Chennai Court March 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.
P.M.A. Valliappa Chetty Vs. S.N. Subramanian Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1914
Reported in: (1914)26MLJ494
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. I have the great advantage of having read the Judgment prepared in this case by my learned brother.2. It is often a difficult question to decide whether a statutory provision has been made solely for the benefit and protection of the individual in his private capacity or whether some public right and public policy is also involved in it. I am inclined not to go behind the plain words of a statute. Section 22 of the Negotiable Instruments Act clearly says that ' every promissory note which is not expressed to be payable on demand, at sight or on presentment is at maturity on the third day after the day on which it is expressed to be payable.' In the Contract Act, in the Transfer of Property Act, in the Negotiable Instruments Act and several other Acts there are numerous provisions made solely for the benefit and protection of the individual in his private capacity ; and yet the legislature has thought it necessary whenever it wanted to indicate that the parties can ...
Chettikulam Prasanna Venkatachala Reddiar Vs. the Collector of Trichin ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Mad708; 24Ind.Cas.369; (1914)26MLJ537
Tyabji, J.1. The Collector of Trichinopoly is the plaintiff. The suit is instituted under Sections 92 and 93 of the Civil Procedure Code.2. The first defendant (now deceased) was the alleged trustee and manager of the charities referred to in the plaint. The second defendant was alleged to be a transferee from the first defendant of a portion of the lands appertaining to the charitable trust.3. The prayers against the 1st defendants were for removal of the 1st defendant from the trusteeship and for accounts. There was a prayer (b) 'to declare the sale to the second defendant of the lands belonging to the charity to be invalid.' This is the only relief claimed against the 2nd defendant. There were other prayers for the appointment of a new trustee and for vesting the trust property in the trustee so appointed. The plaintiff obtained all the reliefs asked against both the defendants in the lower court.4. There were appeals against this decree by each of the defendants. But the first defe...
Koppara Kandiyil Changan Mancheri Vs. Anthalathil Kalleri Katheesa and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Mad150(1); 24Ind.Cas.871
1. The plaintiff is the appellant in this case. He wants to enforce against the defendants No. 2 to 5 (children of the 1st defendant) a mortgage-deed executed by the 1st defendant as their guardian.2. The plaint assumes that the 1st defendant was the de jure guardian of the defendants Nos. 2 to 5 when she executed the mortgage-deed, but it is now admitted that she was not the de jure guardian of the minors.3. Then it is argued that she was the de facto guardian. Even if she was, her document could not bind, the minors unless it was executed for meeting such urgent necessity or for securing such clear and undoubted benefit to the minors as are held to be necessary to be proved in Hyderman Kutti v. Syed Ali 15 Ind. Cas. 576 : 23 Mad. L.J. 244 : 12 M.L.T. 147 : (1912) M.W.N. 889. No foundation was laid on the plaint for any such case and having looked into the evidence of the only two witnesses examined on the plaintiff's side, we find no such necessity or undoubted benefit established by...
Chaktyil Vatakathre Ichikutti Nanga's Son Parama Taragan Vs. Thirumand ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Mad300(2); 24Ind.Cas.939
1. The appellant before us (2nd plaintiff) has obtained a mekharth2. The appellant cannot succeed unless the 1st plaintiff had a legal right to give the mekharth to the appellant.3. The 1st plaintiff can have had no such right unless he had been invested with proper authority from the uralers to grant a mekharth. The authority relied upon is a deed (Exhibit C) which begins by reciting that it is executed by all the six uralers of the devaswom, but is really signed by only five of them. It is, therefore, an incomplete document and the 1st plaintiff cannot be legally invested with any authority on the strength of that document. [See Amribham Pillai v. Nanjah Gounden 23 Ind Cas. 4f54 : 26 M.L.J. 257 : 15 M.L.T. 205 : (1914) M.W.N. 250 : 1 L.W. 243.]. The 2nd plaintiff's (appellant's) claim to redeem was, therefore, rightly rejected and this second appeal is, therefore, dismissed.4. This would, of course, not prevent the uralers as trustees from bringing a suit to redeem the mortgage on be...
Saripaka China Mahadeva Vazulu and ors. Vs. Muthura Suryaprakasam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad597; 24Ind.Cas.204; (1914)26MLJ482
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. Plaintiffs are appellants. In the plaint they state that they are entitled to the hereditary purohitship of all the villages in the Chemudu Zamindari and that they alone are entitled to officiate as purohits at the ceremonies performed by the Chemudu Zamindars and also for the people in the villages in the zamindari. They further allege that according to mamool, they employed defendant to perform ceremonies in those villages on his agreeing to pay them Rs. 12 a year and that he has not paid Rs. 12 due for Plavanga (1907-08) and the suit was brought to recover that amount.2. The lower appellate Court found that there was no contract between the plaintiffs and the defendant for the year Plavanga and that therefore the suit ought to be dismissed. I do not wish to base my judgment upon this finding of fact as I am strongly against the recognition of an office which could give rise to an exclusive right to officiate as purohit for a particular person or in a particular ...
