Chennai Court April 1912 Judgments
Arunachalam Pillai Minor by Father and Guardian Vadivelu Pillai and an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1912
Reported in: (1912)23MLJ719
1. This is a suit by the widow (the mother of the last male owner) for a declaration that an adoption by her son's widow is invalid. The plaintiff died before the suit came on for hearing in the court of first instance. Reversioners of the last male owner were made parties as the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff. The only question argued on the hearing of the appeal was__Can they continue the suit? The courts below were of opinion that they could. We are unable to take this view.2. The first question for consideration is does the deceased plaintiff's right to sue survive (Order XXII Rule 3)? If it does not, no question as to who are the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff arises.3. It appears to be well settled that a suit by a reversioner who sues on his own behalf to set aside an alienation by a widow abates on the death of plaintiff and that the right to sue does not survive to the next reversioners (see Sakyahani high Rao Baheb v. Bhavani Bozi Sacheb I.L....
Tag this Judgment!Ayderman Kutti (Son of Thandan Valappil Easup) and anr. Vs. Syed Ali ( ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1912
Reported in: (1914)ILR37Mad514
Abdur Rahim, J.1. In both these appeals one common question arises, whether the sale of a minor's property by his mother acting as de facto guardian is valid under the Muhammadan law and if so, under what conditions. In one case [Second] Appeal No. 1416, the deed of sale alleges that the shop which was sold had been vacant as the Municipality prohibited the selling of fish and flesh in that shop, that it was in a dilapidated condition, and the mother of the minor who is the eighth defendant, was unable to execute repairs. The sale-proceeds, it is alleged, wore applied to the discharge of certain debts contracted for the marriage of a sister of the minor and for other purposes. It was to moot the expenses of this marriage that money was required and the other facts mentioned, apparently furnished the reason for electing this particular property for sale. In Original Suit No. 4 of 1909 which has given rise to Second Appeal No. 1639 of 1910 the allegation in the plaint is that the minor's...
Tag this Judgment!Thandan Valappil Easuf's son, Hyderman Kutti and Anr. Vs. Kotuseri Val ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.576
Abdur Rahim, J.1. In both these appeals one common question arises, whether the sale of a minor's property by his mother acting as de facto guardian is valid under the Muhammadan Law, and if so, under what conditions. In one case, Appeal No. 1416, the deed of sale alleges that the shop which was sold had been vacant as the Municipality prohibited the selling of fish and flesh in that shop, that it was vi a dilapidated condition, and the mother of the minor, who is the 8th defendant, was unable to execute repairs. The sale-proceeds, it is alleged, were applied to the discharge of certain debts contracted for the marriage of a sister of the minor and for other purposes. It was to meet the expenses of this marriage that money was required and the other facts mentioned apparently furnished the reason for selecting this particular property for sale. In Suit No. 4 of 1909, which has given rise to Second Appeal No. 1639 of 1910, the allegation in the plaint is that the minor's mother, who was...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Abhinana Purna Priya Vedagi Bhaskar Thirumal Rao Saheb Vs. Arni Ra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.412
1. This appeal is by the defendant, the jagirdar of Ami, in a suit instituted by the plaintiff to establish his right to receive maintenance from the defendant at Rs. 60 per month and for the recovery of arrears at the same rate from July 1905. The plaintiff is the adopted son of one Lakshmana Rao Saheb, who was the grandson of the plaintiff's grand father's grandfather, Tirumal Rao Saheb. Tirumal Rao had two sons, Srinivasa Rao and Venkata Rao. The defendant is the grandson of Venkata Rao by adoption and the plaintiff is the great grandson of Srinivasa Rao. The jagir of Arni is an impartible estate descendible to a single heir according to the rule of lineal primogeniture and is included in the schedule to the Madras Impartyble Estates Act. The plaint alleges that the jagir is a joint ancestral hereditary estate oh the family of the parties and is subject to the liability Under the Hindu Law of providing for the maintenance of the other members of the family. It alleges further that w...
Tag this Judgment!Puthenpurayil Amman Paruykyi and ors. Vs. Mangalaseri Pullikandi Pakra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.262
Miller, J.1. The District Judge bases his decision on the ground that the plaintiff and defendants are co-owners in the parambas on which the plaintiff has paid the land revenue, but the allegations in the plaint do not seem to support this view. The plaintiff in the plaint alleges that the defendants are, by a karar, which is not on the record, owners in jenini right of one of the three parambas contained in the survey field in question, and that he himself is the owner in jenmi right of the other two. The plaintiff does not claim any interest in the paramba of defendants, nor admits that the defendants have any interest in his parambas.2. The District Munsif gave him time to amend his plaint and rely on the karar by which parambas were divided, but he failed to take advantage of the opportunity so given. If then, the District Judge's order is to be supported, it must be on the ground that the fact that the survey field is undivided for purposes of assessment of the land revenue upon ...
Tag this Judgment!Bhimaraja Venkateswarulu Vs. Moova Bapulu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.320
ORDER1. In this case, information was given to the Village Magistrate and to the Station House Officer, and the latter referred the case as false to the Stationary Sub-Magistrate, who issued an order to the Police to remove the case from the file as a false one. In these circumstances, the sanction of the Magistrate for proceedings under Section 211, Indian Penal Code, is not required by Section 195, Criminal Procedure Code Ramasami v. Queen-Empress 7 M.P 292 and, consequently, the sanction which the Sub-Magistrate has accorded, and which the District Magistrate has confirmed, is a sanction not contemplated by the Code of Criminal Procedure. On this ground, we revoke it....
Tag this Judgment!Arunachellam Pillay Vs. Vellaya Pillay and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.461
1. This is a suit by a widow (the mother of the last male-owner) for a declaration that an adoption by her son's widow is invalid. The plaintiff died before the suit came on for hearing in the Court of first instance. The reversioners of the last male-holder were made parties as the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff. 1 he only question argued on the hearing of the appeal was, can they continue the suit? The Court below was of opinion that they could. We are unable to take this view.2. The first question for consideration is does the deceased plaintiff's right to sue survive? (Order XXII, Rule 3). If it does not, no question as to who are the, legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff arises.3. It appears to be well settled that a suit by a reversioner, who sues on his own behalf to set aside an alienatian by a widow abates on the death of the plaintiff and that the right to sue does not survive to the next reversioners. See Sakyahani Ingle Rao Sahib v. Bhavani Bozi ...
Tag this Judgment!Syed Abbas Ali Saheb Vs. Kaliki Runga Reddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.382
1. We do not think the judgment can be said to satisfy the requirements of Order XLI, Rule 31 of the Civil Procedure Code either in substance or in form. We must set aside the decree of the lower Appellate Court and send the case back to be disposed of according' to law. Costs will abide the event....
Tag this Judgment!Govinda Nadan and ors. Vs. Vasudeva Nadan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.385
1. There is evidence that -the husband's debt was discharged by the 5th and 6th defendants in consideration of a mortgage executed in their favour by the widow.2. This being so, the mortgage is binding on the reversioners to the extent covered by Exhibit III.3. See Ramasami Chetti v. Mangai Karasu Nachiar 18 M.k 113.4. The decree of the lower Appellate Court must be set aside and that of the District Munsif restored. The parties will receive and pay proportionate costs in this and in the lower Appellate Court....
Tag this Judgment!Kandasawmy Mudali and anr. Vs. Sengoda Mudali
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.546
1. The question of limitation is governed by Vadapalli Narasimham v. Dronamraju Seetharamamurty 3 M.L.T. 256 and Subba veti Ramiah v. Gundala Ramanna 33 M.j 260 : 19 M.L.J. 732.2. The second appeal is dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »