Chennai Court May 1912 Judgments
Vaithilinga Mudali Vs. Murugian Alias Natesa Mudali
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-03-1912
Reported in: (1912)23MLJ189
1. The facts out of which this Second Appeal arises may be stated as follows:2. There were four divided brothers in a Hindu family. The plaintiffs are two of these. Another was Akshayalinga, who was apparently adopted by one Subba Mudaliar in 1873. But in the course of the suit it was found that the adoption was invalid because both the father and mother of Akshayalinga were dead at the time of his apparent adoption. The fourth brother was Viswa-linga, who died in 1892. The dispute is in regard to his property. The Plaintiffs claimed it as his reversionery heirs and their suit was to recover it from the defendant, who is the son of Akshayalinga and who is said to have trespassed upon it in 1910. The defendant originally claimed the property as the self-acquisition of Akshayalinga purchased benami in the name of Viswalinga, but both the Courts below found against that plea. In the alternative defendant resisted the plaintiffs suit on the ground that, as the adoption of Akshayalinga was ...
Tag this Judgment!Vathiar Ramanuja Aiyangar and ors. Vs. P.R. Aiyanachariar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-03-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.219; (1912)23MLJ316
ORDERSundara Aiyar, J.1. There are two applications before me for disposal. C.M.P. No. 671 of 1911 is an application by the appellants in the second appeal pending in this Court for a temporary injunction to restrain the respondents from carrying the idol of Desikar in procession through any of the streets within the seven Prakarams of the Srirangam temple. C.M.P. No. 926 of 1912 is an application by the appellants to suspend the injunction granted by the Lower Courts restraining them from interfering with the Vadagalais carrying Desikar in procession through streets. The Vadagalais of Srirangam instituted a suit against the trustees of the temple and the Thengalais for a declaration of their right to carry the idol of Desikar, which they have apparently recently made, in procession through any of the 5, 6 and the 7th Prakarams of the Srirangam temple and for an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their right to do so. Their case was that the streets were public...
Tag this Judgment!Yeditha Subbaya Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-03-1912
Reported in: (1912)23MLJ722
Sundara Aiyar, J.1. The Petitioner in this case was the 3rd accused in Calender Case No. 189 of 1911 on the file of the 2nd class Magistrate of Kottapeta. The first accused was a dancing girl and the 3rd accused is said to have kept her. The facts on which the prosecution was based were that the complainant lent a jewel to the 1st accused; this jewel was subsequently pledged by the 2nd and 3rd accused to the 6th prosecution witnessThe money obtained by the pledge was apparently appropriated by the 2nd accused. The jewel was given to the 2nd accused for being pledged. There can be no doubt that the 2nd and 3rd accused had no right to pledge the jewel. Both Courts have found as a fact that the 3rd accused was aware that the jewel did not belong to the 2nd accused and that he introduced the 2nd accused to the 6th prosecution witness, as a relation of his in order to induce the witness to give a loan to the 2nd accused on the pledge of the jewel. Both of them acted at the instance of the 1...
Tag this Judgment!Vaithilingam Mudali Vs. Murugaian Alias Natesa Mudali (Minor Son of Ak ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-03-1912
Reported in: (1914)ILR37Mad529
Benson, J.1. The facts out of which this Second Appeal arises may be stated as follows:There were four divided brothers in a Hindu family. The plaintiffs are two of these. Another was Akshayalinga, who was-apparently adopted by one Subba Mudaliar in 1873; but in the course of the suit it was found that the adoption was invalid because both the father and mother of Akshayalinga were dead at the time of his apparent adoption. The fourth brother was Viawalinga, who died in 1892. The dispute is in regard to his property. The plaintiffs claimed it as his reversionary heirs, and their suit was to recover it from the defendant, who is the son of Akshayalinga, and who is said to have trespassed upon it in 1901. The defendant originally claimed the property as the self-acquisition of Akshayalinga, purchased benami in the name of Viswalinga, but both the Courts below found against that plea. In the alternative defendant resisted the plaintiff's-suit on the ground that, as the adoption of Akshaya...
Tag this Judgment!Sawminatha thevan Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-03-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.767
ORDERSundara Aiyar, J.1. The conviction in this case cannot be sustained. The accused merely stated that he suspected the complainant of theft and mentioned the facts on which his suspicion was based. Section 211, Indian Penal Code, requires that there should be an institution of a criminal proceeding by the accused against the complainant. The expression of a suspicion did not amount to the institution of a criminal charge. The Police, no doubt, acted upon his suspicion and took steps to prosecute the complainant. The accused cannot be held responsible for this. I must set aside the conviction and sentence; the bail-bond of the accused will be cancelled, and the fine, if paid, will be refunded....
Tag this Judgment!Ayappa Mudeliar and Vs. Gopalaswamy Mudeliar and ors. and Myappa Mudel ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-03-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.45
1. A preliminary objection is taken in these three appeals that no appeals lie on the ground that no decree has been passed by the District Judge. The suits were instituted in the District Court, the object of which was to ask the Court to construe certain testamentary dispositions and for the framing of a scheme in order to carry out certain gifts to charities and for other purposes ancillary to the administration of the estate of the deceased testator. Various issues were framed and, we may take it, that Mr. Oldfield, the District Judge, has recorded his findings on most of these issues; he has not, however, recorded any finding on some of them. Nor has he drawn up any formal document in the nature of a decree. What he says in the last paragraph of his judgment is this: 'It is improbable that I shall frame the final decree in this suit. I, therefore, place on record my conclusion that costs, so far as they are separately ascertainable, should be paid by 1st defendant in respect of th...
Tag this Judgment!Chikkanna Chetty Vs. Chinnathoyeeammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-03-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.354
1. We do not think that the judgment of the District Judge in the case answers the requirements of the law. The District Munsif was called upon to submit findings on two questions, i.e. (1) whether the suit bond is genuine and valid as against 5th defendant? and (2) whether the suit bond is not supported by consideration and evidences only a nominal transaction as alleged by the 5th defendant? The District Munsif returned his findings but objections were taken to those findings by the appellant before the learned District Judge. He does not state what those objections are, nor, does he deal with them. He simply says that he has perused the findings of the District Munsif on the issues remitted to him and heard both sides and accepts the findings. This is not a judgment within the meaning of the law. We set aside the decree of the lower Appellate Court and remand the appeal for disposal according to law. Costs will abide and follow the result....
Tag this Judgment!Appu Pillay and ors. Vs. Perumal Pillay
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-03-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.630; (1912)23MLJ118
1. The appellants were the plaintiffs in the suit instituted by them asking for a declaration that they were entitled to right of management of certain charitable and endowed properties on alternate years, and they further asked that they might be given possession of the properties during their periods of management and that an injunction might be given restraining the defendant from entering upon the plaintiffs' properties during the plaintiffs' turns of management. The suit was dismissed by both the lower Courts, The plaintiffs had paid Court-fees in the Court of first instance, as in the lower Appellate Court, on the basis of a suit for possession but in the second appeal, they paid only a Court-fee of Rs 10 and on objection being taken by the office, the Pleader for the appellants stated that he would confine the appeal to relief for a declaration of their rights. Objection is now taken before us that the plaintiffs, being out of possession of the temple and properties, a suit for ...
Tag this Judgment!Authi Lakshmi and ors. Vs. Annasami Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-02-1912
Reported in: (1912)23MLJ104
1. S.A. No. 1645 of 1908.2. The plaintiff is the son of Devaraja Aiyar, who died in the year 1850, leaving a widow named Ponnammal. He had another son Sivarama Aiyar who predeceased him in 1843. Sivarama Aiyar had a son, Devaraja Aiyar by name, who died in 1851. The plaintiff now claims to recover the property as the reversioner of this Devaraja Aiyar as his brother's son, alleging that the cause of action arose on the death of Devaraja Aiyar's mother, Mangalathammall, who obtained possession of the property on Devaraja Aiyar's death and died in the year 1905. The defendants are the parsons who claim under various alienations made by Mangalathammal. One of the questions raised for decision is whether Mangalathammal had become the absolute owner of the properties which are in the possession of of these defendants, under a compromise. Exhibit VIII, or whether she had only a widow's interest in the estate.3. Some years before plaintiff's father, Devaraja Aiyar's death, there was a partiti...
Tag this Judgment!Maharaja of Bobbli Vs. Sree Raja Narasaraju and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-02-1912
Reported in: (1912)23MLJ236
1. The question is whether the plaintiff's application is barred by limitation. The plaintiff obtained a decree in O.S. No. 11 of 1903, on the file of the District Court of Vizagapatam. The decree was transferred to the District Munsiff's Court of Parvatipur for execution on the 3rd of October 1904. The decree-holder got certain immoveable properties attachedb ut the petition was dismissed on the 10th of March 1905 and no further steps were taken in the District Munsif's Court. The decree-holder then applied to the District Court at Vizagapatam on the 13th December 1907 for the sale of property attached by the District Munsif. The petition was returned for amendment under Section 235 of the Code of Civil Procedure of 1882. It was re-presented without amendment and was then recorded without being registered. The decree-holder makes this present application on the 21st April 1910 for notice and for the realization of the amount by sale of the properties already attached. The question whe...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »