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.
G. Paparayudu Vs. G. Rattamma and Two ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-09-1912
Reported in: (1914)ILR37Mad275
Sundara Ayyar, 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 first defendant in the suit, to the second and third 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 Boyamma (1908) 31 Mad. 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 (1908)...
Guddati Reddi Obala Vs. Ganapati Kandanna
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.422; (1912)23MLJ493
Sundara Aiynr, J.1. The argument in second appeal is that the 2nd defendant was adopted by Chinna Rangamma and that the adoption is valid as one made by a dancing girl. But the finding is that Chinna Rangamma was a married woman. It is not explained how she can be treated as a dancing girl. It is stated that as she belonged to the Bogum caste she could adopt a girl, whether she was a married woman or not. But no such custom is found to be established by either of the two Courts. I dismiss the second appeal with costs. I am not to be understood as conceding that an adoption made by a woman of the prostitute class would be valid at all.Sadasiva Aiyar J.2. I should like to add that I dissent with the greatest respect from the casein Vengu v. Mahalinga I.L.R. (1888) M. 393. approve of the decision of the Bombay High Court in Mathura Naiken v. Esu Naicken I.L.R. (1880) B. 545. I am also clearly of opinion that it is not only illegal to adopt girls by prostitutes but the illegality is. if po...
Kamala Bhai Vs. Bhaghirathi Bhai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-1912
Reported in: (1912)23MLJ518
1. The plaintift in the case claims the property sued for as the maternal aunt of a deceased Hindu maiden. The defendant is the step-mother of the maiden. The question for decision is whether the plaintiff is entitled to preferential rights over the defendant. The Bombay High Court held in Tukaram v. Narayana Ram Chandra I.L.R. (1911) B. 339 Jangla Bhai v. Jitha Appaji I.L.R. (1908) B. 409 that in default of both the mother and the father a maiden's property goes to the father's sapindas. The same view was accepted by the Calcutta High Court in Dwarkanath Roy v. Sarath Chandra Singh Roy I.L.R. (1911) C. 319 though in that case there was no contest between the mother and the father. In the Mitakshara there are no express texts dealing with the succession to the property of a maiden in default of the mother and the father; the text stopping with succession to the parents--the word 'parents 'being interpreted to mean the mother and then the father. But in the case of the property of a chi...
Valli Ammal Vs. the Corporation of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-1912
Reported in: (1912)23MLJ531
1. The plaintiff is the owner of house and premises No. 36 Singanna Chetti Street within the Municipality of Madras. She applied for and obtained permission, from the officer competent to grant the same, to carry out certain repairs to her house in April 1909. The President of the Corporation was of opinion that, taking advantage of this permission granted to her, she had made other considerable alterations and additions to her house and ground without his sanction; and he accordingly made a provisional order under Section 287 Clause (1) of the Madras City Municipal Act III of 1904 requiring her to remove those alleged additions. That provisional order was afterwards confirmed by him under Section 287 Clause (2) of the Act. The plaintiff appealed against it to the Standing Committee who declined to interfere. Her case is that there were no additions or alterations as stated by the President but that the four rooms which have been ordered to be demolished had been in existence for more ...
Katakool Natuvlapurayil MoidIn Kutti Vs. Pottarkular Koman Nair and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.605
1. This is a suit for damages sustained by the plaintiff by the defendants' unlawfully setting fire to and destroying pepper vines or 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 non-feasance independent of contract and not herein special...
Veerarayan Styled Anujan Valiya Rajah of Pudiakovilagam and ors. Vs. P ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.623
1. The plaintiff sues for rent due on a lease executed to him by the defendant. Sometime after the lease he assigned his reversion to a third party. The defendant had advanced kattahanom to the plaintiff. It has been found by the lower Courts that when an advance of this nature is made by a tenant, the interest due on the amount every year is deducted from the amount due for the year and the principal amount of the kattakanom is re-payable at the termination of the lease. Although the original lease was only for one year, it is not denied that the defendant, on the termination of the year, became a tenant from year to year. The tenancy has no been put an end to. Prima facie, therefore the defendant would not be entitled to claim his kattakanom, at present or set off the amount of it against the amount claimed by the plaintiff for tow years. The District Munsif did not permit him to make the set off, but the Subordinate Judge has allowed him to do so. It appears that the assignee has re...
Kamala Bai Vs. Bhagirathi Bai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-1912
Reported in: (1915)ILR38Mad45; 16Ind.Cas.939
1. The plaintiff in this case claims the property sued for as the maternal aunt of a deceased maiden of a Hindu, family. The defendant is the step-mother of the maiden. The question for decision is whether the plaintiff is entitled to preferential rights over the defendant. The Bombay High Court held in Tukaram v. Narayan Ramchandra 36 B.k 339 : 14 Bom. L.R. 89 : 14 Ind. Cas. 438 and Janglubai v. Jetha Appaji 32 B.k 409 : 10 Bom. L.R. 522 that, in default of both the mother and the father, a maiden's property goes to the father's sapindas. The same view was accepted by the Calcutta High Court in Dwarka Nath Roy v. Sarat Chandra Singh Roy 39 C.p 319 : 15 C.W.N. 1036 : 15 C.L.J. 23 : 11 Ind. Cas. 872 though, in that case, there was no contest between the relations of the mother and the father. In the Mitakshara, there are no express texts dealing with, the succession to the property of a maiden in default of the mother and of the father; the text stopping with succession to the parents, ...
Draksharapu Appalaswami Vs. A.C. La Rive and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.986
1. We are of opinion that the Subordinate Judge ought to have granted the adjournment asked for on the 29th June 1909. The B diary shows that the case stood posted for hearing on 16th April 1909. It was then adjourned to the 19th April as some of the plaintiff's witnesses did not attend. The Subordinate Judge seems to have been engaged in the trial of another suit and, consequently, the suit was adjourned to the 24th April. It does not appear that, either on the 16th or on the 19th April, the Subordinate Judge bound the plaintiff's witnesses to continue in attendance till the 24th. On the 24th, the case was adjourned to the re-opening day. The plaintiff, therefore, had no opportunity to apply for summonses to his witnesses before the day which was fixed for the hearing. We cannot agree with the District Judge that the plaintiff ought to have put in an application for summonses to his witnesses along with the application for adjournment. The plaintiff did act with due diligence. The Dis...
Khaji Sayyad HussaIn Sahib Vs. Edige Narasimhappa and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-1912
Reported in: (1912)23MLJ539
Sundara Aiyar, J.1. The suit which gave rise to the second appeal was instituted for an injunction against the defendants directing them to remove a bund which, according to the plaintiff, obstructed a public cart-track and for annas eight as damages. The defendants denied that there was a public right of way for carts at the place in question and also denied that the plaintiff sustained any special damage. The District Munsifi passed a decree in plaintiff's favour stating that the plaintiff had a right of easement to pass along the way and that the defendants obstructed the plaintiff in the exercise of that right. The Subordinate Judge on appeal has found that there was a public cart-track at the place when the bund was put up by the defendants but he dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff did not allege or prove any special damage.2. In second appeal it is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the plaintiff was put to special inconvenience by the obstru...
Koligiri Venkatramarayanier and ors. Vs. Patibanda Basayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-1912
Reported in: (1912)23MLJ620
Sundara Aiyar, J.1. According to the General clauses Act 1897 which was in force at the time when the land and the crops were attached standing crops would be immoveable property. It is urged for the respondent that this would make Article 21 of the Indian Limitation Act not applicable. Mr. Ram Doss contends that in that case Article 36 would be applicable. According to the view that I have taken in Yellammal v. Ayyappa Naick (1912) 23 M.L.J. 519, the plaintiff's cause of action for the value of crops did not arise until his suit establishing his right to the land was decided on 22nd September 1909 and the suit was instituted on 22nd November 1909. I am of opinion for the reasons stated in my judgment in Yellammal v. Ayyappa Naick (1912) 23 M.L.J. 519, that the proper article applicable is 62 or 120. I must hold therefore that the Subordinate Judge was right in his view that the suit was not barred by limitation. I would therefore dismiss the appeal with costs.Sadasiva Aiyar, J.2. If A...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »