwad died on the 18th July 1912. He is alleged to have died in the house of his wife and children.2. On the 27th July, Moideen who became the Karnavan of the tarwad on the death of Aramullan applied to the District Judge under Act XIX of 1841 for the appointment of a commissioner to take an inventory of the properties which were in the possession of the late Aramullan and for the delivery of the same to him.3. On the same day without any inquiry the Judge appointed a Commissioner to take an inventory.4. A Commissioner was accordingly appointed; upon this Abdulla with two others objected to the order. The Judge confirmed the first order. The first ground of objection was that there is no question of succession at all and therefore the Act does not apply. With reference to this objection the judge holds that it has not been finally settled that the tarwad takes by survivorship from a deceased Karnavan. I do not think there e...
Vembu Iyer Alias Ramanadha Iyer Vs. Srinivasa Iyengar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.609; (1912)23MLJ638
Sundara Aiyar, J.1. This is a suit for setting aside a sale made by the plaintiff's guardian in the year 1889. The suit was instituted on the '28th October 1908. The plaintiff was born on the 28th October 1887. He delayed the suit until the last day on which it was open to him to institute it. The sale was admittedly made for the discharge of certain debts due by the plaintiff's father.2. Both Courts have upheld the sale. The District Munsif found that the sale was necessary in the interests of the minor. On appeal the Subordinate Judge seems to have confirmed the decree with some hesitation. He observed 'I am unable to hold that with prudent management the debts could not have been cleared from out of the income.' He also held that there was no clear necessity to support the sale. With respect to a plea of the defendants that the guardian had to take into account at the time of the sale the fact that two sisters of the plaintiff had shortly to be married, the Sub-Judge says 'The prosp...
The Secretary of State for India in Council, Through the Collector of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-1912
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.294
1. The plaintiff is the inamdar of Adangarkulam village in Nangureri Taluq. He states that a natural stream, Hanumanadhi, takes its rise in the Western Ghats and flows through his village, that he has been taking the water of that river to his tanks, six in number, at certain seasons of the year when it was required for the irrigation of his lands, that in order to divert the water into his channels, he had to put up a dam across the river-bed as the river-bed is on a level lower than that of the channels and water could not flow into them when it was knee deep or less than that; and that he has been doing so, according to him, from time immemorial. The dam consisted of a masonry anicut with interstices between the vertical stones which he filled up, when necessary, with mud or Palmyra leaves. The plaint states that the masonry anicut in some places was damaged, and he had, therefore, to put up a temporary mud dam in front of it for diverting the water into his channels. The 1st defend...
Thukku Goundan Vs. Kuppauda Goundan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.339
1. The suit in this case was one in ejectment. The plaintiff obtained a decree in the District Munsif's Court. On appeal, that judgment was reversed. When the appeal came on for hearing on the 30th March 1911, the plaintiff offered to be bound by an oath to be taken by the defendant at a temple in a certain form. The defendant agreed to make the oath. The lower Appellate Court has found that the plaintiff attached further conditions as to the way in which the oath should be made when both the parties were at the temple for the purpose of the oath. The defendant refused to make the oath observing the further conditions imposed by the plaintiff. The oath was in consequence not made. The judgment of the Appellate Court dismissing the plaintiff's suit is not based on the ground that plaintiff resiled from his agreement to be bound by the defendant's oath or that he prevented him from making the oath, but is based on the merits of the suit. The plaintiff has appealed against that judgment.2...
Garikipati Paparayudu Vs. Garikipati Rattamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-09-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.508; (1913)24MLJ62
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. This is a suit by a Hindu reversioner for a declaration that two sales made by the widow of the last owner, the 1st defendant in the suit, to the 2nd and 3rd defendants respectively are not valid beyond the life time of the widow. The sales were admittedly made for the discharge of the widow's husband's debts. The attack against them was based on the ground that the prices settled for the sales were very inadequate. Both the lower courts have dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff not having offered to pay to the purchasers the consideration money which was used for the discharge of the husband's debts the suit is not maintainable. The decision is rested on the authority of Singam Setti Sanjivi Kondayya v. Draupadi Bayamma I.L.R. (1908) M. 153. That case no doubt supports the proposition that such an offer should be made by the party seeking to set aside a sale. But the decision of the Privy Council in Bhagwat Dayal Singh v. Debi Dayal Sahu I.L.R. (190...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »