Chennai Court July 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.
Sri Meerja Raja Sri Poospati Vijiarama Gajapathi Raja Maharaj Manya Su ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad535; (1914)27MLJ278
1. We think the Subordinate Judge in this case was right. The first question relates to the nature of the interest at present enjoyed by the defendants. By a deed dated the 1st June 1808 the predecessor of the present plaintiff granted a mokhasa patta to three individuals of three villages without reserving any rent.2. There is no doubt and it has been so held in some cases in this court that such tenures were formerly believed to be resumable on the death of the grantor. On the death of the grantor in this case when the estate came under the management of the Collector as Manager in 1845 these villages were resumed. That is to say, the villages were attached or kept under zuft and the profits of the villages were enjoyed apparently by the Zamindar for some years. Then in the year 1853 a petition was put in Exhibit B, stating that the villages had been granted on service tenure to the ancestors of the petitioners and that the Zamindar had been pleased to release them from attachment 't...
Sri Meerja Raja Sri Poosapati Vijiarama Gajapathi Raja Maharaj Manya S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-1914
Reported in: (1915)ILR38Mad1128
John Wallis C.J.1. We think the Subordinate Judge in this case was right. The first question relates to the nature of the interest at present enjoyed by the defendants. By a deed, dated the 1st June 1808, the predecessor of the present plaintiff granted a mokhasa patta to three individuals of three villages without reserving any rent. There is no doubt, and it has been so held in some cases in this Court, such tenures were formerly believed to be resumable on the death of the grantor. On the death of the grantor in this case when the estate came under the management of the Collector as manager in 1845 three villages were resumed. That is to say, the villages were attached or kept under zufit and the profits of the villages were enjoyed apparently by the zamindar for some years. Then in the year 1853, a petition was put in (Exhibit B) abating that the villages had been granted on service tenure to the ancestors of the petitioners and that the zamindar had been pleased to release thorn f...
Desireddi Yellamander Vs. Sekhakolli Chinna Pitchaiah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad314; 25Ind.Cas.58
1. Both Courts have found that the decree-holder applied for the continuance of the sale in order to secure the attendance of more bidders, and that his application was in aid of execution. Their decisions on this finding in respondent's favour are justified by Troylokya Nath Bose v. Jyoti Prokash Nandi 30 CA. 761 : 8 C.W.N. 251.' The Courts have always placed a wide construction on the words 'step-in-aid of execution' in Article 182, Schedule I, of the Limitation Act and we are not prepared to dissent from this conclusion. The appeal against the appellate order is dismissed with costs....
Avanama alias Kanhiyoor Mana alias thekkini Yedath Kirangot Manakkal N ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad320(1); 25Ind.Cas.25
1. Following Lala Rup Narain v. Gopal Devi 3 Ind. Cas. 382 : 36 C. 780 : 6 A.L.J. 567 : 10 Cri.L.J. 58 : 13 C.W.N. 920 : 5 M.L.T. 423 : 11 Bom. L.R. 833 : 93 P.R. 1909 : 19 M.L.J. 548 : 36 I.A. 103, see also Baghavd Aiyar v. Murugesa Mudnli 17 Ind. Cas. 97, Tej Mal Sowcar v. Jagappilla Papayamma 13 Ind. Cas. 788 : 22 M.L.J. 225 : 11 M.L.T. 25 : (1912) M.W.N. 50, Vencatamuniappa Chetty v. Goddam Chandappa 5 Ind. Cas. 466 : 7 M.L.T. 364, Sivasankaram Pillai v. Perumal Nayakar 4 Ind. Cas. 106 : 7 M.L.T. 78 and In Re: Krishnaswami Pathan 8 Ind. Cas. 885 : 9 M.L.T. 173 we must hold that the question of misjoinder cannot be made a ground for reversing the decision of the Munsif as there is no evidence and there was no contention even that such misjoinder (assuming that it existed) affected the merits.2. Nor was the District Judge justified in reversing the Munsif's decision on the ground that the value of the suit was beyond the jurisdiction of the Munsif, there being again no allegation or ...
Chakravarthi Nainar Vs. Ammaiappa Nainar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad2320(2); 25Ind.Cas.117
1. The first point taken is that the District Munsif failed to deal with the allegation that the entry into petitioner's house by certain persons named did not comply with the provisions of Section 62, Civil Procedure Code. A sufficient answer is that the allegation was in any case useless, since the person executing the process, the amin is, it is admitted, not one of those persons.2. We think that the lower Courts correctly interpreted Section 60, Civil Procedure Code. The other ground argued, therefore, fails also.3. The second appeal and the civil revision petition are, therefore, dismissed....
V.K. Rajammal Vs. the Headquarters Deputy Collector
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad356(2); 25Ind.Cas.393
1. This case comes before us rather in an unsatisfactory manner. The District Judge has commented on the fact that the Deputy Collector did not give a proper opportunity to the claimant to adduce evidence of the value of the land which was to be acquired, and at the hearing the claimant has not supported her case on some points by very satisfactory evidence. Then there are some points as regards which the District Judge has followed the report of the Tahsildar--which is not before us--and which, therefore, we are unable to attach any wight to. Nor was the Tahsildar examined as to the reasons for his report. The net result is that it is very difficult for us to come to a conclusion satisfactory to our own mind and all that we can do is to do the best we can upon the materials before us.2. At first, as regards the value of the house, the District Judge points out that Mr. Corn-well adopted a totally erroneous method of valuation, what it would cost to build such a house now. The District...
Malli Reddi and anr. Vs. Peddakka and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad534(1); (1914)27MLJ147
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. Following Venkatrayudu v. Nagadu I.L.R. (1886) M. 450 Krishna Bhatta v. Subraya I.L.R. (1897) M. 228 Sarat Chandar Bose v. Saraswati Debi I.L.R. (1907) C. 216 and the very recent case, A.A.O. No. 71 of 1911 on the file of the High Court, Madras, decided by Ayling and Napier JJ., two days ago and also the uniform practice of this Court on this particular question of the effect of an order of a court admitting an appeal (excusing the delay in its filing without giving notice to the other side), I hold that the District Judge had jurisdiction to consider, at the final hearing of the appeal after notice, the question whether the delay in the filing of the appeal had been adequately explained notwithstanding the ex parte order of his predecessor excusing the delay and admitting the appeal.2. This being the only point argued in this second appeal and it being decided against the appellant as above, the second appeal is dismissed with costs. Tyabji, J.3. The decisions ref...
Thayammal and anr. Vs. Kuppanna Koundan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad659(2); (1914)27MLJ285
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. Following Kristo Kissor Neoghey v. Kader Moye Dossee (1871) 2 C.L.R. 583 and Musst. Bhihno Koer v. Musst Chamelu Koer 2 C.W.N. 191. I hold that under Hindu Law, nobody-else than the father and mother of a minor (with probable exceptions in favour of the elder brother and the direct male and female ancestors of the minor) is entitled as a matter of natural right to be and to act as guardian of a minor's person and properties. Recourse must be had to the court (representing the rights of the king which are paramount to even the rights of the parents, where there is no natural guardian alive.2. The paternal aunt was therefore not the natural guardian of the plaintiff when she made the unauthorised alienation.3. Assuming that she was the de facto guardian, her alienation for no necessity need not be set aside. Article 44 of the Limitation Act does not apply to alienations by unauthorised guardians See Mata Din v. Ahmed Ali I.L.R. (1911) A. 213 the Judgment of the Lower...
Narayanaswamy Tevan and ors. Vs. Krishnasami Pillai (Died) and anr. an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-1914
Reported in: 25Ind.Cas.67
1. We agree with the District Judge that the date of the decrees for the purpose of calculating appeal time must be taken to be 18th April 1911, when the judgments were pronounced. Order XX, Rule 7, of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, read with Article 152 to Schedule I of the Indian Limitation, Act, 1908, is conclusive on this point.2. On the other hand we think appellants are entitled under Section 12 (2) of the Indian Limitation Act to claim that the period between 18th April 1911 and 20th June 1911 should be excluded as time requisite for obtaining copy of decrees. They were allowed time by the Court up to 20th June 1911 for paying the extra Court-fee and were entitled to fully avail themselves of it. Until they did pay, it was impossible for any action to be taken towards preparing the decrees. In fact they applied for copies of judgments and decrees on 21st April 1911; but their applications were rejected on the ground that the decrees had not been drawn up.3. The appeals were,...
thevaraya Reddy and ors. Vs. Venkatachala Pandithan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad256; 25Ind.Cas.96
Ayling, J.1. The suit out of which this second appeal arises was brought to recover the amount due on a mortgage-bond (Exhibit A) executed on 27th May 1895 by the defend ants Nos. 1 and 2 (1st and 2nd appellants) in favour of the late Ramakrishna Pandithan, manager of the family to which the plaintiff and the defendants Nos. 7 to 9 belong. After the mortgagee's death, as the appellants wished to discharge the mortgage and as his legal representatives were disputing among themselves, the appellants paid the full amount due into Court on 1st October 1903 under Section 83 of the Transfer of Property Act. Notice appears to have been given as required by that section, but as the mortgagee's representatives could not settle their disputes, the money remained in Court till about a year later when the appellants withdraw it. The present suit was filed on 6th August 1910. The sole question is whether under Section 84 of the Transfer of Property Act, interest on the mortgage-debt ceases to run f...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »