Chennai Court January 1913 Judgments
V. Subramania Mudaliar and anr. Vs. K. Ranganatham Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1913
Reported in: (1913)24MLJ301
Miller, J.1. The only question with which we have to deal in this appeal is whether the plaintiff or the 10th defendant is the nearest reversionary heir of one Sankaramurthi Mudaliar.2. The plaintiff is the son of Sankaramurthi's father's sister's son and the 10th defendant is the brother of Sankaramurthi's mother. The Subordinate Judge has decided the question in favor of the 10th defendant, holding that the maternal uncle being nearer in blood and being a person who would offer oblations to ancestors of the deceased, must be preferred to the plaintiff who makes no such offerings. The Subordinate Judge, rightly, I think, holds that the plaintiff and the 10th defendant are both Atmabandhus of Sankaramurthi. That does not appear, judging from the judgment, to have been questioned before him; before us Mr. Ramachandra Aiyar suggested the possibility of regarding the plaintiff as a pitrubandhu, but I am unable to accede to that suggestion and in the face of the case Smidarammal v. Rangasa...
Tag this Judgment!Subramania Mudaliar Vs. Ranganathan Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1913
Reported in: (1921)ILR44Mad114
Miller, J.1. The only question with which we have to deal in this appeal is whether the plaintiff or the tenth defendant is the nearest reversionary heir of one Sankara Murthi Mudaliyar.2. The plaintiff is the son of Sankara Murthi's father's sister's son and the tenth defendant is the brother of Sankara Murthi's mother. The Subordinate Judge has decided the question in favour of the tenth defendant, holding that the maternal uncle, being nearer in blood, and being a person who would offer oblations to ancestors of the deceased, must be preferred to the plaintiff who makes no such offerings. The Subordinate Judge, rightly, I think, holds that the plaintiff and the tenth defendant are both Atma bandhus of Sankara Murthi; that does not appear, judging from the judgment, to have been questioned before him. Before us Mr. Ramachandra Ayyar suggested the possibility of regarding the plaintiff as Pitru bandhu, but I am unable to accede to that suggestion, and in the face of Sundrammal v. Rung...
Tag this Judgment!Subramania Mudeliar and ors. Vs. K.J. Ranganathan Chettyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.506
Miller, J.1. The only question with which we have to deal in this appeal is, whether the plaintiff or the 10th defendant is the nearest reversionary heir of one Sankaramurthi Mudeliar.2. The plaintiff is the son of Sankaramurthi's father's sister's son and 10th defendant is the brother of Sankaramurthi's mother. The Subordinate Judge has decided the question in favour of the 10th defendant, holding that the maternal uncle, being nearer in blood and being a person who would offer oblations to ancestors of the deceased, must be preferred to the plaintiff, who makes no such offerings. The Subordinate Judge, rightly, I think, holds that the plaintiff and the 10th defendant are both atma bandhus of Sankaramurthi. That does not appear, judging from the judgment, to have been questioned before him. Before us, Mr. Ramachandra Iyer suggested the possibility of regarding the plaintiff as pitri bandhu, but I am unable to accede to that suggestion, and in the face of the case Sundarammal v. Rangas...
Tag this Judgment!Joshyam Narayaniah Vs. Uppu Madhava Row and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.362
1. It is conceded that the decree of the lower Court, in so far as it allows interest at the rate of 18 per cent, since the date fixed for payment on December 26, 1908, cannot be supported. See the decision of the Privy Council in Sundar Koer v. Rai Sham Kishen 9 Bom. L.R. 301: 2 M.L.T. 75; 34 I.A. 9. Interest at the rate of 6 per cent. will be allowed from December 25 on the aggregate sum. The decrees must be modified accordingly. The appellant has failed on the issue of fact, and the question of the rate of interest was not raised in the Court below. He must pay the costs of this second appeal....
Tag this Judgment!Munisami Mudaly Vs. Abbu Reddy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1913
Reported in: (1914)27MLJ740
1. It seems to us that the answer to the question which has been referred to us should be in the affirmative.2. This is in accordance with the practice which appears to have prevailed in this Court under Section 561 of the Code of 1882 and we do not read Order XLI, Rule 22 as indicating that the framers of the rules intended to make it clear that the practice should be otherwise.3. With all respect to the learned Judges who dealt with the question, in Jadunandan Prosad Singh v. Koer Kalyan Singh (1921) 15 C.I.J. 61 a case which was decided under Order XLI, Rule 22 it seems to us more convenient to follow a fixed rule than to decide the question with reference to the particular facts of the case in which the question is raised4. We answer the question in the affirmative.5. The memorandum of objections after the expression of the opinion of Full Bench came on for final hearing before Mr. Justice Bakewell and Mr. Justice Kumarasami Sastri on the 5th November 1914....
Tag this Judgment!Kanadappa Achary Vs. P. Vengama Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1913
Reported in: (1914)ILR37Mad548
Charles Arnold White, Kt., C.J.1. 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 an: responsible for the reference to the Pull 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 Ayyar, J., in Veerabadran Achari v. Suppiah Achari I.L.R. (1911) Mad. 488, is that which its language most n iturally 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 Muramullu (1912) M.W.N. 7 and I may re-state them.4. Artisan offices wore governed by Regulation VI of 1831 whether they were situated in proprietary villages or not, and no reason or a...
Tag this Judgment!Nathuram Sivaji Siltu and anr. Vs. Krishna Rammolthy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-1913
Reported in: (1913)24MLJ270
1. The District Judge appears to us not to have correctly apprehended the meaning of the expression 'preventing the execution of the decree by force or fraud' used in Section 48 of the Civil Procedure Code. The word 'fraud' has been always interpreted by this Court in a very liberal sense; See Visalatchi Animal v. Sivasankara Tawker I.L.R. (1881) M. 292, Annamalai v. Ranjasami I.L.R. (1883) M. 365, Venkayya v. Raghavachariar I.L.R. (1897) M. 670 and Abdul Khadir v. Ahmed Shaiva Rowthen I.L.R. (1912) M. 670. Any improper means resorted to in order to prevent execution would amount to fraud. The decree-holder alleged in his application for execution that the Judgment debtor was hiding himself in foreign territory in order to prevent execution. The execution diary shows that several warrants for the arrest of the debtor were returned unserved. The Munsif was satisfied that the respondent was deliberately evading the process of the court, though he did not refer to the occasions on which h...
Tag this Judgment!The Public Prosecutor Vs. Kannammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.257; (1913)24MLJ211
Miller, J.1. This appeal is from the acquittal by the Sessions Judge, on an appeal from a conviction by a Sub-Divisional Magistrate, of one Kannammal a dasi of Srivilliputtur. The conviction was had under Section 373 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The evidence establishes beyond reasonable doubt the fact that the accused, Kannammal, adopted the daughter of Ramiah Pillai, her brother's son, the girl being at the time of the adoption below the age of 16 years. The girl and her father, no doubt, now deny the adoption, but the girl's evidence is not to be relied on, and her father's is entirely discounted by the fact that in 1909, on an occasion on which he had, so far as I can see, no reason to conceal the truth upon this question, he gave evidence to the effect that he had given his daughter in adoption to Kannammal: his explanation of this discrepancy is entirely unsatisfactory and his evidence must be rejected as quite untrustworthy upon this point. The other evidence establishes the fact...
Tag this Judgment!Peri Lakshminarasimham Pantulu Garu Vs. Sree Sree Ramachandra Mardaraj ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.308
1. In this case, the suit was instituted to set aside a distraint upon the plaintiff's land made by the defendant who is a zemindar. The plaintiff is an intermediate tenure-holder under the defendant. The distraint was levied in order to recover a portion of certain arrears of cess which had been collected from the defendant under Section 73 of the Madras Local Boards Act and which portion he was entitled to recover from the plaintiff.2. The first question argued before us is that Section 77 of the Estates Land Act does not authorise the zemindar to levy distraint against an intermediate tenure-holder and we think the language of Section 77 is clear to support that contention, This, in fact, is not disputed by the learned Vakil for the respondent. Section 77 says: At any time after an arrear of rent has become due... the land-holder may, in addition to any other remedy to which he is entitled by this Act, in respect of any arrear of rent which has accrued due within the next preceding ...
Tag this Judgment!Muthu K.R.V. Alagappa Chetty Vs. Dasappa Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.332
1. The plaintiff obtained a sale-deed from one Veeravasantha Chetty in 1906. The property was afterwards attached by the defendants for a debt due to them. The plaintiff then put in a claim petition and subsequently instituted this suit for a declaration of his rights under the sale-deed. Defendants contended that the sale-deed was not supported by consideration, that it was colourable and executed to defraud the creditors of the vendor. The District Munsif upheld the defendants' contention. He gives in his judgment several reasons in support of his view. He says that Veeravasantha Chetty disposed of all his properties about the time that the sale-deed was executed, that he was deeply involved in debts, that the plaintiff was his brother and that the vendor suspended business shortly after he executed the sale-deed. He also points out that though the sale-deed sets out that the object of selling the property was to discharge the debts due to certain Madras creditors, those creditors ha...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »