Chennai Court March 1912 Judgments
Venkata Raghavalu Reddiarl and anr. Vs. Baggiammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1912
Reported in: (1912)23MLJ54
Charles Arnold White, Kt. C.J.1. The Chief Justice: This is an appeal ftom the decree of the District Judge of Chingleput refusing to grant probate of a will. The will is propounded by the three executors, two of whom are the brothers-in-law of the deceased, having married his two sisters. One of the brothers-in-law, Ramanjulu, joined with the other executors in applying for probate of the will in the Court below, but he has not appsaled against tb.3 decree refusing probate. Probate is opposed by the widow of th? deceased and by two illegitimate sons of the deceased. The deceased left him surviving his widow, the daughter of one Subba Naidu, a retired postmaster in Madras, a sister who married Ramanjulu, one of the executors who has a son, Appavu and another sister who married another of the executors, Ramaswami Naidu and he has no family. The will bears date June 17th, 1907, but the case for the plaintiffs is that it was not executed until June, the 18th. The deceased died on June, th...
Tag this Judgment!Prakkateri Parkum Vatakakka Chettiatath Kandyil Kittooli and Ors. Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.295
1. The defendants Nos. 3 to 14 are the appellants before us. They are the wife and children of the 2nd defendant, who made a gift in 1895 (Exhibit XII) of the plaint six items to his said wife and to the children who were then in existence. The 3 plaintiffs, the defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 15 and about 40 others formed an undivided tarwad at the time of the disputed gift in 1895, the tarwad consisting of four taywazhis. The plaintiffs brought the suit (out of which this appeal has arisen) on the basis that the tarwad of the four taywazhis remained undivided till this suit was brought in the end of 1907, and the plaintiffs prayed, on behalf of the Said undivided tarwad, to set aside the gift deed of 1895 and to recover the plaint six items.2. As a matter of fact, however, there was a registered karar deed of partition in 1902, in which all the adult members of the four taywazhis and all the minor members represented by the adult members of their respective branches took part. In this karar...
Tag this Judgment!Venkata Ragavulu Reddiar and anr. Vs. Baggiammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.550
Arnold White, C.J.1. This is an appeal from the decree of the District Judge of Chingleput refusing to grant Probate of a Will. The Will is propounded by the three executors, two of whom are the brothers-in-law of the deceased, having married his two sisters. One of the brothers-in-law, Ramanjulu, joined with the other executors in applying for Probate of the Will in the Court below, but he has not appealed against the decree refusing Probate. Probate is opposed by the widow of the deceased and by two illegitimate sons of the deceased. The deceased left him surviving his widow, the daughter of one Subba Naidu, a retired Post-master in Madras', a sister who married Ramanjulu, one of the executors who has a son, Appavu, and another sister who married another of the executors, Ramaswami Naidu, and he has no family. The Will bears date June the 17th, 1907, but the case for the plaintiff is that it was not executed until June, the 18th. The deceased died on June, the 19th. He had been suffe...
Tag this Judgment!Soumia Narayana Iyengar Vs. Alagirisawmy Iyenger
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.580
1. It is found that Rs. 700 was paid towards the amounts due to the plaintiff; and all the amounts due to the plaintiff are under the three promissory-notes in question. There is no other debt due to the plaintiff from the defendant. There is an entry in the handwriting of the person who made the payment on behalf of the defendant showing the payment. That being so, Section 20 of the Limitation Act clearly applies. The payment was towards the discharge of the debt due under the three promissory-notes. It must be either that the interest was intended to be discharged, or the principal, or principal and interest both. If the payment was towards interest, no writing is necessary, and mere payment will be sufficient to save limitation, or rather to start a fresh period of limitation. If it was towards principal, then in that case there is the entry in the hand-writing of the man who made it and that satisfies the requirements of Section 20. If the payment was towards principal and interest...
Tag this Judgment!P. Balakrishna Pillay and ors. Vs. M.P. Narayanasawmy Naidu and anr. a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.14
Bakewell, J.1. By an order of the Insolvent Court, dated the 25th October 1880, the property of one Narayanasawmy Naidu, an insolvent, became vested in the Official Assignee of Madras. On the 11th of July 1881, the insolvent obtained his personal discharge but he obtained no order for his discharge in the nature of a certificate, so that by virtue of the vesting order of 1880 and Section 7 of the Insolvency Act of 1848, all the estate and interest of the insolvent in any real or personal estate which the insolvent might purchase or which might revert, descend, be devised or bequeathed or come to him, vested in the Official Assignee. On the 19th August 1902, the insolvent mortgaged to the plaintiffs in this suit certain immoveable property, which he had acquired under the Will of one Ammai Ammal, who died in 1894 as a member of his joint family. The plaintiff brought this suit upon the mortgage and, on 17th July 1906, obtained a decree for sale of the mortgaged property and the payment ...
Tag this Judgment!Venugopal Naidu and ors. Vs. A. Ramanadhan Chetty and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-1912
Reported in: (1912)23MLJ61
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The defendants 8 and 11 to 14 (5 of the legal representatives of the 3rd defendant who died pending the suit) are the appellants in the above second appeal. The suit was brought by plaintiff, one of the five members of a temple committee, for contribution from the other four committee members in respect of moneys which had been recovered from the plaintiff above in execution of the decree obtained by the trustee of the Madura Menakshi temple against the members of the committee (inclusive of plaintiff and 3rd defendant) for moneys which they had spent out of the temple funds in previous litigation carried on by them in the High Court, the High Court, having in that previous litigation directed that committee members should pay such costs out of their private funds and not out of the Devasthanam funds. (See the last sentence of the judgment in Alagiri Swami Naicker v. Sunder eswara Iyer I.L.R. (1898) M. 2782. The lower courts decided that the 3rd defendant's legal r...
Tag this Judgment!Saminatha Iyer and ors. Vs. Marimuthu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.689
Abdur Rahim, J.1. One of the questions on which the Subordinate Judge was asked to return a finding was, whether the defendants held the back-yard of his house under the plaintiffs or their ancestors as Kasavargam tenants. The finding is in the negative. But Mr. Ramachandra Iyer, who appears for the defendants, contends that we ought not to accept the finding because the Subordinate Judge has not given proper weight to Exhibit D, the document filed by his client, and that the reasoning of the Subordinate Judge in dealing with the evidence is not satisfactory. I may mention t.hat the District Munsif who tried this suit had also found this point in favour of the defendants, and so did the Subordinate Judge in appeal. We did not consider the judgment of the lower Appellate Court satisfactory because no reference was made to Exhibits A and B, the Paymash and the Village Register. Both the documents have now been considered by the Subordinate Judge. He states in one place in his judgment th...
Tag this Judgment!The District Magistrate of Bellary Vs. Obbava
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.164
ORDERMiller, J.1. The accused did not appeal against her conviction and at her trial she rather drew suspicion on herself by denying all knowledge of the jewel, whereas there was evidence that at an earlier period she had stated that she found it in her mother's house after her death. But there is no evidence to show whether her mother died before or after the theft, and, therefore, assuming the admissibility of the statements said to have been made to the Panchayatdars, those statements seem to furnish a prima facie reasonable explanation of the possession of the jewel. The Magistrate does not say that they do not do so but seems to consider the fact of possession and the fact that the jewel was unpolished, furnish sufficient evidence of dishonest retention. Considering, however, the length of time that elapsed between the theft and the discovery of the jewel in the possession of the Prosecution 2nd witness, it is difficult to say that possession itself required explanation, and thoug...
Tag this Judgment!Vedala Lakshminarasammah Chadyulu and ors. Vs. Pucha Lakshmammal and o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.326
1. A preliminary objection is raised that no appeal lies against an order refusing to set aside a sale under Section 310A, Civil Procedure Code of 1882, except when the decree-holder himself is the purchaser. In Nallamuthu Pillay v. Subba Pillay 8 Ind. Cas. 855 this Court held that an appeal would lie against such an order although the purchaser was a stranger The new Civil Procedure Code has expressly provided for an appeal in all cases of orders under Section 310A (Order XXI, Rule 89), SO that no difficulty could arise in future cases. We are content, in these circumstances, to follow the judgment in Nallamuthu Fillay v. Subba Pillay 9 M.L.T. 165 : 8 Ind. Cas. 855 and we overrule the objection.2. Proceeding to the merits, the petitioner, judgment-debtor, stated that on 24th April 1908, that is, before the expiration of 30 days from the date of the auction-sale which took place on 3rd March, 1908, the decree holder's widow agreed to treat a portion of the decree-debt as discharged in ...
Tag this Judgment!Sreemut Devasikhamani Nata Raja Desikar Vs. Muthian Chetty Alias Peria ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.24
1. In this case, the plaintiff's predecessor-in-title granted a lease of a village to a Chetty, and he also granted a lease of some village to the defendants. Then, the lessee of the entire village instituted a suit to establish his right in preference to the defendants. The suit was compromised, and the compromise decree provided, among other things, that both the leases were valid and that the defendants should pay the rent due under their lease to the Chetty during the continuance of the Chetty's lease. Thereafter, it appears there was a dispute as to the possession of the village between the Chetty and the plaintiff and proceedings under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, were instituted. The result of the proceedings was that the plaintiff was found to be in actual possession of the village and an order was passed to that effect. The Chetty, it appears, did not take any steps to establish his right by getting rid of the effect of that order under Section 145, Criminal Procedure...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »