Chennai Court January 1913 Judgments
Pusuluri Varahaswami Vs. Mantena Ramachandra Raju
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-1913
Reported in: (1913)24MLJ298
Arnold White, C.J.1. The plaintiff sues on a sale deed executed to him by the heir of one Krishna Boyamma. Krishna Boyamma died in February 1905 and the deed is dated 24th February 1905. The deed recites that on Krishna Boyamma's death certain lands described as a Mokhasa Inam as well as all the current dues and arrears recoverable on those lands and all kinds of rights relating to the Mokhasa passed to the heir. By the deed, the heir sold to the plaintiff all the said lands and the current and past dues etc., and all other rights as per details given in the deed. The 'details' referred to are the rights incidental to the ownership of the land and 'all kinds of rights relating to the Mokhasa.' The deed does not refer to the defendant. The plaint alleges, and this is not denied that the defendant was Krishna Boyamma's manager. The plaintiff claims delivery of documents and accounts relating to the estate kept by the defendant's father and alleged to be in the possession of the defendant...
Tag this Judgment!Pansulari Vencatasawmi Vs. Mentana Ramachandra Raju
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.520
Arnold White, C.J.1. The plaintiff sues on a sale-deed executed to him by the heir of one Krishnaboyammah. Krishnaboyamma died in February 1905 and the deed is dated February 24, 1905.2. The deed recites that, on Krishnaboyamma's death, certain lands described as a mokhasa inam as well as all the current dues and arrears recoverable on those lands and all kinds of rights relating to the mokhasa passed to her heir. By the deed, the heir sold to the plaintiff all the said lands and the current and past dues etc., and all other rights as per details given in the deed.3. The details referred to are the rights incidental to the ownership of the land and 'all kinds of rights relating to the mokhasa.'4. The deed does not refer to the defendant.5. The plaint alleges, and this is not denied, that the defendant was Krishnaboyamma's manager.6. The plaintiff claims delivery of documents and accounts relating to the estate kept by the defendant's father and alleged to be in the possession of the de...
Tag this Judgment!Santhana Sooramma and anr. Vs. Santhana Mangayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.1006
1. We agree with the Subordinate Judge that the instrument Exhibit II is not a Will. We dismiss the second appeal with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Ramana Gounden Vs. Ramalinga Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1913
Reported in: 20Ind.Cas.827; (1913)25MLJ24
1. These second appeals arise out of the same suit brought by the plaintiff for contribution. The plaintiff alleged that he paid off a mortgage debt which he and the appellants before us, who were defendants in the 1st Court, were bound to pay, and he sued accordingly to recover his share of the mortgage debt. The main defence is that as between themselves the plaintiff alone was bound to pay the debt as declared by the decree and judgment in suit No. 26 of 01. The question therefore depends upon the effect to be given to that decree and judgment. That was a suit brought by one Guia Chettiar, who is not a party to this suit, for the recovery of a sum of nearly Rs. 3,000 by the sale of certain properties mortgaged to him by the first 3 defendants in that suit. The 4th defendant in that suit is the plaintiff, who now claims contribution, and the 1st respondent before us. He and the 5th defendant were made parties as purchasers of portions of the mortgaged property. The 5th defendant in t...
Tag this Judgment!iyyadurai Gurukkal and ors. Vs. Ramasawmy Gurukkal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.475
1. The holder of the Poojamsam office in the Tirutarai temple is bound to perform the worship of various deities in the temple, among others of the Moolavar, two goddesses, Kamaleswari, Shanmugar, &c.;2. There are separate emoluments attached to the worship of these deities. The appellants before us have been performing these duties in connection with the worship of all the deities except that of the Moolavar and their right to perform those duties and to receive the emoluments attached thereto are not in dispute before us. The worship of the Moolavar itself is divided into parts. At first, what is called the stapavanam worship, i.e., the consecration of holy water has to be performed. It appears from the evidence that there are some emoluments attached to this only. The appellants have been per-performing this stapavanam worship and their right to perform the same is not in dispute. After this consecration of holy water comes the Moolavar worship proper. This consists in bathing the i...
Tag this Judgment!The Secretary of State for India Represented by the Collector of Godav ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1913
Reported in: 19Ind.Cas.667; (1913)24MLJ530
Sankaran Nair, J.1. The finding in this case is that prior to the permanent settlement of 1802 in certain villages in the Zamindari of Pittapur there were kapu service Inarns.2. Those inams were not granted to the Zamindar. The reversion therefore vested in the Government. The inamdars, whoever they f. were, have ceased to perform the services which they are bound to *' perform and the inam lands themselves as such have disappeared, $ that is to say, the Government are not able to identify them or localise them. Acting on the view that they are now held by the Zamindar as jeroyati lands the Government Officials have enfranchisd the Inams in favor of the Zamindar and issued pattas in his name fixing an annual quit rentThe Zamindar has refused to receive pattahs on the ground that he is not in possession of the Inams and that he is not bound to receive any pattahs from the Government for them.3. Then the question is whether the Zamindar is bound to accept the pattahs fixing the annual qu...
Tag this Judgment!The Secretary of State for Indian in Council by the Collector of Ganja ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1913
Reported in: (1913)24MLJ365
Miller, J.1. The learned, Advocate General argued only two questions at the hearing of the appeal.(1) Whether the suit is barred by limitation and(2) Whether the water cess was properly levied by reason that the Vamsadhara river is a river belonging to the Government.2. As to the 1st question, it is not denied that if the suit is a suit < to establish a periodically recurring right, a suit, that is, to which Article 131 of the 2nd Schedule of the Limitation Act of 1877 is applicable, then it is barred ; but it is contended that the article does not apply and that a cause of action arises on each occasion on which the cess is demanded.3. This contention is supported by Sriman Madhabushi Achamma v. Gopisetti Narayanaswamy Naidu I.L.R. (1909) M. 171 and the case therein referred to, Gopaladasu v. Perraju : (1902)12MLJ126 ; in fact, it seems to me that if those cases are rightly decided the respondents' contention must prevail. The Advocate General did not succeed in satisfying me that the...
Tag this Judgment!Kandappa Achary Vs. Pathipati Vengama Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1913
Reported in: AIR1914Mad591; 20Ind.Cas.634; (1913)25MLJ42
Arnold White, C.J1. I have great doubts, but as my learned brothers are both of opinion that the question referred to us should be answered in the affirmative, I do not propose to dissent.Miller, J.2. In this matter I am of opinion that the learned Judges who are responsible for the Reference to the Full Bench are right in the conclusion at which they have arrived.3. I think it must be conceded that the construction put upon Section 3 of Madras Act III of 1895 by the learned Chief Justice and Krishnaswami Aiyar J. in Veerabudran Achari v. Suppiah Achari I.L.R. (1909) M. 488 is that, which its language most naturally suggests, but the reasons for holding that it is not that which ought to prevail are, to my mind, very strong; they are stated in the judgment in Mutyala Bapayya v. Kosuri Muratnulla (1912) M.W.N. 7 and I may restate them.4. Artisan offices were governed by Regulation VI of 1831 whether they were situated in proprietary villages or not, and no reason or at any rate no reaso...
Tag this Judgment!The Secretary of State for India in Council by the Collector of Ganjam ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1913
Reported in: (1914)ILR37Mad322
ORDER88. To enable us to decide this appeal satisfactorily, we consider it desirable to allow the parties to adduce further evidence on the following point:-- j, (1) What, if anything, passed to the grantee under Exhibit XX under the words ' besides poramboke ' and whether she obtained a right to the channels conveying water to the tanks irrigating the lands of the Lakkamdidi village or to those tanks themselves ?89. The lower Court has not dealt with this point in its judgment, but appears to have assumed that the Government did not reserve the channels and tacks at the time of the Inam settlement.90. We request the District Judge to take the additional evidence that the parties may adduce and to submit the same together with his opinion on the effect of such evidenoe within one month after the re-opening of the District Court after the recess.91. In pursuance of the above order, the District Judge of Ganjam took additional evidence, both oral and documentary. As regards the oral evid...
Tag this Judgment!Moyila Kurmiah Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.337
Relph Benson, J.1. In this case, M. Kurmiah appeals against his conviction of the murder of one Mahalakshmi.2. On the 3rd May last, the body of an adult female was found in a very decomposed state in a pond, and it was identified as that of Mahalakshmi by some of her relations. The proof of identification is not altogether satisfactory, and on that ground, the assessors acquitted the accused. The Sessions Judge, however, held that the identification was sufficient. I agree with the Medical Officer that the body itself could hardly have b?en identified owing to its decomposition, but I think that the body has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt to be that of Mahalakshmi by the evidence which shows that the cloth (Material Object No. 4) that was on it, and the cloth (Material Object No. 2) and the string of beads, (Material Object No. 1) found on the bank close by the pond, belonged to her, and by the fact that certain jewels which she was wearing before the murder were traced shortl...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »