Chennai Court August 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.
Bonda Chinnayya and anr. Vs. Pottula Achammah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-1912
Reported in: (1912)23MLJ282
1. A preliminary objection is taken in this case that no second appeal lies against the decision of the Subordinate judge as the suit is of a small cause nature and as the amount sought to be recovered by the plaintiff is less than Rs. 500. The learned Vakil for the appellants contends that the cognizance of this suit by the Small Cause Court is barred by Article 28 of the second schedule of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. The question is whether this is a suit for the whole or for a share of the property of an intestate. If the plaintiff seeks to claim the property as heir of any person then apparently Article 28 would apply. The maintainability of the second appeal therefore depends on the construction to be placed on the plaint. As we read the plaint, the suit is clearly not based on plaintiff's right to inherit but on her rights to the return of jewels presented by her. The claim is rather a curious one. The plaint alleges that the plaintiff made certain presents to her son-...
B. Chinnayya and anr. Vs. P. Achammah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-1912
Reported in: (1914)ILR37Mad538
1. A preliminary objection is taken in this case that no Second Appeal lies against the decision of the Subordinate Judge as the suit is of a Small Cause nature and as the amount sought to be recovered by the plaintiff is less than Rs. 500. The learned vakil for the appellants contends that the cognizance of this suit by the Small Cause Court is barred by Article 28 of the second schedule to the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. The question is whether this is a suit for the whole or for a share of the property of an intestate. If the plaintiff seeks to claim the property as heir of any person then apparently Article 28 would apply. The maintainability of the Second Appeal therefore depends on the construction to be plaeed on the plaint. As we read the plaint, the suit is clearly not based on the plaintiff's right to inherit but on her right to the return of jewels presented by her. The claim is rather a curious one.2. 'The plaint alleges that the plaintiff made certain presents to he...
Adusumilli Singarayadu, Minor, by Guardian Runganna Vs. Sayani Narayan ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.273
1. The finding that the plaintiff was not a benamidar for Brahmanandham in the agreement for sale cannot be questioned in second appeal.2. The next point argued is that the defendant is entitled to recover from the plaintiff the expanses of the suit he instituted against Brahmanandham to recover the property from him. In that suit costs were decreed to the defendant against Brahmanandham. There is no evidence that he has incurred any additional costs. The agreement must be construed as meaning that, if the defendant had to incur any costs out of his own pocket, he should be reimbursed by the plaintiff. This contention must, therefore, to overruled.3. The next and last contention is, that the defendant is entitled, under the terms of the agreement with defendant, to interest from the 31st May 1903. The contract for sale, so far as it is material for this point, runs thus: 'I shall receive the money on any day you may bring the same within the 31st May 1903...on any day that you may brin...
Chidambara Mudali and ors. Vs. Kozhandavelu Mudali and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.395
1. We are asked by the appellants' Vakil to allow his clients to withdraw their suit with leave to bring a fresh suit with regard to the same matter. The plaint and the proceedings in the lower Courts show that while the facts relating to the right of management of the plaint temple are set out and proved, the plaintiffs had no clear conception of the exact nature of their rights. We think that enough has been shown to justify us in allowing the suit to be withdrawn with leave to bring a fresh suit under Order XXIII, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code Act V of 1908. The appellants must pay the respondents' costs in the second appeal....
U. NoordIn Kutti Vs. N. Kunhi Bava
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.438
1. The plaintiff sues for the recovery of the amount due on a hypothecation bond executed by the 1st defendant in favour of one Kunhi Pakki Mosaliar. In execution of a decree against Kunhi Pakki, the debt due on this bond was brought to sale and purchased by the plaintiff. The only contention, with which it is necessary to deal in second appeal, is that, as the debt was attached in the manner laid down by Section 268 of the Code of Civil Procedure (old) and not in the manner provided for the attachment of immoveable property, the plaintiff is not entitled to enforce the sale of the hypothecated property. This point was definitely decided by this Court in Muniappa Naick v. Subramania Ayyan 5 M.L.J. 60 where it was held that, assuming that the proper mode of attachment where it is intended to make the security for the debt available for the judgment-debtor, is to attach it as immoveable property, the failure to conform to the provisions of Section 274, Civil Procedure Code, would only be...
Subba Naicken Vs. Rami Naicken and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.734
1. With regard to the northern half of the land, the subject-matter of the suit, the finding is that the defendant has been in possession of it. It has been found that plaintiff was not in possession of it within the statutory period. Plaintiff's title also has not been found to be established. The second appeal must, therefore, be dismissed with regard to that portion of the land.2. With regard to the southern portion, the defendants did not persist in their claim of title, though they originally set it up. The plaintiff stated that, after the institution of the suit, the defendants took possession of the southern half also. In answer to the petition for temporary injunction, the defendants stated that they were in possession of the whole land. The plaintiff got a decree in the first Court establishing his title to the whole land. Before the Appellate Court, the plaintiff asked to be permitted to amend his plaint by adding a prayer for possession; This, the District Judge refused to a...
Bonda Chinnaya and anr. Vs. Pothala Achamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.542
1. A preliminary objection is taken in this case that no second appeal lies against the decision of the Subordinate Judge as the suit is of a Small Cause nature and as the amount sought to be recovered by the plaintiff is less than Rs. 500. The learned Vakil for the appellants contends that the cognizance of this suit by the Small Cause Court is barred by Article 28 of the second Schedule to the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. The question is, whether this is a suit for the whole or for a share of the property of an intestate. If the plaintiff seeks to claim the property as heir of any person, then apparently Article 28 would apply. The maintainability of the second appeal, therefore, depends on the construction to be placed on the plaint. As we read the plaint, the suit is clearly not based on the plaintiff's right to inherit but on her rights to the return of jewels presented by her. The claim is rather a curious one. The plaint alleges that the plaintiff made certain presents to ...
Kambhampali Venkatasubbiah and ors. Vs. the Secretary of State for Ind ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.589
1. We cannot accept the judgment of the Subordinate Judge in this case as satisfactory, He apparently accept's the evidence of the defendant's witnesses, who swear, that the plaintiff never cultivated the land or injoyed it. The plaintiff alleged in his plaint that he was in possession till 1902, that penal assessment was levied from him in that year for 10 years, that is apparently from 1893 to 1902. In 1903, Government made an entry of this land in the public account as Poramboke, but from 1876 to 1903, it was treated as plaintiff's inam land. The Subordinate Judge refers to certain accounts which were deliberately treated as incorrect in 1876 by the officers of Government. In a suit for possession, no doubt, the onus is on the plaintiff to prove his title. In this case, the most important evidence of title would be possession. It not being denied that penal assessment was levied, the possession must be treated as having been with the plaintiff at that time and plaintiff is entitled ...
V.T. Kunchi Amma and anr. Vs. V.T. Ammu Amma and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-1912
Reported in: (1913)24MLJ559
1. This is a suit by a lady belonging to a Marumakatayam Nair tarwad in Malabar for arrears of maintenance and the question debated between the parties is whether the circumstances under which she left the house and lived away in a separate house during the period for which she claims maintenance are such as to make it proper that the Court should allow her separate maintenance. In her plaint she alleged that the defendants were putting her to trouble without giving her any maintenance at all after she returned from a pilgrimage. The reason alleged for this conduct on the part of the defendants is that she refused to ratify a family karar which had been entered into between the other members of the tarward during her absence on pilgrimage. In her evidence she stated that when she refused to ratify the karar 'the defendants became angry and told me that I would not be given meals and beat me.' This evidence was contradicted on the side of the defendants. Neither the District Munsif nor ...
Sudalai Ammal Vs. Minor Gomathi Ammal by Her Guardian Lakshmana Mudali ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-1912
Reported in: (1912)23MLJ355
1. The suit out of which the second appeal arises was instituted by one of the widows left by a Hindu Nellakannu Konar for possession of the properties which were in the enjoyment of her co-widow the title alleged being that she became entitled to succeed to the property as survivor on the death of her co-widow. The two widows after the death of their husband effected a partition which is evidenced by Ex. A.2. The most important question in this case is whether according to the terms of Ex. A, the plaintiff was entitled to possession on the death of Shanmugathamrnal her co widow. The two lower Courts have put different constructions upon the document. Its interpretation is not free from difficulty. But after careful consideration of its terms we have come to the conclusion that the construction put by the District Judge, which is against the plaintiff, is correct. The parties to the agreement were the plaintiff and her co-widow, but there can be no doubt that the daughter of Shanmugath...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »