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.
Maruthamalai Goundan Vs. Palani Goundan (Died) by Guardian, Nanjakkal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-1912
Reported in: (1914)ILR37Mad535
1. This is a suit by a minor to set aside the decree-passed against him in Original Suit No. 1165 of 1906 on the ground of fraud. That decree was passed both against the plaintiff and his father. The suit was for a debt due by the father in connection with a certain partnership transaction. The plaintiff in that suit, that is the defendant here, asked that the father should be appointed as guardian ad litem. The father refused to act as guardian. Then on the defendant's application the Head Clerk of the Court was appointed as guardian ad litem. 'The fraud charged in the plaint is that the defendant knew very well that the plaintiff was living with his mother under the protection of his maternal grandfather and that the maternal grandfather was a person fit and willing to act as guardian for the minor. In other words the charge is that the defendant was guilty of fraud by suppressing information which he had. The District Munsif dismissed the suit. On appeal the Subordinate Judge revers...
V.T. Kunhi Amma and ors. Vs. V.T. Ammu Amma and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.178
1. This is a suit by a lady belonging to a Marumakatayam Kair tarwad '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 tarwad during her absence on pilgrimage. In her evidence, she stated that when she refused to ratify a family 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 Mu...
Maruthamalai Gownden Vs. Palani Gownden Minor by Guardian Nanjakkal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.182
1. This is a suit by a minor to set aside the decree passed against him in Original Suit No. 1165. of 1906, on the ground of fraud. That decree was passed both against the plaintiff and his father. The suit was for a debt due by the father in connection with a certain partnership transaction. The plaintiff in that suit, that is the defendant here, asked that the father should be appointed as guardian ad litem. The father refused to act as guardian; then, on the defendant's application the Head Clerk of the Court was appointed as guardian ad litem. The fraud charged in the plaint is that the defendant knew very well that the plaintiff was living with his mother under the protection of his maternal grandfather and that the maternal grandfather was a person fit and willing to act as guardian for the minor.2. In other words, the charge is that the defendant was guilty of fraud by suppressing information which he had. The District Munsif dismissed the suit. On appeal, the Subordinate Judge ...
Sudalai Ammal Vs. Gomati Ammal Minor by Her Guardian Lakshmana Mudelia ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.428
1. The suit out of which the second appeal arises was instituted by one of two widows left by a Hindu, Nallakannu Konar, for the 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 Exhibit A. The most important question in the case is, whether according to the terms of Exhibit A, the plaintiff was entitled to possession on the death of Shanmugathammal, 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 daug...
Godavarti Periah Minor by Mother and Next Friend, Mahalakshmi Ammal Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.797
1. The District Judge is in error in thinking that executors have been appointed. There are no executors under, the Will. It is also argued here that a next friend cannot apply on behalf of a minor and Gulab Chand v. Moti 25 B. 523 : 3 Bom. L.R. 795 and Ex parte Mahadev Gangadhar 28 B. 344 : 6 Bom. L.R. 281 are relied on in support of that proposition. On the other hand, Ram Kuar v. Sardar Singh 20 A.P 352 : (1898) A.W.N. 64 is a decision that a next friend can apply. We prefer the reasoning in the Allahabad case. It is most necessary that this estate should be attended to. The so-called executors have done nothing up to the present day, though it was on their promise to apply for Probate that the certificate was refused. We set aside the order of the District Judge and direct him to restore the petition to his file and deal with it in accordance with law in the light of the above observations. Costs will abide the result....
Seetharama Iyer Vs. Edwards Sneade Boyed Steaven Son and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.609
1. The chief question raised in this second appeal is whether the ryots of a village called Konthagai are bound to pay ninja sarasari rent when they cultivate vanapayar crop on land, which admittedly was nanja at the time of the Settlement. It is conceded on behalf of the landholders that for many years (during all time within living memory), the ryots were cultivating vanapayar crops and were paying fixed money rents due for such crops. On the other hand, the land has always been described as nanja in the documents executed between the parties, and in the pattas for the years to which the suit relates, the description is the same. Exhibit A is the muchilika for the year 1880 and in that muchilika the lands in question are described as nanja lands and the tenant undertakes to cultivate first, second and third crops and to pay varam. Notwithstanding the provisions in the muchilika, there is no doubt that only vanapayar crops were raised. On these facts, the lower Courts came to the conc...
Gangisetti Ramaya and anr. Vs. Kallika Peraya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.411
1. The mortgage-bond was executed by the deceased father of the defendants. The suit has been dismissed as against them on the ground that it was not shown that the loan was contracted for discharging any antecedent debts of the father. There is a recital in the document of the purpose for which the loan was required, and that was the discharge of previous debts. The District Judge makes an observation that the recital is not evidence as against defendants. He probably went too far in saying so, but we observe that he was not prepared to act on the recital even if it were legal evidence. He observes that it was not shown that the decree-holder whose debt is recited in the bond could not have been called and that the decree itself was not produced to show that it had been discharged. In effect, the Judge says that the recital is not evidence, but, even if it were it is not sufficient to discharge the onus that lay on the plaintiff. We cannot agree with the learned Counsel for the appell...
Kariam Kuppusawami Naidu and ors. and Vs. Desayi Numberumal Chetty and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.693
1. The persons who have preferred this second appeal were defendants Nos. 11, 12, 13 and 16 in the original suit. The Munsif passed a decree in the plaintiff's favour. These defendants did not appeal against it. The 5th defendant preferred an appeal. The Appellate Court dismissed the suit. A second appeal was presented against that judgment by the plaintiff, and he did not make any of these appellants parties. This Court reversed the decree of the District Judge and remanded the appeal foe fresh disposal. The preliminary objection is taken that, as no appeal was preferred against the judgment of the District Munsif by the appellants and as they were not parties to the appeal in the lower Court, they are incompetent to prefer this second appeal. It is contended for the appellants that the 5th defendant appealed against the whole of the decree of the District Munsif and it was open to the District Judge to pass a decree in favour of all the defendants as in fact he did by dismissing the ...
A.L.A.R.R.M. Arunachellam Chettyar Through His Aughorised Agent, Sunda ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.932
1. We cannot regard the judgment of the District Court in this batch of cases as satisfactory. The suits were by some of the ryots of a village contesting the right of the landholders to bring their holdings to sale for arrears of rent. The plaintiffs alleged that notice of the intention to sail the holdings was not properly served on them. The Deputy Collector dismissed the suits. He held the service to have been properly effected except in a few cases. On appeal, the District Judge reversed the finding. It is not disputed that the landlord sent to the Collector four copies of the notices as required by Section 112 of the Estates Land Act. The complaint is that the Collector, or his officers, did not serve the notices in the manner required by that section. The District Judge does not say that he accepts the evidence of the Totti of the village who gave evidence in plaintiff's favour. He says that the evidence of service should not be unreservedly accepted. Then, he says: 'The proof o...
Tummala Nagabhushanam Vs. Sri Rajah Venkatadri Appa Row Bahadur Zemind ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.226; (1912)23MLJ255
1. When the allegations in the plaint are carefully considered, the suit must in substance be regarded, as held by the District Judge to be one for recovery of damages for distraint illegally levied by the deceased Zemindar, the original 1st defendant on certain moveables belonging to the plaintiff, some of which either perished or deteriorated owing to the negligence of the Zemindar's servants while the rest was misappropriated by those servants. It cannot be regarded as a suit for recovery of specific moveables appropriated by the original 1st defendant or their value. The nature of the action being such as we have stated the maxim actio personalis moritor cumpersona would apply in the absence of any statutory provisions to the contrary. The scope of this doctrine is thus stated by Bowen L.J. in Phillips v. Homfray (1883) 24 Ch. D. 439 'the only cases in which, apart from question of breach of contract, express or irriplied, a remedy for a wrongful act can be pursued against the esta...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »