Chennai Court August 1912 Judgments
D. Srinivasa Iyengar Vs. Minor Thiruvengadathaiyangar by Guardian Kris ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-1912
Reported in: (1913)25MLJ452
Sundara Aiyar, J.1. The suit in this case is one for partition by a Hindu minor. The 1st defendant is the plaintiff's stepbrother. The 5th defendant is the plaintiff's mother and 1st defendant's stepmother. The 6th defendant is the plaintiffs elder-sister. The 5th and 6th defendants were made parties on the ground that provision should be made for the maintenance of the former and for the maintenance acid marriage and other expenses of the latter.2. The first question raised in second appeal is whether the plaintiff is entitled to a share of the amount recovered from a Life Insurance Company on a policy of insurance taken out by Doraisami Aiyangar the father of the plaintiff and the 1st defendant. The policy states that it was taken for the benefit of Dorasami's wife and two sons of whom the wife and one of the sons died, and the 1st defendant alone was left; but both the Courts have found that the premia for the policy were paid out of funds belonging to the whole family. This finding...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: R.P. Konetti Naiker and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-1912
Reported in: (1912)23MLJ417
Sundara Aiyar J.1. In this case the plaintiffs instituted a suit against the defendants to recover a debt due to them. The plaint alleged that the plaintiffs, who were dealers in cloths and other things, supplied cloths to the mother of the 1st defendant for the benefit and use of the 1st and second defendants who were then minors; that the, 1st defendant executed, after attaining majority, a power of attorney,in favour of the 3rd defendant; and that the latter acting under the power of attorney executed a pro-note to the plaintiffs for R.S., 694-6-0, the price of the goods supplied by them. Paragraph 4 of the plaint alleged that the 2nd defendant was also liable, as the debt was incurred for the common expenditure of the joint family of the 1st and 2nd dsfendants; and, if the Court should be of opinion that for any reason the 1st and 2nd defendants were not liable, the 3rd to 5th defendants must be made liable, the 4th and 5th defendants being the sons of the 3rd defendant.2. The 1st ...
Tag this Judgment!Muthukrishnien and ors. Vs. Viraraghava Iyer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-1912
Reported in: (1912)23MLJ430
Swidara Aiyar, J.1. A question of law of some importance has been raised for decision in this case. The plaintiffs sued to recover the amount due on a mortgage bond Exhibit A executed by the 1st defendant to one Muthusami Aiyar, the father of the plaintiffs. The bond hypothecated certain immoveable property and certain debts due to the 1st defendant under a promissory note and two simple mortgage documents. All these three documents were apparently handed over to the plaintiff's father along with Exhibit A. The mortgage bonds were returned to the 1st defendent to enable him to realise the monies due under them and pay the same towards the amount due on Exhibit A.2. The plaintiffs allege that no payment was really made by the defendants and the 1st-defendant's plea that he paid Rs. 100 has been negatived by the Lower Courts. The right to enforce payment of the promissory note (which was executed by a third party in first defendant's favor) became barred by limitation while it was in pla...
Tag this Judgment!Konda Reddi Vs. Ramasami Reddi and Four ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-1912
Reported in: (1915)ILR38Mad1
1. The suit in this case was to establish the plaintiff's right to an easement of way over certain land belonging to the defendants, to remove the wall constructed by the defendants which the plaintiff alleged obstructed his right of way and to restrain the defendants from interfering with his right of way. The defendants denied the right alleged by the plaintiff. The District Munsif found it established by the evidence adduced in the case. The plaintiff, had instituted a previous suit, Original Suit No. 651 of 1899, in which he claimed the site along which he now asserted a right of way, as belonging to him in proprietary right. That suit failed. The Court that tried that suit expressed an opinion in its judgment that the evidence showed that the plaintiff was entitled not to the ownership of the land but to an easement of right of way. As the plaintiff did not claim any relief with respect to an easement, that suit was dismissed. The District Judge has reversed the District Munsif's ...
Tag this Judgment!Palaniyandi Malavarayan Vs. Vadamalai Oodayan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-1912
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.373
Sundara Aiyar, J.1. This is a suit in ejectment by the plaintiff, who claims to be the trustee of the Sri Thirujateswaraswami temple in the Tanjore District, against the defendants who, according to the plaintiff, are holding the lands in question as tenants under the temple. The defendants contended that the lands did not belong to the temple but to the villagers, that the plaintiff was not the trustee and that the villagers themselves were the trustees and that the plaintiff's suit was barred by limitation. The District Munsif found that the plaintiff was the trustee, that the lands belonged to the temple, that the defendants had occupancy right in them but that they had forfeited their holding by repudiation of the title of the temple prior to the suit. He accordingly passed a decree in plaintiff's favour. On appeal, the District Judge reversed the decree on the ground that the plaintiff had lost the right of trusteeship and the defendants had acquired it by limitation. The facts fo...
Tag this Judgment!Konda Reddi Vs. Ramasawmi Reddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.112
1. The suit in this case was to establish the plaintiff's right to an casement of way over certain land belonging to the defendants, to remove the wall constructed by the defendants which, the plaintiff alleged, obstructed his right of way, and to restrain the defendants from interfering with his right of way. The defendants denied the right alleged by the plaintiff. The District Munsif found it established by the evidence adduced in the case. The plaintiff had instituted a previous suit, Original Suit No. 651 of 1899, in which he claimed the site, along which he now asserted a right of way, as belonging to him in proprietary right. That suit failed. The Court that tried that suit expressed an opinion in its judgment that the evidence showed that the plaintiff was entitled not to the ownership of the land but to an easement of right of way. As the plaintiff did not claim any relief with respect to an easement, that suit was dismissed. The District Judge has reversed the District Munsif...
Tag this Judgment!Vaithinatha Iyer Vs. Kuppu thevan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.572
ORDERNapier, J.1. The order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate is based on grounds which do not support it. There is no duty cast on a Magistrate to adjourn a case because an application is being made to a superior Magistrate for transfer. That duty is confined to cases where the application is to be to the High Court; Section 526, Criminal Procedure Code. It appears from the record that the requirements of Section 256 as to requiring the accused to state whether he wishes to cross-examine any witness were complied with. There is no provision requiring the Magistrate to offer an opportunity to the accused to have his witnesses summoned. It is his right to apply and he did not exercise it. I set aside the order for re-trial and direct the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to take the appeal on his file and dispose of it according to law....
Tag this Judgment!Muthukrishnien and ors. Vs. Viraragava Iyer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.601
Sundara Aiyer, J.1. A question of law of some importance has been raised for decision in this case. The plaintiffs sued to recover the amount due on a mortgage bond, Exhibit A, executed by the 1st defendant to one Muthuswamy Iyer, the father of the plaintiffs. The bond hypothecated certain immoveable property and certain debts due to the 1st defendant under a promissory-note and two simple mortgage documents. All these three documents were apparently handed over to the plaintiff's father along with Exhibit A. The mortgage bonds were returned to the 1st defendant to enable him to realise the monies due under them and pay the same towards the amount due on Exhibit A.2. The plaintiffs allege that no payment was really made by the, defendants, and the 1st defendant's plea that he paid Rs. 100 has been negatived by the lower Courts. The light to enforce payment of the promissory note, which was executed by a third party in first defendant's favour, became barred by limitation while it was i...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: R. Nataraja Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.755; (1912)23MLJ393
Sundara Aiyar, J.1. The proceedings, which led up to the two petitions before us, may be briefly stated as follows:The petitioner, Nataraja Iyer, was assessed to income-tax on an annual income of Rs. 4,400 for the official year 1910-11. He appealed against the assessment to the Revenue Divisional Officer of Ariyalur, who was the Collector of Taxes under the Income Tax Act, II of 1886. At the hearing of the appeal, a sworn statement was taken from the petitioner. The appeal was rejected on the 30th July 1910. On the 25th August 1910, the Divisional Officer wrote to the Collector suggesting that sanction might be accorded for the prosecution of the petitioner for certain false statements contained in his sworn statement. The Collector apparently did not consider it necessary to take any steps. On the 15th October 1910, the Divisional Officer issued notice to the petitioner to show cause why an order under Section 476 of the Criminal Procedure Code should not be passed directing his prose...
Tag this Judgment!R. P. Konetti Naiker and ors. Vs. Jutu Gopalaiyar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.869
Sundara Aiyar, J.1. In this case, the plaintiffs instituted a suit against the defendants to recover a debt due to them. The plaint alleged that the plaintiffs, who were dealers in cloths and other things, supplied cloths to the mother of the 1st defendant for the benefit and use of the first; and second defendants a who were then minors; that the 1st defendant executed, after attaining majority, a power-of-attorney in favour of the 3rd defendant, and that the latter, attaining under the power-of-attorney, executed a pro-note to the plaintiffs for Rs. 694-6-0, the price of the goods supplied by them. Paragraph 4 of the plaint alleged that the 2nd defendant was also liable, as the debt was incurred for the common expenditure of the joint family of the 1st and 2nd defendants; and, if the Court should be of opinion that for any reasons the 1st and 2nd defendants were not liable, the 3rd to 5th defendants must be made liable, the 4th and 5th defendants being the sons of the 3rd defendant.2...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »