Chennai Court October 1914 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Challa Narsi Reddi and ors. Vs. Vudumula Virareddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-05-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad79; 25Ind.Cas.893
1. Both the lower Courts have found as a fact that Busi Reddi was 'affiliated' into the family of Guruva Reddi: and this finding cannot be questioned in second appeal. We were at first in some doubt as to the meaning to be attached to the term 'affiliated': but after a consideration of the lower Courts' judgments, the wording of issue 2 and the plaint allegations, we are satisfied that the term was used and understood as a convenient expression for the averments in paragraph 3 of the plaint. By these we understand it to be implied that Guruva Reddi without performing an adoption in the usual sense understood among Hindus took his nephew Busi Reddi into his family, gave him an undivided moiety. of his property and jointly enjoyed the property with him till his (Guruva Reddi's) death. The lower Courts find that this was done: and further, that after Guruva Reddi's death, an actual partition was effected and the property was divided between Busi Reddi and Guruva Reddi's daughter, Atchamma...
Gudur Ranga Reddi, Died, and ors. Vs. Gundala Pitchi Reddi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-02-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad37; 25Ind.Cas.973
1. In this case it is found that the 2nd defendant (appellant) received notice of the plaintiff's contract, Exhibit A, after execution of his own sale-deed (Exhibit II), but before its registration. No cash was to be paid under Exhibit II, but the sale-amount was to be adjusted towards a mortgage (Exhibit V) held by the appellant. We are of opinion that the recital in Exhibit II does not operate as an adjustment so as to put the appellant in the same position as a man who had paid his money in good faith' within the meaning of Section 27 of the Specific Relief Act. In these circumstances we should hold, following Himatlal Votilal v. Vasudeo Ganesh 16 Ind. Cas. 680 : 36 B. 446 : 14 Bom. L.R. 634, that the plaintiff was entitled to claim specific performance as against the 2nd defendant.2. The decision of the lower Appellate Court is right and the appeal is dismissed with costs; but the decree should be amended by directing that the legal representatives of the 2nd defendant as well as t...
Subramania Aiyar Vs. Poopparam Lala
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-01-1914
Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.860a
Napier, J.1. The Court gave judgment in a suit in accordance with an award filed. The plaintiff had put in an application to set it aside, which was on the face of it out of time. The Court's attention was not drawn to any application for copy which would have constituted time requisite' within the meaning of Section 12 (4) of the Limitation Act. He, therefore, computed the time as appeared on the record. It is urged that there was such an application and the time should have been excluded. That is the plaintiff's own fault and the Munsifs decision cannot be interfered with under Section 115 of the code of Civil Procedure.2. The petition is dismissed with costs....
E.C. Chinnaswami Pillai Vs. Chairman of the Arkonam Union
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-01-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad501; 25Ind.Cas.837
ORDERSadasiva Aiyar, J.1. It is clear to me that the doors ought not to have been distrained under Section 82, Clause (2) (i), of the Local Boards Act, as they are not moveables see the definition of immoveable in General Clauses Act and also Purushottania v. Municipal Council of Bellary 14 M. 467 on the interpretation of the analogous section in the District Municipalities Act . The bill collector was, therefore, not acting in the lawful discharge of any duty imposed on him as a public servant when he proceeded to distrain the doors. The conviction under Section 353 cannot, therefore, stand.2. It is unnecessary to consider the rather difficult question whether the Appellate Magistrate was precluded by Section 556 of the Criminal Procedure Code from hearing the appeal, as I think that the Magistrate who tried the case in the first instance was justified on the evidence in his finding that the petitioner did assault the bill collector, though the assault might have been committed on sud...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›