Chennai Court April 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.
Sree Sree Sree Madana Mohana Ananga Bheema Deo Kesari Gajapati Late a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1914
Reported in: 24Ind.Cas.999; (1914)27MLJ306
Arnold White, C.J.1. The material facts for the purposes of this appeal are set out in the judgment of my learned brother which I have had the advantage of reading. I need not repeat them. The questions for determination are--(1) Was the second adoption within the powers conferred by the authority to adopt (Exhibit B) ?(2) If so, (a) was the adoption though not made to the last male holder effective for the purpose of divesting the estate an interest which, at the date of the adoption had become vested in the defendants ?(b) Was the fact that Adikonda's son's widow was alive when the adoption was made to Adikonda a bar to the exercise of the power?2. As pointed out by their Lordships of the Privy Council in Suryanarayana v. Venkataramana I.L.R. (1906) M. 382 : 16 M.L.J. 276 ' the main factor for consideration in these cases is the intention of the husband. I think the only safe rule is to try and ascertain the intention of the donor of the power from the terms in which the authority is...
Krishnamma Boyee Vs. Gopal Row and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad308; 24Ind.Cas.485
Bakewell, J.1. The plaint in this case recites the Will and codicil of D. Nagoji Row, and alleges that under the terms of a bequest of immoveable property, the plaintiff became entitled thereto upon the death of Radha Boyee the wife, of the testator's son, D. Balaji Row, as her daughter and heir. The 1st defendant is the son of Radha Boyee, and the 2nd and 3rd defendants are his children, and the remaining defendants are alleged to claim different portions of the property as assignees and in-cumbrancers under dispositions made by the first defendant. Evidence has been adduced that the testator's adopted son Balaji Row had been twice insolvent and with respect to the state of family of the testator.2. It appears from the wording of the Will and Codicil, and it is in fact admitted by both parties, that these documents were drafted by an English lawyer and the testator was a Hindu. It is obvious that the draftsman was not a skilled conveyancer, though he had access to English common forms...
Kunhanna Shetty Vs. Timmaju and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Mad698; 24Ind.Cas.246; (1914)27MLJ60
Charles Arnold White, C.J.1. These are two appeals from a judgment and decree of the District Judge of South Canara. The plaintiffs asked for an order that the 1st defendant should be removed from his ejamanship; they also asked for a decree for possession of certain items of property. (This would be consequential on any order for the removal of the 1st defendant from his ejamanship). The plaintiff also asked that certain alienations of family property which had been made by the 1st defendant should be set aside. The family is a joint Aliyasantana family consisting of the 1st defendant and the plaintiffs. The 1st defendant is the last survivor of his branch of the family. He is now a very old man some 80 years of age. He has been the ejaman of the family since 1900 when he succeeded his elder brother Manjanna Shetty. The learned Judge gave the plaintiffs a decree for the removal of the 1st defendant from the ejamanship; and as consequential on that he gave them a decree for possession ...
Matte Sarayya Vs. Vepparathi Vydynatham
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad226; (1914)27MLJ57
1. There is nothing here to suggest that the inam was granted by the temple authorities. Ex. D is the title-deed given by the Government to the person doing service in the temple, and makes the title conditional on the fulfilment of the terms of the grant. There is no ground on which the temple trustees can intervene to prevent the alienation of the inam. No doubt the Government might resume and regrant it if moved to do so, and it may be that if the present servant who is responsible for the alienation were removed from office, her successor in the office could recover the inam on the principle enunciated in Pakkiam Pillay v. Seetharama Vadhyar (1908) 14 M.L.J. 134. But the trustees cannot recover possession of the land in the present suit and we must reverse the decree of the Subordinate Judge and dismiss the suit. Parties pay their own costs throughout....
Venkatarama Aiyar Vs. Suppa Nadan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Mad333; 24Ind.Cas.24; (1914)27MLJ58
1. We think it is open to us to hold that the question whether an instrument is or is not a mortgage within the meaning of Section 31(1) of the Limitation Act of 1908 does not depend on the date of its execution. In Aliba v. Nanu I.L.R. (1886) M. 218 the view taken by Muthusami Aiyar J., was that the enactment of the Transfer of Property Act created new rights and liabilities in the parties to a mortgage so that what might be a mortgage as defined in Section 58 of that Act, might not be a mortgage if executed before that Act. But this was not decided by the Full Bench in Rangasami v. Muthukumarappa I.L.R. (1885) M. 509 and is doubted by Shephard, J. in Ramachandra Rayagaru v. Modhu Padhi I.L.R. (1898) M. 326 . Though the learned Judge adhered to this opinion in Rangasami v. Muthukuma appa I.L.R. (1885) M. 509 there he was also of opinion that the document then in question was not a mortgage within the definition of the Transfer of Property Act in the absence of a transfer of property o...
Ganapathi Mudali Vs. Venkatalakshminarasayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad345; 25Ind.Cas.109
1. We are satisfied that there has been some confusion created in the decision of the two appeals out of the two suits by the lower Appellate Court. The lease on which the plaintiff relied in the plaint in one, of the suits was a lease or. muchilika from year to year alleged to have been created in the plaintiff's father's favour for a premium of Rs. 10 and a yearly rent of Rs. 7. The right in dispute in that suit was the mirasi right in certain lands.2. The lease on which the plaintiff relied in the other suit was a lease or muchilika alleged to have been created in favour of one Krishnaswami Iyer who is alleged to have transferred his rights as lessor to the plaintiff by sale-deed, Exhibit G.3. The lower Appellate Court relies on the evidence of the plaintiff's 2nd witness to find in the plaintiff's favour that the defendant was the plaintiff's tenant in respect of both the mirasi lands and the shrotriem lands. On a perusal of the plaintiff's 2nd witness's evidence, it is clear to us...
Nori Lakshminarasimham and ors. Vs. Pratipathi Lakshminarayana and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Mad85; 24Ind.Cas.825
1. We are unable to agree with the learned District Judge that Section 148 or 151, Civil Procedure Code, could enable a Court after a decree had become final to change the terms of the decree [See Suranjan Singh v. Bam Bahal Lal 17 Ind. Qas. 912 : 10 A.L.J. 520.]2. The first defendant declared his inability to stand the test,' that is, he admitted that he could not prove his competency for the office. As regards the second defendant, the learned District Judge's finding, as to his competency, is somewhat obscure. In one place, the Judge says : The second defendant on the other hand showed much improvement in learning and in reciting the mantras, though the Commissioner was not perfectly satisfied with the result'. In another place, the Judge says that the second defendant also should undergo another test and prove his competency.3. We shall request the District Judge to submit definite findings on the- following issues on the evidence on record : Whether the second defendant was fairly...
Gopalakrishna Aiyar and ors. Vs. Sri Sri Sukirtha theenthara theetha S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Mad84; 24Ind.Cas.790
1. The learned District Judge's decision to exclude from consideration Exhibits C, II and III appears to us to be wrong. If they were put forward as containing an agreement to lease, the want of registration is undoubtedly a fatal objection to their admissibility and they could not be adduced as evidence of a written agreement to lease, which under Section 37 of the Registration Act is compulsorily registrable. But there is nothing to prevent these documents being admitted as evidence to prove an oral agreement to enter into a lease, or a license to build on the land. If the former transaction were established, the defendant might possibly plead that the plaintiffs were equitably estopped from evicting him or at least bound to compensate him : and in the case of a license ho might put forward a similar plea with special reference to Section 60 of the Easements Act. We do not consider that the failure to specifically set up the case of a license in the written statement should prevent t...
Vannavalli Seshagiri Row and Pammela Amenayya Sastrulu Vs. Gopisetti N ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Mad98; 24Ind.Cas.374; (1914)26MLJ573
Ayling, J.1. The only question for disposal is as to the correct valuation of the suit for purposes of jurisdiction. The District Judge has held that it is governed by Section 14 of the Madras Civil Courts Act; for the petitioner it is argued that the Subordinate Judge was right in applying Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act (VII of 1887).2. The ruling relied on by the District Judge (Chalasamy Ramiah v. Chalasamy Ramasami (1912) M.L.T. 155 (does not in my opinion afford any support for his view that the present suit is one of which the subject matter is land so as to bring it within the scope of Section 14 of the Madras Civil Courts Act (III of 1873) and that this section governs the valuation for purposes of jurisdiction. At the time when the latter Act was passed, the wording and arrangement of Section 7 of the Court Fees Act was such that it was at any rate open to argument that a suit of this kind brought by the landlord to evict a tenant was for the possession of land and fell ...
In Re : Ponthala Narisi Reddi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-1914
Reported in: 24Ind.Cas.327
Wallis, J.1. In this case the Sessions Judge has acquitted all the fourteen accused of rioting and of grievous hurt, but has convicted accused Nos. 1 and 2 of culpable homicide not amounting to murder on the ground that they exceeded the right of private defence. The case arose out of a dispute as to certain land which was claimed by prosecution witness No. 1 as guardian of a minor, one Nyagaya, and by the 1st accused under a sale-deed executed in his favour by the minor's mother in 1908. In proceedings under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, some ten months before these occurrences, the 1st accused was found to be in undisputed possession, and the order passed under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, was cancelled. He had also been successful in the Civil Court on a claim put in by the 1st prosecution witness who was referred to a civil suit. His right to possession has been recognised by the Sessions Judge and may be accepted for the purposes of the case. The reliable evidence...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »