Chennai Court December 1913 Judgments
Nanjaya Mudali and anr. Vs. Shanmuga Mudali and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1913
Reported in: AIR1914Mad440(2); 22Ind.Cas.555; (1914)26MLJ576
Sankaran Nair, J.1. The 3rd defendant, a member of a Hindu family, conveyed his one-fifth share in certain joint family properties in 1891 by Fxhibit I. That interest has now vested in the 1st defendant, his father. Two of his brothers died, and in 1904 the 3rd defendant again transferred all his interest by Exhibit A. At that time, on the footing that he was a co-parcener, his interest amounted to one-third. The plaintiff has acquired the rights conveyed by Exhibit A and he now seeks to recover possession.2. The Subordinate Judge has held that the plaintiff is entitled to a two-fifteenths share of the properties, that is the difference between one-third and one-fifth and this is an appeal against that decision.3. The first question that is argued before us is that by the transfer in 1894 the joint tenancy was put an end to and the 3rd defendant's first alienee became a tenant in common with the other co-parceners so far as the property was concerned and that therefore by the death of ...
Tag this Judgment!Manjaya Mudali and anr. Vs. Shanmuga Mudali and Seven ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1913
Reported in: (1915)ILR38Mad684
Sankaran Nair, J.1. The third defendant, a member of a Hindu family, conveyed his one-fifth share in certain joint family properties in 1891 by Exhibit I. That interest has now vested in the first defendant, his father. Two of his brothers died, and in 1904 the third defendant again transferred all his interest by Exhibit A. At that time, on the footing that he was a co-parcener, his interest amounted to one-third. The plaintiff has acquired the rights conveyed by Exhibit A and he now seeks to recover possession.2. The Subordinate Judge has held that the plaintiff is on titled to a two-fifteenths share of the properties, that is the difference) between one-third and one-fifth; and this is an appeal against that decision.3. The first question that is argued before us is that by the transfer in 1894 the joint tenancy was put an end to and the third defendant's first alienee became a tenant in common with the other co-parceners so far as the property alienated was concerned and that there...
Tag this Judgment!Mr. J. Seiber and anr. Vs. Dainiel Varki
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1913
Reported in: 25Ind.Cas.41
Oldfield, J.1. The first objection to the lower Court's decision and the only one which it is necessary to consider, is that a Small Cause Court had no jurisdiction, because the suit relates to a trust. Prima facie it certainly is so, since the refund of subscriptions to a subscriber, who is dismissed or has resigned, is not one of the objects of the trust as stated in Rule 1 of Exhibit I.2. The plaintiff-respondent has attempted to show that it is covered by Rule 9. But I cannot import into that rule by implication what his argument requires. His claim, therefore, involves the Court sanctioning an extension of the objects of the trust or an ascertainment of the cestui que trust under it. The case must be distinguished on this ground from Sri Venkatachellapathy Subyya Vyavasaya v. Kanahasabapathi Pillai Dharmum 5 Ind. Cas. 912 : 8 M.L.T. 67 : 83 M.P 494 : 20 M.L.J. 146. Subraminia Ayyar v. Pandi Doraisami Taver 26 M.P 308 is more directly in point and is against the respondent. The civ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Rangasami Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-1913
Reported in: (1915)ILR38Mad555; 30Ind.Cas.455
ORDER1. We do not think that a person should be bound over under both the Sections 109 and 110 of the Criminal Procedure Code. See Kosa Kumaran, In re 30 Ind. Cas. 450 note. We accordingly set aside the order binding him under Section 109. The evidence fully supports the order so far as Section 110 is concerned. We leave the order, therefore, to stand as one made under Section 110....
Tag this Judgment!Sayabkhan Sandojai and anr. Vs. Beebee Khathoo
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-1913
Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.587
1. We agree with the District Judge that the evidence establishes the fact that the dower of the plaintiff was fixed at 9 vakyas of gold, and we are unable to differ from his finding that the value of this dower is the amount claimed in the plaint. But on the 2nd issue in the suit we are unable to agree that the 2nd defendant is liable. The 1st defendant was according to Muhammadan Law at the time of his marriage a person capable of contracting for his marriage and for the dower payable to his wife. The plaintiff did not allege that he was a minor incapable of doing these things, and the District Judge does not find that he was incapable according to his personal law. Section 2(a) of the Indian Majority Act provides that nothing in that Act shall affect the capacity of any person to act in the matter of dower, and the 1st defendant's capacity in respect of his wife's dower is, therefore, unaffected by that Act.2. No authority has been shown to us which supports the view of the District...