Marwadi Padmaji Miachand and ors. Vs. the Deputy Collector of Adoni
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad272; (1914)27MLJ106
1. We have been greatly assisted by the learned District Judge's careful analysis of all the evidence in the case. But there is nothing to show on what basis the calculation of the valuation of the lands is based.2. The award of the Deputy Collector does not contain any reasons, and in our opinion the remarks of the Calcutta High Court in Harlsh Chunder Neogy v. The Secretary of State for India in Council 11. C.W.N. 117. are applicable in this case. They say ' Now the ordinary rule of onus probandi in these cases is that the claimant (who is a plaintiff) must prove that the valuation made by the Collector is insufficient, The theory is that the Collector in arriving at his award performs administrative and quasi judicial functions. He may take evidence and come to a conclusion on such evidence. The award under Section 11 of the Act becomes final, if it is not challenged within a definite time before the tribunal of the special Judge, and that Judge, therefore fills the position to some...
Marwadi Padmaji Miachand and ors. Vs. This Deputy Collector of Adeni
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1914
Reported in: 24Ind.Cas.141
1. We have been greatly assisted by the learned District Judge's careful analysis of all the evidence in the case, but there is nothing to show on what basis the calculation of the valuation of the (sic)nds is based. The award of the Deputy Collector does not contain any reasons, and in our opinion the remarks of the Calcutta High Court in Harish Chunder Neogy v. Secretary of State for India in Council 11 C.W.N. 875 are applicable in this case. They say : 'Now, the ordinary rule of onus probandi in these cases is that the claimant (who is a plaintiff) must prove that the valuation made by the Collector is insufficient. The theory is that the Collector in arriving at his award performs administrative and quasi-judicial functions. He may take evidence and come to a conclusion on such evidence. The award under Section 11 of the Act becomes final, if it is not challenged within a definite time before the tribunal of the special Judge, and that Judge, therefore, fills the position to some e...
Ponaka Balarami Reddi and ors. Vs. Hazi Mahomed Abdul Aziz Badshah Sah ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad57; (1914)26MLJ499
Tyabji, J.1. The plaintiffs and defendants are rival claimants for the ownership of the property which is referred to in the plaint. The plaintiffs claim that they are entitled to it under a sale deed dated 27-7-1901; the defendants claim to be purchasers in a Court-sale in execution of a decree.2. The learned District Judge has held that the plaintiffs are barred from suing on their title by the operation of Section 283 of the Civil Procedure Code 1882. He held that the plaintiffs were parties against whom an order (which is Exhibit II in the case) had been passed in previous execution proceedings in 1903 and that the suit not having been brought within one year from those proceedings, it is barred under Article 11 of the first schedule to the Limitation Act.3. Exhibit II was an order passed in Civil Miscellaneous Petitions Nos. 440 and 451 of 1903 by the District Judge of Nellore on the 22nd September 1903. The order was that the attachment sought to be raised by the petitioners shou...
Subba Naidu and anr. Vs. Venkatrama Naidu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Mad240; (1914)26MLJ508
1. The only questions in this second appeal are1. Whether the learned District Judge fell into any error of law in finding on the evidence that the plaint lands were joint family properties in the hands of the plaintiff's father and not his self-acquired separate property2. Whether the plaintiff is disqualified from inheritance under the Hindu law and whether the District Judge's omission to give a finding on this point necessitates a remand. As regards the 1st question, the finding of both courts is that there was a substantial nucleus of ancestral funds. In such a case (See Mayne paragraph 291) that is 'where there is a substantial nucleus of family property of which the father was the manager the onus would lie on those who assert that any property afterwards acquired in the name of the father was acquired without detriment to that property and was his self-acquisition.' The lower Courts have found that the defendants (appellants) failed to discharge that burden and we think they we...
Andalammal Vs. Narasimharaghavachariar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Mad666; 24Ind.Cas.927
1. We agree with the learned Judge's findings of facts (1) that the purchase of the house, in which the defendant claims a .right of residence, was made by the plaintiffs' mother with funds belonging to the plaintiffs and for their benefit, (2) that the plaintiffs' mother did not purchase with notice, express or constructive, of the defendant's alleged right. We also agree with his findings that no charge on the house was created in favour of the defendant, and that the defendant had not acquired any right of residence therein.2. The contention on which the appellant mainly relied was, as the learned Judge points out, not raised in the pleadings or the issues. This being so, it is, to say the least, doubtful whether the defendant was entitled to raise it at the hearing of the suit. The contention was, that inasmuch as the 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs were, minors at the date of the purchase, the sale was void. The judgment of the Privy Council in Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose 30 C. 539 : 5...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »