Chennai Court April 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.
Archakan Seshachelam Dikshitulu Vs. Kallur Venkata Reddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.329
Wallis, J.1. The case has been care-fully argued, but I do not consider it necessary to reserve judgment. Under Act VIII of 1865, it was a good defence to a suit for rent to plead that a proper patta had neither been tendered nor dispensed with. It is contended that the effect of Section 2 of Act I of 1903, whereby Act VIII of 1865 is repealed, is to disentitle a defendant to rely on this defence in an appeal heard after the coming into force of the new Act from a decree passed before it came into force. It was laid down in Wright v. Hale 30 L.J. Ex. 40 that, in dealing with Acts which have the effect of taking away rights of action, we ought not to construe them as having a retrospective operation, unless it appears clearly that such was the intention of the Legislature. The same principle would apply to rights of defence, and has even been held to apply to changes of procedure which affect rights previously existing in pending proceedings, such as the right of appeal: Colonial Sugar ...
Sivalinga Pillai and ors. Vs. Marutha Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.562
Wallis, J.1. I think it was not necessary for the other defendants to give the arbitrators jurisdiction as they were not interested and did not claim to be interested. The petition is dismissed with costs....
Subramania Aiyar Alias Pichu Aiyar Vs. M. Subba Naidu (Dead) and Anant ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-1912
Reported in: (1913)25MLJ405
1. The suit out of which this 2nd appeal has arisen was brought by one Authappa Chetty as trustee of the Kallalagar temple (subject to the supervision of the Madura Vishnu Devasthanam Committee) to recover from the defendant (appellant in this Court) the sum of Rs. 3087-8-6. The plaint alleges that the plaintiff was the lawful trustee of the Devasthanam between March and May 1902 during which period the defendant unlawfully collected moneys due to the Devasthanam for the recovery of which (with interest) the present suit was brought on 28th March 1903.2. The defendant filed his written statement on 8th May 1908. His contentions (shortly stated were:(a) that plaintiff's appointment in 1898 was legally invalid and hence be was not entitled as trustee to bring the present suit in 1903.(b) that plaintiff had been rightly dismissed in April 1901 from his office as trustee and defendant was validly appointed in October 1901 by the temple committee and that defendant was therefore the legal t...
A. Ramanathan Chettiar Vs. Swaminatha Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-1912
Reported in: (1912)23MLJ278
1. The plaintift is the appellant before this Court. He was one of the five Committee Members of the Meenakshi Sundraswarar Saivite Devastanam at Madura, the other four having been defendants 1 to 4. He and two of the other four Committee Members defendants 3 and 4 in the present suit) filed an appeal to the High Court in a former suit spending monies for the expenses of that appeal out of the Devasthanam funds. The High Court dismissed the appeal in 1898 as unnecessary, (see the case of Aligirisami Naiker v. Sunderaswara Aiyar I.L.R. (1898) M. 278and directed that the costs incurred by the present plaintiff and defendants 3 and 4 in prosecuting that appeal in the High Court 'must be paid by themselves out of their private funds as their appeal was uncalled for.' In other words it was declared by the High Court that the temple funds ought not to have been drawn upon for the expenses of that appeal and the Committee Members who were responsible for the filing of that appeal should pay s...
Meda Vengamma of Gunkanapally Vs. Mitta Chelamayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-1912
Reported in: (1912)23MLJ168
1. In this case the plaintiff is a daughter of one Pedda Tippayya by his first wife and sues for the recovery of the properties mentioned in the schedules attached to the plaint. Pedda Tippayya had a brother named Chinna Tippayya and had married a second wife, Lakshmakka, who was only about ten years old at his death. She died in February 1905. The plaintiff's case is that Pedda Tippayya and Chinna Tippayya were divided in interest and that they effected an actual division of the moveable properties and the houses, but that the other properties remained in the joint enjoyment of both at the time of Pedda Tippayya's death in 1868. The plaint alleges that Lakshmakka, the widow of Pedda Tippayya took possession of his properties after his death in 1868 and that the 1st defendant, who joined Lakshmakka and was looking after her properties took possession of them on her death in 1905 and that he is wrongfully withholding it from the plaintiff. She denies that the 1st defendant who claims to...
Kuppier Alias Venkatasubbier and ors. Vs. Kotta Chinnaramier and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.493
1. One of the issues in the case was whether the plaintiff was estopped from questioning the alienation in favour of the defendants under Exhibit I. The District Munsif found this issue in favour of the plaintiff but the District Judge's finding on the point cannot be said to be satisfactory. But before stating the points on which we think, we ought to have a clearer finding, it is necessary that we should state the effect of the rulings, as we understand them, as to what would constitute estoppel under circumstances like those of the present case, preventing the reversioner claiming the estate on the death of a Hindu widow from questioning an alienation made by the widow with the consent of the person who was the next reversioner at the time the consent was given. The law, as laid down by the Judicial Committee in Bajrangi Singh v. Manokarnika Bakhsh Singh 3 M.L.T. 1 is that if the next reversioner, either at the time of the alienation or after such alienation, consents to, or ratifie...
Velusami Tevar and ors. Vs. Arokya Udayan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.119
1. These are suits to eject defendant in each case from the land held by him in the Inam village of Pathur which is held by plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 as Sarva Maniyam Inam. Plaintiffs Nos. 3 and 4 are mortgagees under the 1st and 2nd plaintiffs.2. According to the plaintiffs, the defendants hold their land on leases granted by the 3rd and 4th plaintiffs for the Fasli years 1311 to 1313. The defendant's case is that 500 kurukam as of land were leased to their ancestors the Nathambadi Christains by the inamdars in 1861 in the names of two persons, Sourimathu and French, on a permanent occupancy-right and that they are not liable to be ejected. The plaintiffs admitted the lease of 1861 but contended that it was made by the above-named two individuals for their own benefit only, that the lease was abandoned by those two individuals and that subsequently different portions of land were leased from time to time to the defendant's ancestors and to the defendants. The plaintiffs say that the def...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›