Tag this Judgment!Gadigeremula Sunki Reddi Vs. Vengal Reddi Minor by Next Friend and Bro ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-1913
Reported in: 30Ind.Cas.391
1. The plaintiff's case is founded upon the Will of Papi Reddi, and the plaint alleges that the testator gave only a life-interest to his daughter, and that upon her death the plaintiff took an absolute interest in her share, and prays that his right may be declared and for recovery of property in the possession of the husband of the deceased's daughter. The cause of action is alleged to have arisen on her death.2. No evidence was called by either party, and the District Munsif gave judgment upon the construction of the Will. The Subordinate Judge has remanded the case for evidence as to whether the testator intended to give an absolute interest to his daughter or merely a life-interest.3. The learned Vakil for the respondent was unable to specify what evidence he wished to adduce, and apparently it is oral evidence of the testator's intention simply. This is clearly inadmissible. Evidence would, no doubt, be admissible as to all the surrounding circumstances of the testator and the be...
Tag this Judgment!Chempathoor Raman Nambudri Vs. Nagalaseri Alias Kudalur Mankal Thuppan ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-1913
Reported in: AIR1914Mad151(1); 24Ind.Cas.870
1. By the contract in this case the income of the land is taken at a fixed amount, the interest on the kanom amount is calculated, and the kanomdar has agreed to pay a fixed amount of 54 paras 8 narayams arrived at by deducting the revenue charged upon the land and the agreed interest from the estimated income.2. We think that the kanomdar has agreed to pay a fixed rent, and that the references to the income and revenue and interest are only intended to show the manner in which this rent has been calculated.3. It is admitted that, if the income should exceed the estimate, the kanomdar takes the excess, and it is reasonable to suppose that he should take the risk of increased burdens as well as increased gains.4. In the case of Panigatan Kanaran v. Raman Nair 17 M.L.J. 517. the kanomdar was entitled to a fixed sum by way of interest and it was accordingly held that the jenmi had to bear the enhanced assessment : it is, therefore, the converse of the present cage.5. The judgment in Thiru...
Tag this Judgment!Polaki Latchmana Naidu and ors. Vs. Dola Geddanna Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-1913
Reported in: AIR1914Mad111; 24Ind.Cas.377
1. The judgment under appeal is one dismissing the plaintiffs' suit for possession of land, which was, before enfranchisement, a Naidu's Inam. The facts are that the 1st defendant obtained the office of Naidu during the minority of the plaintiffs' father, and enjoyed the land now in suit as its emoluments. Twenty-two years later there was a Regulation suit by the plaintiffs' father for the office and land, which ended in 1889 in Exhibit B. The Collector's appellate judgment, Exhibit B, decided, in accordance with the Standing Order barring suits against those who have held office for three years, that the first defendant could not be ousted from the office or emoluments, but that a member of the plaintiffs' family would be entitled to the office at the next vacancy. A cross suit by the first defendant against the plaintiffs' father and other members of his family for other lands, which also formed part of the emoluments and had been in their possession throughout, was also dealt with i...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Rajah Row Venkata Kumara Mahipati Surya Rao Bahadur Garu, by His A ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-1913
Reported in: 24Ind.Cas.484
1. The decree in this case, dated the 5th September 1900, did not prescribe a period for the calculation of mesne profits as directed by Section 211 of the Civil Procedure Code of 1882. It has been held that in such a case the decree must be construed as awarding mesne profits for three years from the date of the decree [Uttamram v. Kishordas 24 B.K 149 : 1 Bom.L.R. 638, Trailokya Nath Ray Chaudhuri v. Jogendra Nath Ray 35 C.P 1017 because the grant of any further sum would be beyond the jurisdiction of the Court : and we think that the same construction must be put upon this decree.2. The decree-holder applied in execution for mesne profits beyond the period of three years, and the Subordinate Judge properly allowed mesne profits only for Fasli 1316, and held that he could give no relief upon the application as regards the subsequent faslis. However, on the ground that a suit for part of these faslis would be barred, he converted the proceedings into a suit, under Section 47 of the Co...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›