Chennai Court July 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.
G. Veerayya (Minor by Mother and Next Friend Narakka) Vs. G. Gangamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1912
Reported in: (1913)ILR36Mad570
1. The plaintiff in this suit sued as a Hindu reversioner to declare an alienation made by the first defendant invalid as against his reversionary interest. The first defendant is the daughter of the plaintiff's senior paternal uncle. The plaintiff's case was that the property alienated was given to her for maintenance. This was denied on the part of the defendants. The District Munsif found that it was not proved to have been given for maintenance, but he, however, took the estate held by the first defendant to be a limited one. He also held that the suit was not barred by limitation and gave the plaintiff the declaration asked for. On appeal, the District Judge begins his judgment by saying that the only point argued is one of limitation. In considering that point the Judge goes on to say that the Munsif having found that the grant was not for maintenance it must be presumed that; it was an absolute gift to first defendant with full powers of alienation. If the first defendant had an...
Kandasami Pillai Vs. Nagalinga Pillai and Five ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1912
Reported in: (1913)ILR36Mad564
Sundara Ayyar, J.1. The suit in this case is for restraining first defendant from interfering with the plaintiffs' enjoyment of certain lands. The plaintiffs obtained a sale of it from the second defendant in 1906. Prior to the sale the land had been sold in execution of a decree against the second defendant in a small cause suit. The first defendant was the auction-purchaser. The auction sale took place in June 1904. Admittedly the land previously belonged to the second defendant. The plaintiffs' case is that the auction purchase was really for the benefit of the second defendant and that the first defendant was only a benamidar. This plea has been upheld by both the Courts. The first defendant set up his own title to the land as the real purchaser and he contended that Section 317 of the Civil Procedure Code was a bar to the plaintiffs' suit. Both the lower Courts held that Section 317 was not applicable in the circumstances of the case. There was an issue raised as to whether first ...
B. Madhavaiya Chetty Vs. B. Damodaram Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.347
Backewell, J.1. The question in this case is whether the property disposed of by the Will of one B. Madurai Chetty, is property over which he had a power of testamentary disposition or whether it was joint family property. The testator had been engaged in a business in piece-goods in which his immediate family ancestor had been engaged for some years. His father, Lakshmiah Chetty, and his uncle, B. Munuswami Chetty, carried on business together as hawkers of piece-goods for some time and after Lakshmiah's death in 1876 or in 1877, B. Munuswami Chetty and the testator carried on the same hawker business. In 1885, the testator, B. Munuswami Chetty, and the 1st witness for the plaintiff, C. Munuswami Chetty, opened a piece-goods business with one Ramaswami Chetty, the testator's brother, a child about 9 or 10 years old. The 1st witness for the plaintiff stated that the testator and his relations brought in a capital of about Rs. 2,000 for the business but no accounts have been produced. T...
Gazzala Veerayya Minor by Mother and Next Friend, Narakka Vs. Gazzala ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.839
1. The plaintiff in. this suit sued as a Hindu reversioner to declare an alienation made by the 1st defendant invalid as against his reversionary interest. The 1st defendant is the daughter of the plaintiff's senior paternal uncle. The plaintiff's case was that the property alienated was given to her for maintenance. This was denied on the part of the defendants. The District Munsif found that it was not proved to have been given for maintenance but he, however, took the estate held by the 1st defendant to be a limited one. He also held the at the suit was not barred by limitation and gave the plaintiff the declaration asked for. On appeal, the District Judge begins his judgment by saying that the only point argued is one of limitation. In considering that paint, the Judge goes on to say that the Munsif having found that the grant was not for maintenance, it must be presumed that it was an absolute gift to 1st defendant with full powers of alienation. If the 1st defendant had an absolu...
Sheik Farid Saheb Vs. Kulasam Beebi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.688
1. This is an appeal against the decree of the Subordinate Judge's Court of Ellore, awarding plaintiff partition of several properties. There were three defendants originally in the suit. The District Munsif dismissed the suit. The 2nd defendant appealed. In the meanwhile, apparently the 3rd defendant had died and the appeal memorandum was put in without bringing his legal representatives on record. The judgment of the Subordinate Judge does not show that any objection was taken to the appeal proceeding without the representatives of the 3rd defendant being brought in as parties. We are unable to see how a decree for partition could be passed without this being done. We are, however, not in possession of the facts which led to this extremely irregular course. The proper procedure, in the circumstances, seems to be to reverse the decree of the Appellate Court and ask it to dispose of the appeal afresh. If the appeal be found not to be maintainable without the representatives of the 3rd ...
Sakkarai Ambalagaran Vs. Sundilapathi Alias Subramanya Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-25-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.236
1. This is a suit for sale by a mortgagee which was decreed on September 4th, 1909. On appeal before the District Judge, it was argued that the document, which is dated August 26th, 1873, constituted a charge only. The Court held it to be a simple mortgage. The appellant before this Court accepts that finding but contends that, being executed prior to the passing of the Limitation Act, XV of 1877, it is governed by the Limitation Act of 1871 and that, as this earlier Act contained no Article corresponding to Article 147 of the Act of 1877, the only Article applicable was Article 132, which allows a period of twelve years for money charged upon immoveable property and also that, being a simple mortgage executed prior to the passing of the Transfer of Property Act, IV of 1882, the mortgagee had no power of sale as incident to the contract. He relied on the cases reported in Aliba v. Nanu 9 M.k 218; Rangasami v. Muttukumarappa 10 M.k 509 and the Full Bench decision of Ramachandra Rayaguru...
Ranganatha Pillay Vs. Paripurnam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-25-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.217
1. The plaintiff in this suit owed to the 1st defendant several debts. One of these was on a usufructuary mortgage of the year 1880, and another hypothecation debt of 1892. In the year 1902, a varthamanam was executed by the 1st defendant in plaintiff's favour. At. that time, apparently, a settlement was made of the amounts due by the plaintiff on account of the usufructuary mortgage, hypothecation bond and on account of the decree in Original Suit No. 106 of 1897. The amount due was taken to be Rs. 400. It is alleged, and probably it is the fact, that the 1st defendant remitted a portion of the amount actually due; shaving stated the amount, the document goes on to say that Rs. 300 were received by the 1st defendant before the date of Exhibit A, and then it states: 'As the amount of rupees three hundred, the total of the two items, has been received by me, I shall receive the balance of Rs. 100 and assign to you the bonds.' The document is executed ostensibly in favour of one Ramanath...
Habib Mahomed Marakayar Vs. Muthu Velan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-25-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.439
1. The 3rd defendant's defence to the suit was that the mortgage in favour of the 1st defendant and the sub-mortgage in plaintiff's favour were both fraudulent and colourable. The plaintiff's mortgage was found to be a bona film document, supported by consideration. The document in favour of the 1st defendant was found to be supported by consideration to the extent of Rs. 125. In the course of the suit a witness for the 3rd defendant observed that the mortgage bond in the 1st defendant's favour had been tampered with by a portion of the document being cut out. On this, the 3rd defendant suggested that there must have been an endorsement in the portion cut out, either that the document was colourable, or that it has never been acted on or that it had been discharged. He subsequently examined the 5th witness to prove that the endorsement was one of discharge, but this witness has been disbelieved by the lower Courts. No attempt seems to have been made to amend the written statement or to...
P. Chandu Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-25-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.511
ORDERNapier, J.1. There is clear evidence of culpable negligence within the definition in the leading case of In re Nidamarti Nagabhushanam 7 M.H.C.R. 119. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. I think, however, the fine is excessive. I reduce it to fifty-five rupees. If paid, the excess will be refunded....
Gudimetla Venkatarazu Vs. Bollozu Kotayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1912
Reported in: (1912)23MLJ223
Miller, J.1. In my opinion the appeal must be allowed. I have had the advantage of reading the judgment which my learned brother has prepared and in which he has set out the facts> and agreeing in his conclusion I desire only to make a few observations.2. There is no question that a widow is entitled to provide for her own maintenance by alienating a portion of her inheritance, if she cannot provide for it otherwise. The Subordinate Judge holds that a daughter's powers are more restricted apparently because the widow has a claim on her husband's estate during his life-time and a daughter has no such claim against her father once she is married.3. I do not suppose that the Subordinate Judge intended to suggest that it is a rule of Hindu Law that the rights of an heir in the estate of an ancestor to whom he has succeeded, are in direct proportion to his claims against the property during the life-time of the ancestor. My learned brother demonstrates the baselessness of any such idea. I t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »