Chennai Court February 1913 Judgments
Boddu Jaggayya, Minor by Mother and Guardian Mangamma Vs. Goli Appala ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.953
1. This is a suit by the reversioner of a Hindu to declare a sale made by his widow not binding on him. The Subordinate Judge has found that the sale which is evidenced by Exhibit III, dated 1st January 1908, was made to discharge a mortgage of 1898 evidenced by Exhibit II. Exhibit II itself was executed to discharge a debt of the husband evidenced by Exhibit I, dated 1896. It appears, therefore, that the sale was for the purpose of a debt of the husband together with interest which had accumulated on it. The principal amount was Rs. 200 as shown by Exhibit II. The interest was Rs. 331-10. The Subordinate Judge has held that the sale was supported by consideration to the extent of Rs. 531-11-0 as it arose out of a debt of the husband amounting to Rs. 200. He considered it unnecessary to go into the question whether the widow could have paid the accumulated interest out of the income that she was getting from the property since the execution of Exhibit II. According to the decided cases...
Tag this Judgment!Chaganti Atchaparaju Vs. Raja Velugoti Krishnayachendraluvaru
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-1913
Reported in: (1913)24MLJ402
1. The first point argued in this second appeal is that supposing the defendant is a ryot of old waste as denned in Section 3 of the Madras Estates Land Act, the landholder has no right to eject him as none of the grounds mentioned in Section 157 of the Act, which relates to the ejectment of such a ryot has been alleged to exist by the plaintiff. Section 157 enacts that such a ryot cannot be ejected except on the grounds mentioned in Section 153 (and certain other grounds which are immaterial for the present case) which refers to the ejectment of non-occupancy ryots generally. Five grounds for ejectment were mentioned in Section 153 as it originally stood. A proviso was added to the section by Section 8 of Madras Act 4 of 1909 in these terms 'nothing in this section shall affect the liability of a non-occupancy ryot to be ejected on the ground of expiry of the term of a lease granted before the passing of this Act'. The effect of the proviso was of course to entitle a landholder to eje...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Raja Inugunti Prakasa Rajaningaru and ors. Vs. Yeranki Peda Venkat ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-1913
Reported in: (1913)25MLJ360
1. This is an appeal against the order of the District Court of Rajahmundry reversing a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Cocanada and remanding the suit for fresh trial. The Subordinate Judge had disposed of the suit on the merits but solely on evidence recorded by the Munsif's Court of Peddapur. This suit was first instituted and tried in the latter Court, but its decree was reversed on appeal on the ground that the pecuniary value of the suit was beyond the jurisdiction of a Munsif's Court and the plaint was returned for presentation to the proper court. The plaint was subsequently re-presented in the Subordinate Court. The parties presented a statement at the trial of the suit consenting to the evidence recorded at the former trial by the Peddapur Munsif's Court being treated as evidence in the suit and dispensing with any further evidence. The District Judge held that notwithstanding the consent of the parties the Subordinate Court's procedure in acting on the evidence recorded i...
Tag this Judgment!P.R. Sambasiva Aiyar and anr. Vs. Muhamad HussaIn Rowther and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-1913
Reported in: 31Ind.Cas.917
1. The object of the 1st respondent's petition to the Munsif was to get satisfaction of the decree recorded on the ground that the 3rd defendant discharged the amount due under it in 1906. The petition was presented in only 1910. Prima facie, the application was barred. We fail to see how Section 14 or Section 15 of the Limitation Act could save the application. In fact, the 1st respondent, clearly stated before the Munsif that he did not rely on either of those sections. The prior proceedings relied on to attract Section 14, had quite a different object in view. The fact that the 1st respondent then stated that the 3rd defendant had discharged the decree debt, would not make the section applicable. The 2nd defendant was admittedly aware of the alleged discharge in 1908. We cannot understand how the Subordinate Judge could imagine that Section 18 could apply in the circumstances. The 1st respondent contends that the decree against the 1st and 3rd defendants and the subsequent revised d...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Rajagopalaswami Temple Through Its Trustee Rama Aiyangar Vs. Jagan ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1913
Reported in: (1913)24MLJ342
1. The plaintiff, the trustee of a temple, instituted the suit on behalf of the temple, as the Inamdar of a tope to recover half the value of the trees cut in the Inam holding and appropriated by the defendant, the occupancy ryot of the holding. The Plaintiff claimed to be the melwaramdar of the tope and alleged that both by virtue of his right as melwaramdar and according to usage he was entitled to half of the value of dead trees and trees cut by the ryot. The defendant pleaded that the plaintiff was entitled only to a sum of 11-11-6 a year and the road cess payable to government out of the produce of the tope and that he himself was the absolute proprietor subject to the liability to the payment of that amount. The District Munsif and the learned District Judge have both found that the melwaram right in the land belonged to the plaintiff and that his right is not that, one entitled only to a benefit to arise out of land belonging to the defendant as proprietor. The Munsif also held ...
Tag this Judgment!K. Dhanapala Chetti Vs. T.N. Anantha Chetti and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1913
Reported in: (1913)24MLJ418
Arnold White, C.J.1. The first plea relied upon by the 1st defendant in this case is that the claim is res judicata by reason of the judgment in a suit of 1893, which was heard on the original side of this Court in O.S. Appeal 7 of 1895. The learned judge has held that the question is not res judicata and I think he was right. The suit of 1893 was brought by one Tulukkanam Chetti who was the grandfather of the present plaintiff, his two sons also being the plaintiffs in the suit of 1893. The suit was brought about by a will and a codicil which were executed early in 1893, by one Dhanakoti, who was the brother of this Tulukkanam. In this will the testator purported to deal with certain property including the property in dispute in the present case as self-acquired property and the plaintiffs in the suit of 1893 asked for a declaration that the family was undivided and the properties which Dhanakoti purported to dispose of by will were the properties of the undivided family. In the cours...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Rajagopalaswami Temple Through Its Trustee, Rama Aiyangar Vs. Jaga ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.719
1. The plaintiff, the trustee of a temple, instituted the suit on behalf of the temple, as the inamdar of a tope to recover half the value of the trees in the inam holding, cut and appropriated by the defendant, the occupancy ryot of the holding. The plaintiff claimed to be the melvaramdar of the tope and alleged that, both by virtue of his right as melvaramdar and according to the usage, he was entitled to half of the value of dead trees and trees cut by the ryot. The defendant pleaded that the plaintiff was entitled only to a sum of Rs. 11-11 6 a year and the road-cess payable to Government out of the produce of the tope and that he himself was the absolute proprietor subject to the liability to the payment of that amount. The District Munsif and the learned District Judge have both found that the melvaram right in the land belonged to the plaintiff and that his right is not that of one entitled only to a benefit to arise out of laud belonging to the defendant as proprietor. The Muns...
Tag this Judgment!Syed Batcha Sahib Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.675
1. We have no doubt but that the Sessions Judge is right in finding that the appellant, Syed Batcha Saheb, is guilty of having killed his wife, Kader Bibi, on the night of the 11th June last.2. But we do not accept his finding that the offence did not amount to murder, but amounted only to culpable homicide punishable under Section 304, Indian Penal Code.3. The evidence shows that the appellant was drunk and wished his wife to leave at night and go with him to Erode and that she was unwilling to go at night but said she would think about it in the morning, and that the appellant, angered by this refusal, struck her in the chest with a pen-knife, the wound having gone 2 1/2 inches deep and penetrating the pericardium so that she bled profusely and died in a very short time from shock and hemorrhage. The appellant pleaded alibi in the Courts below but made no attempt to prove it. In his appeal to this Court, he, for the first time, pleads that the woman was murdered by her brothers owing...
Tag this Judgment!K. Dhanapala Chetty Vs. I.N. Anantha Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.973
Arnold White, C.J.1. The first plea relied upon by the 1st defendant in this case is that the claim is res judicata by reason of the judgment in a suit of 1893, which was heard on the Original Side of this Court and came before the Appellate Court in Original Suit Appeal No. 7 of 1895. The learned Judge has held that the question is not res judicata and I think he was right. The suit of 1893 was brought by one Tulukkanan Chetty, who was the grandfather of the present plaintiff, his two sons also being the plaintiffs in the suit of 1893. The suit was brought about a Will and a codicil which were executed early in 1893, by one Dhanakoti who was the brother of this Tulukkanan. In this Will, the testator purported to deal with certain property, including the property in dispute in the present case, as self-acquired property, and the plaintiffs in the suit of 1893 asked for a declaration that the family was undivided and the properties which Dhanakoti purported to dispose of by Will were th...
Tag this Judgment!Mullangi Venkatarangam Chetty and anr. Vs. M. Venkatasubbammah and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1913
Reported in: 19Ind.Cas.740; (1913)25MLJ373
1. This is a suit brought by the next reversioner of the deceased Subbaraya Chetty, who died in 1899, against his widow Mullangi Venkata Subbammah, who on his death became trustee for her life in succession to him of the charity which is the subject of his suit. On the 12th December 1900, finding, according to her evidence, that she was old and unable to manage the charity and that the reversioner Thumbu Chetty, was also old and infirm and left her to do what she liked with it, she alienated it to the 2nd and 3rd defendants who were maternal relations of her husband. The plaintiff's claim that they are the next reversioners and that this alienation of the trust was illegal, and they ask for a declaration that they are the present trustees of the endowment referred to and entitled to possession of the bazaars and to conduct the charities specified in the schedule, that the alienees may be declared to be the nearest reversioners and to have become entitled to the present enjoyment of the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »