Chennai Court September 1912 Judgments
Payyam Vellathumkara Mathu Amma and ors. Vs. Payvam Vellathumkara Gopa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-1912
Reported in: (1912)23MLJ496
1. The plaintiffs in the suit are a Nair lady and her children and the suit is for maintenance for a period of 27 months against their Karnavan and the other members of the tarwad. The plaintiffs are living with the husband of the 1st plaintiff who is also the father of the other plaintiffs. The defence is that as the plaintiffs ahi living away from the tarwad house, they are not entitled to maintenance. There is an allegation in the plaint that the 1st plaintiffs husband is not possessed of sufficient means to maintain her and her children in comfort. The written statement alleges that according to the practice in North Malabar a Nair lady is taken to her husband's house after the potamuri or marriage and that while she is living with her husband, she is not entitled to any maintenance from the tarwad. The District Munsif dismissed the suit on the ground that a member of a Marumakatayam tarwad is generally entitled to maintenance only while residing in the tarwad house and that the de...
Tag this Judgment!The Madras and Southern Mahratta Railway Co., Ltd., Madras Vs. Bhimapp ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.419; (1912)23MLJ511
1. We agree with the Judge that the plaintiffs' claim is not barred by limitation. The burden of proving when the goods were lost is on the Railway Company and they have not proved when they were lost. There is nothing in the evidence to show that they were lost more than one year before the institution of the suit. Article 50 of the Limitation Act does not therefore bar the suit nor is the suit barred by Article 31. No time has been fixed for the delivery of the goods and the correspondence between the parties shows that the matter was being inquired into and the suit was brought within one year from the date of refusal to deliver. We are unable to say that the plaintiffs delayed more than one year from the expiry of a reasonable time within which in the circumstances of the case the goods should have been delivered.2. The next question is whether the notice of the plaintiffs' claim for compensation was given within the period of six months allowed by the Railways Act. It is conceded ...
Tag this Judgment!P.V. Muhtu Amma and Three ors. Vs. P.V. Gopalan and Twenty-two ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-1912
Reported in: (1913)ILR36Mad593
1. The plaintiffs in the suit are a Nair lady and her children and the suit is for maintenance for a period of 27 months against their karnavan and the other members of the tarwad, The plaintiffs are living with the husband of the first plaintiff who is also the father of the other plaintiff's. The defence is that as plaintiffs are living away from the tarwad house they are not entitled to maintenance. There is allegation in the plaint that the first plaintiff's husband is not possessed of sufficient means to maintain her and her children in comfort. The written statement alleges that according to the practice in North Malabar a Nair lady is taken to her husband's house after the potamuri or marriage and that, while she is living with her husband, she is not entitled to any maintenance from her tarwad. The District Munsif dismissed the suit on the ground that a member of a Marumakkathayam tarwad is generally entitled to maintenance only while residing in the tarwad house and that the d...
Tag this Judgment!itticheri Edathis Samantham Othenan Nambiar Ayothia Raman Kaimal Vs. T ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.179
1. We cannot regard the judgment of the District Judge in this case as satisfactory. The suit is to recover the emoluments of the office of Kazhakam to which the plaintiff alleges his family has a hereditary right and for certain other sums. The plaintiff was dismissed from the office by the Urallan of the temple. The District Munsif found that the office was hereditary in the plaintiff's family. The District Judge has reversed this finding, but has given a decree for the plaintiff for the whole amount sued for, including the emoluments of the office subsequent to the dismissal. It is quite clear on his finding that the plaintiff was not entitled to a decree for the claim in so far as it related to the emoluments of the Kazhakam office.2. We are unable to accept the finding on the question of hereditary right. It appears clearly from Exhibit B that the plaintiff's tarwad had been in possession of the office for a period of about three-quarters of a century. There is no evidence as to t...
Tag this Judgment!Payyam Vellathumkara Muthu Amma and ors. Vs. Payyam Vellathumkara Gopa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.895a
1. The plaintiffs in the suit are a Nair lady and her children, and the suit is for maintenance for a period of 27 months against their karnavan and the other members of the tarwad. The plaintiffs are living with the husband of the first plaintiff, who is also the father of the other plaintiffs. The defence is that, as the plaintiffs are living away from the tarwad house, they are not entitled to' maintenance. There is an allegation in the plaint that the 1st plaintiff's husband is not possessed of sufficient means to maintain her and her children in comfort. The written statement alleges that according to the practice in North Malabar, a Nair lady is taken to her husband's house after the potamuri, or marriage, and that, while she is living with her husband, she is not entitled to any maintenance from her tarwad. The District Munsif dismissed the suit on the ground that a member of a Marumakathayarn tarwad is generally entitled to maintenance only while residing in the tarwad house, a...
Tag this Judgment!Mulpuru Lakshmayya and ors. Vs. Sir Rajah Varadaraia Apparow Bahadur Z ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-1912
Reported in: (1912)23MLJ624
Sundara Aiyar, J.1. These are appeals by ryots in the village of Manikonda in the proprietary estate of Gannavaram against whom decrees of ejectment were passed by the District Court of Kistna reversing the decrees of the District Munsiff of Gudivada who held that the ryots possessed occupancy right in their lands and could not be ejected. The lands in question were asserted by the proprietor to be his private lands in which both the Melvaram and Kndivaram rights were vested in him. He alleged that both by custom and contract he was the full proprietor and that the tenants had no occupancy rights. The defendants on the other hand, asserted that they were part of the public lands of the estate held by the ryots with occupancy rights. They were undoubtedly known as Savaram lands and were described as such in the pattas, muchilikas and leases executed between the parties. The plaintiff contended that the word ' Savaram' itself indicated his full proprietary right in the land. The District...
Tag this Judgment!Mulpuru Lakshmayya and ors. Vs. Sri Rajah Varadaraja Apparow Bahadur Z ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.353
Sundara Aiyar, J.1. These are appeals by ryots in the village of Manikonda in the proprietary estate of Gannavaram against whom decrees of ejectment were passed by the District Court of Kistna, reversing the decrees of the District Munsif of Gudivada, who held that ryots possessed occupancy-rights in their lands and could not be ejected. The lands in question were asserted by the proprietor to be his private lands in which both the melvaram and kudivaram rights were vested in him. He alleged that both by custom and contract he was the full proprietor and that the tenants had no occupancy-rights. The defendants, on the other hand, asserted that they were part of the public lands of the estate held by the ryots with occupancy-rights. They were, undoubtedly, known as savaram lands and were described as such in the pattas, muchilikas and leases executed between the parties. The plaintiff contended that the word 'savaram' itself indicated his full proprietary right in the land. The District...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Sri Nadaduru Raiaguru Satagopala Charlu Vs. Satrughna Behara and a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-26-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.75; (1912)23MLJ445
1. The suit is brought to recover damages for the wrongful acts of Defendants (Respondents) in maliciously searching Plaintiff's (Appellant's) house on 17th June 1907 in connection with a case of house-breaking and theft in 1st Defendant's house. '2nd Defendant is the Police Inspector who conducted the search.2. It is not argued before us that there is any evidence of malice on the part of the 2nd Defendant but it is contended that the search was illegal in certain particulars and therefore wrongful such as to give rise to an action for damages.3. On the evidence before us we are unable to find any illegality in the search. The Inspector is said to have remained outside the house while the actual search was being made by two constables : and the learned vakil for the Appellant argues relying on the ruling of Boddam J. in Venkatappa Naidu v. King-Emperor (1907) 17 M.L.J. 323 that this was not conducting the search in person within the meaning of Section 165 of the Criminal Procedure Cod...
Tag this Judgment!Jagadambal Ammal Vs. Ramaswamy Iyengar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-26-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.126
1. The questions arising in this second appeal are, no doubt, questions of law, but they have, in our opinion, all been decided correctly by the lower Appellate Court.2. With respect to the objection of the plaintiff's purchase of the shares of the defendants Nos. 4 to 7 in Original Suit No. 3 of 1883 on the ground that they were not personally liable under the decree for the mortgage debt, those defendants were bound to raise any objection they had to the attachment of the property in execution proceedings. See Ramaswami Sastrulu v. Kameswaramma 23 M.k 361. The lower Courts have found that all rights in the land, including the shares of defendants Nos. 2 to 7, were attached. If, as is suggested, those defendants had no notice of the attachment and sale, the proper course for them would be to get the sale set aside in execution proceedings. The 1st defendant has been found to have no right in the property. The sale having become final against the defendants Nos. 4 to 7 in Original Suit...
Tag this Judgment!T. Seetharama Chetty Vs. P. Seshiah Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-26-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.417
1. There is no transfer to the plaintiff of the claims of Ethirajammal and Seethammal against the members of the family under Section 130 of the Transfer of Property Act. The endorsement of the promissory-note entitles the plaintiff to sue only Ponniah and after his death his legal representatives. The appeal is dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »