Chennai Court December 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.
Oravukundiyil Parkum Elavana Tholan and anr. Vs. Palankundy Kunhi Kutt ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1912
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.549
1. Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 are the petitioners before us. The suit was brought by the plaintiffs for recovery of lands leased to the defendant's karnavan. The defendants claimed the value of improvements. The lease was made in 1885, that is, before the first Malabar Tenants Improvements Act came into force in January 1886. The Marupat provided for certain rates of compensation to be paid in respects of cocoanut trees, areca, jack trees and pepper vines to be planted by the tenants. The Munsif, following the Full Bench case of Randupurayil Kunhisore v. Neroth Kunhi Kannan 5 M.L.T. 277 held that the contract between the parties governed the rate of compensation to be allowed to the defendants and decreed compensation according to the rates provided for in the Marupat, Exhibit A. His judgment was pronounced on the 28th October 1910. After he pronounced judgment, there was reported in Koshikot Pudiya Kovilagath Sreeman Vikraman v. Chundayil Madattul Atlanta Patter (1910) M.W.N. 402 the dec...
In Re: Bhagavatty Perumal Pillay
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.798
ORDERRalph Benson, J.1.Charges of offences punishable under Sections 471, 420 and 511, Indian Penal Code, should be framed against the accused as the evidence indicates that those offences were committed in Madras. The fact that the person charged with an offence under Section 471, Indian Penal Code, was himself the forgerer of the document is no reason why he should not be charged under Section 471, Indian Penal Code, especially when, as in this case, he cannot be charged under Section 467 owing to the latter offence having been committed beyond the jurisdiction of the Court. The forgery must, of course, be proved in order to establish the offence under Section 471 though it is not itself the subject of a charge.2. The extradition of offenders from Travancore to British India is governed by Regulation I of 1906 of His Highness the Maharaja of Travancore dated the 22nd August 1906 published in the Travancore Government Gazette of the 28th idem....
Velayutha Muppan, Minor and Represented by His Mother Next Friend Pich ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1912
Reported in: (1913)24MLJ70
Sankaran Nair, J.1. It has been held in Krishnasami v. Engal I.L.R. (1884) M. 20, that a court is not entitled to attach before judgment property outside its territorial jurisdiction. Mr. Justice Abdur Rahim has expressed a contrary opinion in Veerayya v. Annamalai Chetti I.L.R. (1908) M. 502. However it is unnecessary to consider whether this latter case was rightly decided, as I see no reason to differ from the judgment in Ramasumi Naik v. Ramasami Chetti I.L.R. (1907) M. 255, holding that a sale in execution of a decree is not invalid though there was no attachment before sale. That case follows the rulings reported in Sharoda Moyee Burmonee v. Mooma Moyee Burmonee 8 W.R. 9, and Kishore Mohun Roy v. Mahomed Mujaffar Hossain I.L.R. (1890) C. 188. The Full Bench decision in Mahadeo Duby v. Bhola Nath Dichit I.L.R. (1882) A. 86, is dissented from in the Calcutta case decided otherwise. But that court has since decided in Sheodyan v. Bhola Nath I.L.R. (1899) A. 311, that the Full Bench ...
M.R. Venkatarama Aiyar Vs. Nataraja Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1912
Reported in: (1913)24MLJ235
1. A decree was passed exparte agaipst one Nataraja Aiyar. He applied to set aside the exparte decree on the ground that the summons was not duly served and that he had sufficient cause for not appearing. Without finding on either of these questions, the Subordinate Judge set aside the exparte decree. Mr. Rama-chandra Aiyar supports the order on the ground that a Judge is, in a proper case, entitled to set aside an exparte decree for reasons other than those referred to in Order IX Rule 13. Before, however, deciding the case, we direct the Subordinate Judge to return findings on the following questions:(1) Was the summons duly served ?(2) Was the defendant prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing when the suit was called on for hearing?2. The findings should be submitted within six weeks from this date after taking fresh evidence; and seven days will be allowed for filing objections.3. In compliance with the order contained in the above judgment, the Lower Court submitted that ...
Bommireddipalli Chinna Venkaya Vs. the Secretary of State for India in ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1912
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.102
Miller, J.1. This appeal is by the plaintiff from the decision of the District Judge of Vizagapatam, dismissing his suit against the Secretary of State for the recovery of certain sums of money exacted from him as water-cess payable on lands irrigated in his Inam. The two principal questions are: (1) whether he has irrigated more than he was entitled to irrigate free of water-cess under the Inam Settlement for first crop? and (2), whether he was entitled to irrigate under the Inam Settlement any part of this land for second crop without liability to water-cess? It was argued on behalf of the respondent, the Secretary of State, by the learned Government Pleader that, for the purposes of ascertaining the engagement with the Government, we must take the inam deed as fixing the area on which irrigation was to be free and that we cannot, as the appellant asks us to do, take it that the intention of the Government was, at the time of the Inam Settlement, to leave the irrigated area, such as ...
Krishna Aiyar's widow Meenakshi Ammal Vs. Pudiakalpathi Gramam Rama Ai ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1912
Reported in: (1913)24MLJ106
1. This is a suit by a Hindu widow for arrears of maintenance against her father-in-law and his sons. The plaintiff was married to a deceased son of the 1st defendant, the father-in-law. The 1st defendant originally had some ancestral property along with a brother, but he relinquished it at the partition between himself and his brother's sons, reserving to himself only a waste building site. This relinquishment was before the plaintiff's marriage; and his sons including the plaintiff's husband never took exception to it. The lower Courts have dismissed the suit on the ground that the 1st defendant was not in possession of any ancestral property although he was possessed of considerable property acquired by himself as an officer in the service of Government.2. It has been contended on plaintiff's behalf in Second Appeal that partition deed contained a clause that the 1st defendant's brothers and sons should thereafter make no claim to the properties in the 1st defendant's possession whi...
Devarayan Chetti Vs. V.K.M. Muthuraman Chetti and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1912
Reported in: (1913)24MLJ310
Arnold White, C.J.1. The agreement which is sued on in this case was entered into between the plaintiffs and two of the relatives of one Vellayappa Chetti. Its effect is clearly stated in paragraph 5 of the judgment of the Subordinate Judge.2. 'The agreement was that the plaintiff's daughter should be married to Vellayappa's son on the 18th January 1903 and should be given usual jewels and streedhanam etc., in the usual manner and that in exchange Vellayappa Chetty's daughter apparently then too young to be married should be given in marriage in 3 years from the date of the plaintiff's daughter's marriage, i.e., on or before January 1906, and that on default of either, the plaintiff or the defendants as the case may be, should pay the other Rs. 5000 in case of the plaintiff's default with interest from January 1906, and in case of the default of the defendants and Vellayappa Chetty's party with interest from the date of the plaintiff's daughter's marriage i.e., the 18th January 1903'. ...
Meenakshi Ammal (Widow of Krishna Ayyar) Vs. P. Rama Ayyar (Family Man ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1912
Reported in: (1914)ILR37Mad396
1. This is a suit by a Hindu widow for arrears of maintenance against her father-in-law and his sons. The plaintiff was married to a deceased son of the first defendant, the father-in-law. The first defendant originally had some ancestral property along with a brother, but he relinquished it at the partition between himself and his brother's sons, reserving to himself only a waste building site. This relinquishment was before the plaintiff's marriage; and his sons including the plaintiff's husband never took exception to it. The Lower Courts have dismissed the suit on the ground that the first defendant was not in possession of any ancestral property although he was possessed of considerable property acquired by himself, as an officer in the service of Government.2. It has been contended on plaintiff's behalf in Second Appeal that the partition deed contained a clause that the first defendant's brothers and sons should thereafter make no claim to the properties in the first defendant's...
Krishna Aiyar's widow Meenakshi Ammal Vs. Pudikalapattigramam Rama Aiy ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1912
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.34
1. This is a suit by a Hindu widow for arrears of maintenance against her father-in-law and his sons. The plaintiff was married to a deceased son of the 1st defendant, the father-in-law. The 1st defendant originally had some ancestral property along with a brother but he relinquished it at the partition between himself and his brother's sons, reserving to himself only a waste building site. This relinquishment was before the plaintiff's marriage, and his sons including the plaintiff's husband never took exception to it. The lower Courts have dismissed the suit on the ground that the 1st defendant was not in possession of any ancestral property although he was possessed of considerable property acquired by himself as an officer in the service of Government.2. It has been contended on plaintiff's behalf in second appeal that the partition-deed contained a clause that the 1st defendant's brothers and sons should thereafter make no claim to the properties in 1st defendant's possession whic...
Devarayan Chetty Vs. V.K.M. Muthuraman Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1912
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.515
Arnold White, C.J.1. The agreement, which is sued on in this case, was entered into between the plaintiff and two of the relatives of one Vellayappa Chetty. Its effect is clearly stated in paragraph 5 of the judgment of the Subordinate Judge: 'The agreement was that the plaintiff's daughter should be married to Vellayappa's son on the 18th January 1903 and should be given the usual jewel and stridhanam etc., in the usual, manner, and that, in exchange Vellayappa Chetty's daughter, apparently then too young to be married, should be given in marriage in three years from the date of the plaintiff's daughter's marriage, i.e., on or before January 1906, and that on default of either, the plaintiff to accept that girl or of Vellayappa's relations and the defendants to give her in marriage, the defaulter, i.e., the plaintiff or the defendants as the case may be, should pay the other Rs. 5,000, in case of the plaintiff's default with interest from 1906 January and in case of default of the def...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »