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.
T.M. Narasimhachariar Vs. V. Krishnamachariar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Mad454; (1914)26MLJ406
Wallis, J.1. This case raises a question of some difficulty and importance as to the effect of Section 63, Civil Procedure Code, which provides that when property not in the custody of any Court is under attachment in execution of decrees of more courts than one, the court to receive or realize the property and to determine the claims thereto and objections to the attachment thereof shall be the court of highest grade, or where there is no difference in grade, the court which first attached. The section whilst conferring on the court in question exclusive jurisdiction not only to receive the attached property but also to determine claims thereto and objections to the attachment thereof even if such objection be to an attachment in one of the other courts does not say to what extent if any the court which receives or realizes the assets is to take account of the attachments in execution of the decrees in the other courts and different views have been taken as to this question. In the pr...
Rangappa Vs. Thammayappa (Died) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Mad114; (1914)26MLJ514
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant in this case. He brought the suit out of which this Second Appeal has arisen for the recovery of the amount due under a document dated the 30th of June 1900 executed by defendants 1 and 2. The Lower Appellate Court dismissed the plaintiff's suit on the finding that in accordance with the terms of the above document, the plaintiff was put in possession of one, of the three lands mentioned in the document as security for the amount mentioned in the same, and that according to the terms of the bond and the law applicable to the case, the plaintiff was not entitled either to bring a suit for sale of the properties charged for the amount due under the plaint bond, or to obtain a personal decree against the executants. It is often very difficult in some of these cases to decide what the nature of the document sued on is.2. So far as the plaint document affects that property which was intended to be and was put in. the possession of the plai...
Tadiboyina Peda Punnayya Vs. Dabbakuti Kattamma Minor by Maternal Aunt ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-1914
Reported in: (1915)28MLJ495
Ayling, J.1. The plaintiff in this case (1st respondent) sued to set aside a deed of exchange dated 1st June 1911, executed by her father (2nd defendant) in favour of the 1st defendant (appellant in respect of certain lands, the property of her plaintiff's) deceased mother, Subbamma and which she claims by inheritance as the latter's sole heir. The District Munsif dismissed the suit on the ground that the property passed on the death of Subbamma not to the plaintiff alone but to plaintiff jointly with her brothers, who are no parties to the suit and that the suit was not maintainable by the plaintiff alone. The District Judge differing from the Munsif, held that the plaintiff alone succeeded to the property on her mother's death and finding the other disputed point in favour of the plaintiff, gave her a decree.2. The sole question argued before us is whether the plaintiff is the sole heir of her mother in respect of the plaint property, and as such entitled to maintain the suit alone.3...
Rangappa Vs. Thammayappa and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-1914
Reported in: 24Ind.Cas.372
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant in this case. He brought the suit out of which this second appeal has arisen for the recovery of the amount due under a document dated the 30th of June 1900 executed by defendants Nos. 1 and 2. The lower Appellate Court dismissed the plaintiff's suit on the finding that in accordance with the terms of the above document, the plaintiff was put in possession of one of the three lands mentioned in the document as security for the amount mentioned in the same, and that according to the terms of the bond and the law applicable to the case, the plaintiff was not entitled either to bring a suit for sale of the properties charged for the amount due under the plaint bond, or to obtain a personal decree against the executants. It is often very difficult in some of these cases to decide what the nature of the document sued on is.2. So far as the plaint document affects that property which was intended to be and was put in the possession of the p...
Nagoor Rowthar Vs. Akbar Alisha Sathguru Samiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-1914
Reported in: 24Ind.Cas.722
Ayling, J.1. The suit land is a religious inam land belonging to a mosque of,, which respondent (plaintiff) is manager, and leased by him on a perpetual cowle. It is admitted that prior to the period for which rent is now sued for a portion of this land was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. The compensation amount was deposited in Court under Sections 31 and 32 of that Act and still remains in deposit, no land having been purchased therewith for assignment in lieu of that acquired.2. It appears to mo that petitioner is clearly entitled to a reduction of rent proportionate to the value of the property acquired.3. The award of the Land Acquisition Officer (Exhibit IV) shows that the owner of the land acquired is the mosque, and whatever right as a tenant petitioner might possess in the land to be assigned in exchange, it is clear both from this order and from Exhibit I that the re-letting of that land rested with plaintiff, and not with him. It does not appear that plaintiff has t...
