Chennai Court April 1913 Judgments
Pokkunuri Balamba Vs. Kakaraparti Krishnayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-1913
Reported in: AIR1914Mad595; 20Ind.Cas.934; (1913)25MLJ65
Arnold White, C.J.1. The first question which has been referred to us is whether the Married Women's Property Act, 1874 (Act III of 1874) applies to Hindu males.2. I feel a difficulty in answering this question in the form in which it has been framed. A general answer might possibly cover a case not contemplated in the order of reference, and not argued before us. The argument before us was confined to the question whether, where a Hindu male effected a policy of insurance on his own. life, which expressed on the face of it that it was for the benefit of his wife, or his wife and children, or any of them, Section 6 of the Act applied. This is the question I propose to deal with.3. Under Section 2 of the Act nothing in the Act applies to a married woman, who at the time of her marriage professed the Hindu religion or whose husband at the time of the marriage professed the Hindu religion.4. I am of opinion that Sections 4, 5, 7 and 8 do not apply where either of the spouses professed the...
Tag this Judgment!Batcha Sait Vs. Abdul Gunny Alias Abdul Karim Sait and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-1913
Reported in: (1913)25MLJ507
Arnold White, C.J.1. This is an appeal against a decree on a ' judgment according to the award ' under paragraph 16 of the 2nd Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure. The decree is impeached by the appellant on two grounds : it is said first that there has been no award, secondly, that, on the application to the District Judge to pronounce judgment according to the award, the learned Judge ought to have given an opportunity to one of the arbitrators who is described by the learned Judge as the ' dissenting arbitrator', to give evidence, that he did not give that opportunity and, that being so, the judgment according to the award is bad.2. On behalf of the respondents a preliminary objection was taken that no appeal lies. It seems to me that, on the authority, of the Pull Bench decision which is reported in Suryanccrayana Rao v. Subbiah (1910) 21 M.L.J. 263 the preliminary objection is good and. should be upheld. The judgment in the Full Bench case was with reference to a case which ar...
Tag this Judgment!Batcha Sahib Vs. Abdul Gunny Alias Abdul Karim Sahib and Eleven ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-1913
Reported in: AIR1914Mad675; (1915)ILR38Mad256
Charles Arnold White, C.J.1. This is an appeal against a decree on a 'judgment according to the award' under paragraph 16 of the second schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure. The decree is impeached by the appellant on two grounds: it is said first that there has been no award, secondly, that, on the application to the District Judge to pronounce judgment according to the award, the learned Judge ought to have given an opportunity to one of the arbitrators, who is described by the learned Judge as the 'dissenting arbitrator' to give evidence, that he did not give that opportunity and that being so the judgment according to the award is bad.2. On behalf of the respondents a preliminary objection was taken that no appeal lies. It seems to me that on the authority of the Full Bench decision which is reported in Suryanarayana Rao v. Sarabhaiah : (1911)21MLJ263 the preliminary objection is good and should be upheld. The judgment of the Fall Bench was with reference to a case which arose u...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›