Chennai Court November 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.
P. Venkatachelapathy Vs. Sri Rajah Bommavara Satyanarayana Varaprasada ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1912
Reported in: (1914)ILR37Mad283
Charles Arnold White, Kt., C.J.1. One of the points first raised in this appeal is not altogether free from difficulty, but as we have made up our minds about it, we do not think anything is to be gained by further consideration. The two points which have been raised by Mr. Govindaraghava Ayyar on behalf of the appellant arise under the second issue in the case, viz., whether the second defendant, the Collector, was entitled to notice of suit under Section 49 of Madras Act I of 1902; and if so, was a valid notice served on him. Section 49 is in these terms 'No suit relating to the person or property of any ward shall be instituted in any civil court until the expiration of two months after notice in writing has been delivered to or left at the office of the District Collector specified in the notification under Section 19 or the Collector appointed under Section 46, as the case may be.'2. Mr. Govindaraghava Ayyar has argued first that no notice is necessary; and secondly, if notice was...
P. Venkatachelapathy Vs. Sri Rajah Bommavara Satyanarayana Varaprasada ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1912
Reported in: 25Ind.Cas.890
Charles Arnold White, C.J.1. One of the points first raised in this appeal is not altogether free from difficulty, but as we have made up our minds about it, we do not think anything is to be gained by further consideration. The two points which have been raised by Mr. Govindaraghava Ayyar on behalf of the appellant arise under the second issue in the case, viz., whether the second defendant, the Collector, was entitled to notice of suit under Section 49 of Madras Act I of 1902; and if so, was a valid notice served on him? Section 49 is in these terms: 'No suit relating to the person or property of any ward shall be instituted in any Civil Court until the expiration of two months after notice in writing has been delivered to or left at the office of the District Collector specified in the notification under Section 19 or the Collector appointed under Section 46, as the case may be.'2. Mr. Grovindaraghava Ayyar has argued, first, that no notice is necessary; and secondly, if notice was ...
Karchi Brahmanaikudu Vs. Karchi Mahalakshmi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-1912
Reported in: (1913)24MLJ533
Miller, J.1. In this case the widow conveyed the whole of her estate to the next reversioner who upon the same day re-conveyed a portion of it to the widow's brother. The question is whether the conveyance by the widow is valid. It has been suggested in the argument before us that the conveyance to the widow's brother was benami for the widow herself and that therefore as to half or whatever was the proportion of the property so conveyed there was no real conveyance by the widow; consequently the conveyance to the next reversioner was in reality only a partial conveyance to the next reversioner and is on that ground invalid. That particular case, I think was not made in the court below, but however that be, the evidence which has been read to us does not prove to my mind that the conveyance was not really to the brother. It may be that it was expected that the widow would have the benefit of it, but the conveyance is suggested even by some of the witnesses on the appellant's side to ha...
Narayana Rao and ors. Vs. the President of the Corporation of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.945; (1912)23MLJ591a
1. Although the language of Section 172 of Act III 1904 is not altogether free from ambiguity we are of opinion that the section does not require that one of the Commissioners hearing an application for revision of assessment should always be one who is resident in or representative of the division in which the applicant resides or carries on business or in which the property assessed is situated. The meaning of the section we think is that ordinarily one of the commissioners hearing the application should be resident in or representative of the division. The language of the corresponding section in the Acts of 1867, 1878, 1884 and 1892 shews that this was the intention of the Statute. No change was intended to be introduced by the change of language in the Act of 1904....
Karetti Brahmanaikudu Vs. Kareti Mahalakshmi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.487
Miller, J.1. In this case, the widow conveyed the whole of her estate to the next reversioner who, on the same day, re-conveyed a, portion of it to the widow's brother. The question is, whether the conveyance by the widow is valid. It has been suggested in the argument before us that the conveyance to the widow's brother was benami for the widow herself and that, therefore, as to half or whatever was the proportion of the property so conveyed, there was no real conveyance by the widow; consequently, the conveyance to the next reversioner was in reality only a partial conveyance to the next reversioner and is, on that ground, invalid. That particular case, I think, was not made in the Court below; but however that be, the evidence which has been read to us does not prove to my mind that the conveyance was not really to the brother. It may be that it was expected that the widow would share the benefit of it; but the conveyance is suggested even by some of the witnesses on the appellant's...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›