Manjunathaya and Subaraya Bhatta Vs. King Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1914
Reported in: (1914)26MLJ352
ORDERSadasiva Iyer, J.1. Criminal Revision Petition 568 has been filed by the second accused Manjunathaya and Criminal Revision Petition 582 by the first accused Subaraya Bhatta. They were convicted under Sections 461 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code on the finding that they broke open a closed copper dabbi buried in the store room of the Kamalashili temple situated in a village in the Coondapur Taluk. I may at once say as regards the second accused that there is no evidence worth the name that he committed theft of any coins from the dabbi of the temple which contained the cash and metal plate offerings made by the temple devotees. His confessional statement if it is admissible in evidence at all, merely shows that he received some coins from the first accused. This may be evidence of his having received stolen property but not of his having committed theft. His conviction and sentence must be set aside and his bail bond discharged.2. Coming to the case of the 1st accused, his convict...
D. Srinivasa Iyengar (Died) and anr. Vs. Thiruvengadathaiyangar and an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Mad226; (1915)ILR38Mad556
Sundara Ayyar, J.1. The suit in this case is one for partition by a Hindu minor. The first defendant is the plaintiff's stepbrother. The fifth defendant is the plaintiff's mother and the first defendant's step-mother. The sixth defendant is the plaintiff's elder sister. The fifth and sixth defendants were made parties on the ground that provision should be made for the maintenance of the former and for the maintenance and marriage and other expenses of the latter.2. The first question raised in Second Appeal is whether the plaintiff is entitled to a share of the amount recovered from a Life Insurance Company on a policy of insurance taken out by Doraiswami Ayyangar, the father of the plaintiff and the first defendant. The policy states that it was taken for the benefit of Doraiswami's wife and two sons of whom the wife and one of the sons died, and the first defendant alone was left; but both the Courts have found that the premia for the policy were paid out of funds belonging to the w...
Muthuvana Chirutha (Died) and anr. Vs. Muthuvana Velan (Died) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Mad119(2)
1. We think that the legal effect of one of the provisions in the registered (sic), Exhibit A, executed by Thoori and the three then surviving members of his tarwal has not been properly constraed by the lower Courts. That provision is to the effect that Thoor 'may appoint any person he likes as the heir' (or (sic)) to a certain property which was kept as 'general tarwad property' by Thoor and the other three parties to Exhibit A. Exhibit A , is dated in August 1903. We think [following Vasudevan v. The Secretary of State for India 11 M. 157] that when the members of a Malabar tarwad speak of the appointment of an heir, they mean the present affiliation of a stranger into the tarwad and do not mean an alienation of the property by Will or gift-deed to take effect after the death of all the existing members.2. We, therefore, hold that Thoori was entitled to affiliate the 3rd defendant under the terms of Exhibit A into his tarwad, and not merely to give to her rights in the plaint proper...
Krishna Mallar Vs. Secretary of State for India in Council Represented ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1914
Reported in: 25Ind.Cas.375
1. Under Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act in this class of suits the valuation as determinable for the computation of the Court-fee and the valuation for the purposes of jurisdiction shall be the same. The plaint valued the suit at Rs. 15,100, but the prayer stated that the declaration was valued at Rs. 15,000 for purposes of jurisdiction and that the consequential relief--the cancellation and return of the bond-was valued at Rs. 100. Under Section 7 (iv) of the Court Fees Act the consequential relief should alone have been valued and the value under Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act would determine the jurisdiction. As it appeared on the face of the plaint that the valuation of the consequential relief was only Rs. 100, whereas there was another valuation of Rs. 15,100 given, the plaint should have been returned for amendment so that the plaintiff might elect one single valuation for both purposes as required by law. It appears that the plaintiff presented his plaint with a sta...
Abdul Karim Sahib of V. Khadir HussaIn Sahib and Co. and ors. Vs. Timm ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Mad117(2); 24Ind.Cas.512
1. The failure of the decree-holder-purchaser to take proceedings under Order XXI, Rule 97, of the Code of Civil Procedure within the time limited by Article 167 of the Limitation Act does not prevent him for putting in a fresh application for delivery of possession under Order XXI, Rule 95. Muttia v. Appasami 13 M. 504.2. This appeal is dismissed with costs....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »