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.
Alwar Chetty Vs. Poovala Vardappa Naicker and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.387
1. The question in this second appeal is whether the Subordinate Judge was right in holding that the attachment of the mortgagee's interest made before judgment by the plaintiff in Original Suit No. 507 of 1898 was a subsisting attachment when the mortgagee transfered his interest to Kumarasavami under Exhibit IV in February 1905.2. We are of opinion that the Subordinate Judge was right. Section 490 of the Code of Civil Procedure then in force shows that the mere passing of the decree in Original Suit No. 507 did not put an end to the attachment before judgment. There was no express abandonment or cancellation of the attachment at any time. The appellant, however, points to the long interval between 1898 and 1905 and to the fact that the plaintiff did cause the property to be re-attached after the decree as indicating that the original attachment had been abandoned by the plaintiff and he relies on the dictum of the Privy Council in Puddomonee Dossee v. Roy Muttooranath Chowdhury 12 B....
Chirukulu Nagalakshmamma Vs. Chirukula Visvanatha Sastri and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.389
1. Various circumstances are set out by the District Judge in para. 23 of his judgment. We have considered those circumstances in the light of the decisions of this Court in Ilata Shavatri v. Ilata Narayanan Nambudri 1 M.H.C.R. 372 and Kandasami Pillai v. Murugammal 19 M.k 6 and we are of opinion that these decisions are directly in point. In Kandasami Pillai v. Murugammal 19 M.k 6 the learned Judge considers that an unchaste wife must show that she is a reformed character before she can be entitled to maintenance and the Court held in Ilata Shavatri v. Narayanan Nambudri 1 M.H. C.R. 372 that a Hindu wife, living apart from her husband, who has been guilty of adultery, cannot recover maintenance unless the adultery is condoned. In this case, it is not suggested that the adultery was condoned, nor has the wife shown that she is a reformed character. She is, therefore, not entitled to any maintenance on the authority of these cases.2. We dismiss the second appeal with costs of 1st defend...
Vadivalam Pillai Vs. Natasam Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-1912
Reported in: (1912)23MLJ256
1. A question of Hindu Law of some importance has been raised for decision in this second appeal. The necessary facts may be very briefly stated. One Manikam and Chinnappa were two Hindu brothers. They were living separate for a considerable time. The plaintiff is the son of Manikam. He sues to recover one-half of certain lands which were sold by Chinnappa in 1898. Evidently the lands in question as well as other property belonging to the brothers were managed by Chinnappa. The plaintiff's case was that he and Chinnappa were undivided members and that the sale made by Chinnappa was not binding on him. He therefore claimed to recover one-half of the properties sold treating the sale of the other half as valid as Chinnappa was entitled to alienate his own share for consideration.2. Several questions of fact were raised by the defendant which it is unnecessary to refer to for the purposes of this judgment. The lower Courts found that the family was undivided. The appellate Court also over...
Vadivelam Pillai Vs. Natesam Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-1912
Reported in: (1914)ILR37Mad435
1. A question of Hindu Law of some importance has been raised for decision in this Second Appeal. The necessary facts may be very briefly stated. One Manickam and Chinnappa were two Hindu brothers. They were living separately for a considerable time. The plaintiff is the son of Manickam. He sues to recover one-half of oertain lands which were sold by Chinnappa in 1899. Evidently the lands in question as well as other property belonging to the brothers were managed by Chinnappa. The plaintiff's case was that he and Chinnappa were undivided members and that the sale made by Chinnappa was not binding on him. He therefore claimed to recover one-half of the properties sold treating the sale of the other half as valid, as Chinnappa was entitled to alienate his own share for consideration.2. Several questions of fact were raised by the defendant which it is unnecessary to refer to for the purpose of this judgment. The Lower Courts found that the family was undivided. The Appellate Court also ...
Muthala Kandi Katturi Koya Molla Vs. Palli Veetil Abu Baker
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.386
Sundara Aiyar, J.1. The plaintiff in this suit sought a declaration of his right to perform certain ceremonies in the Muchanti Mosque in Calicut and to restrain the defendant from preventing him in any way from performing them. He also asked for damages alleged to have been sustained by him in consequence of an obstruction caused by the defendant. Now, the plaint states in paragraph 3 (4) that the plaintiff was in the habit of offering prayers and reciting the Koran in the mosque for 5 days consecutively from the 20th to the 24th in the month of Shaban and distributing sweetmeats, kapu, etc., that were brought for the said purpose by the persons who went there, The prayer in the plaint is that the defendant should be restrained from preventing, the plaintiff from performing the equal ceremonies such as reciting the Koran, etc. Beading the prayer with paragraph 3 (4) of the plaint, it is probable that the plaintiff wished to obtain an injunction restraining the defendant from interferin...
Muthusawmi Gownden Vs. Ethirajulu Naidu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.432
1. This is an appeal against an order of the District Judge of Coimbatore on C.M.P. No. 99 of 1911, under Order XXI, Rule 95, asking to be put in possession of immoveable property. The District Judge has rejected it, holding that a similar application, made to his j predecessor in C.M.P. No. 106 of 1910, had been dismissed and that it was not appealed against. That application was, however, made under Rules 95 and 97 and was treated as one under Rule 97 by the District Judge in his order. It has been held by this Court in Muttia v. Appasami 13 M.k 504 that there is nothing to prevent a decree-holder or purchaser from making a fresh application under Rule 95 after he had made a complaint under Rule 97. We agree with this view and set aside the order appealed against with costs in this Court. The District Judge will restore the petition to his file and deal with it in accordance with law....
Vadivalam Pillay Vs. Natasam Pillay
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.835
1. A question of Hindu law of some importance has been raised for decision in this second appeal. The necessary facts may. be very briefly stated. One Manikam and Chinnappa were two Hindu brothers. They were living separate for a considerable time. The plaintiff is the son of Manikam. He sues to recover one-half of certain lands which were sold by Chinnappa in 1898. Evidently, the lands in question, as well as other property belonging to the brothers, were managed by Chinnappa. The plaintiff's case was that he and Chinnappa were undivided members and that the sale made by Chinnappa was not binding on him. He, therefore, claimed to recover one-half of the properties sold, treating the sale of the other half as valid, as Chinnappa was entitled to alienate his own share for consideration.2. Several questions of fact were raised by the defendant which it is unnecessary to refer to for the purpose of this judgment. The lower Courts found that family was undivided. The Appellate Court also o...
Sri Rajah Bonunadevara Venkata Narasimha Naidu Bahadur, Zamindar Garu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.208
1. The plaintiff in this suit is the proprietor of the permanently settled estate of North Vallur. He seeks to enforce the payment of a cess called Chathu tamulu. The defendants are holders of certain inam lands which are not liable for the payment of any rent to the proprietor. According to the plaint, the cess in question was payable by the defendants along with the holders of other lands in the village in question, viz., Gokunta, in consideration of the proprietor of the estate having originally dug and agreed to keep in repair certain tanks from which the ryots could take water for the irrigation of their lands. The defendants denied their liability to pay the cess, and several issues were framed by the District Munsif, which raised the question of the plaintiff's right to the cess. The 9th issue was whether the plaintiff was entitled to a charge on the land, i.e., for the cess in question. Both the lower Courts have agreed in disallowing the plaintiff's claim. The finding of the C...
Kambai Naidu and ors. Vs. Sankarammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.224
1. The question raised for decision in this second appeal is, whether a certificate under Section 4 of the Succession Certificate Act is necessary before a decree can be passed directing the sale of mortgaged properties in a suit by the heirs of a mortgagee for the recovery of a debt by the sale of the property mortgaged, and not asking for any personal decree against the defendant. This Court and the High Courts of Calcutta and Bombay have held that no certificate is necessary and we see no reason to depart from the view taken by these Courts. See Palaniyandi Pillai v. Veerammal 29 M.k 77; Bisseswar Roy v. Durgadas Mehara 32 C.k 418; Nanchand Khemchand v. Yenawa 6 Bom. L.R. 583. It is urged that the Allahabad High Court has taken a different view. This is no doubt the fact, but we prefer to follow the decisions of the Court which are supported by the view taken by the Calcutta and Bombay High Courts.2. We dismiss the second appeal with costs....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›