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.
Bangarasami Aiyangar Vs. A.R.A.A.R.S.M. Somasundaram Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-1914
Reported in: (1914)27MLJ176
1. The question whether when a document which recites that it was executed by A, B and C is executed by A and B alone, whether in such a case, A and B agreed to be liable under it only if C also joined in executing it is a question of fact to be decided on the circumstances of each particular case Sivasami Chetty v. Sevagan Chetti I.L.R. (1901) M. 389 and Krishnama Chariar v. Narasimha Chariar I.L.R. (1908) M. 114. In this particular case, the Lower Appellate Court has after considering the circumstances and probabilities arrived at the conclusion that the 1st defendant (the appellant before us) agreed to be liable under Exhibit A notwithstanding that one Desika Chariar mentioned in the recital as a co-executant did not sign it. Though it must be admitted that the Judgment is not quite satisfactory, we cannot say that there is no evidence on which the Lower Appellate Court could have arrived at the conclusion at which it arrived. The plaintiffs 1st witness says that he made a demand on...
Raman Nambiar Vs. Raman Nambiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad307(2); (1914)27MLJ175
1. The learned District Judge's view seems to be that the alienee from a Karnavan under a Melcharth granted before the expiry of the terms mentioned in previous kanom deeds need not prove adequate necessity for the grant of such a Melcharth and that even if the Melcharth was not a ' wise ' transaction, it cannot be set aside at the instance of the succeeding Karnayan unless it is proved that it was, a transaction intended to benefit the Karnavan or his sons at the expense of his family or to defraud the Tarwad. This view is opposed to the decisions of Cheria Chinkandan v. Krishnan Nambiar (1912) 15 M.L.T. 600 and S.A. No. 877 of. 1911. The Melcharth cannot be upheld unless there was adequate necessity or unless the grant of it was beneficial to the Tarwad. The learned Judge's decision is vitiated by his having misdirected himself or the law, governing the consideration of the question involved- We set it aside and remand the case for the decision of the appeal before him de novo. The c...
Venkatachella Mitdaly Vs. Arunachella Mudaly and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-1914
Reported in: 25Ind.Cas.80
1. The plaintiff in this case claims to be the hereditary trustee for public charitable purposes of certain property in British India under the terms of a deed of trust created by his ancestor, who like the plaintiff was a non-resident foreigner. The. District Judge has dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff is a non-resident foreigner and so disqualified. No authority has been cited before us to show that there is any such disqualification in the case of a public charitable trust which does not come within the terms of the Indian Trusts Act, and we think there is no ground for holding that a Hindu is incapable of succeeding to the office of hereditary trustee of property situated in British India merely on the ground that he resides outside British India. The decree is set aside and the suit remanded for disposal according to law. Respondents will pay the costs of the appeal....
Karuppayee Vs. Chinnammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad492; 25Ind.Cas.191
Oldfield, J.1. A preliminary objection has been taken to this revision petition on the ground that petitioner will, if necessary, be able to advance the considerations now relied on in an appeal against any decree which may be passed against him.2. There is no doubt that he will be able so to advance them. Gopala Chetti v. Subhier 26 Ma. 604 : 13 M.L.J. 308. And there is authority for treating this fact as decisive against the sustainability of a revision petition. Nand Ram v. Bhopal Singh 16 Ind. Cas. 1 : 34 A. 592 : 10 A.L.J. 130. On the other hand, though, no doubt, the point has not been formally taken in any reported case in this Court, this Court's practice has certainly been to entertain petitions such as the present; and the reasons for abandoning that practice call for careful scrutiny, when its abandonment will entail in many cases the holding of a trial on the merits, which will ultimately turn out to have been unnecessary.3. Sections 115, Civil Procedure Code, authorises re...
Bommaya Hegade Vs. Srinivasa Hebbara and Jalayakshi, Minor by Her Guar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-14-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad25(2); 25Ind.Cas.900; (1914)27MLJ305
1. Following Parami v. Mahadei I.L.R. (1910) B. 278 we hold that unless there is an ambiguity in the terms of the will of a Hindu testator, the rule that the will of a Hindu must be construed with due regard to Hindu habits and notions has no application. That rule can be properly applied only for the purpose of construing the terms of the will and not for the purpose of controlling or adding to its provisions. Even if that rule is applied, it was held in that case that there is no certain and necessary implication that a Hindu who, by will provides for the maintenance of his wife after his death, intended to deprive her of the maintenance if she becomes unchaste. Their Lordships of the Privy Council say in Rajah Venkata Narasimha Appa Row v. Rajah Parthasarathi Appa Row (1914) 28 M.L.J. 411 'The Court is, in no case, justified in adding to the testamentary dispositions. The Court never adds to a will anything which needs to be done by testamentary disposition. In all cases it must loy...
Raja Kamadana Venkatanarasimha Ramachandra Row Bahadur Zamindar Garu, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-14-1914
Reported in: 25Ind.Cas.57
1. It is argued that the appellant is entitled to the rent claimed on the basis of an agreement (Exhibit A) executed prior to the enactment of the Madras Estates Land Act whereby the tenant, after digging a well and making a garden, undertook, to pay a higher rate of rent. No consideration is alleged for this agreement and it is not enforceable as a contract. Vide Armugam Chetty v. Maja Jagaveera Rama Venkateswara Ettappa 8 Ind. Cas. 330 : 35 M 134 : 9 M.L.T. 76.2. The appeal is dismissed with costs....
Avudai Ammal Vs. Ganapathi Aiyar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-14-1914
Reported in: 25Ind.Cas.28
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The learned District Judge dismissed the appeal preferred by the 2nd defendant's legal representative in his Court as barred by limitation. Hence this second appeal by the 2nd defendant's legal representative.2. We think that the learned District Judge was right in his view. Order XLI, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code, requires the appeal memorandum to be accompanied by a copy of the judgment unless the Appellate Court dispenses therewith.' No such dispensation was given and hence there was an irregular presentment of the appeal on 27th July 1910 to the District Court; Assuming, however, that the presentation of the copy of the judgment was dispensed with by the Appellate Court the appeal was presented long out of time. The appellant could not claim the deduction of any period as required for obtaining a copy of the judgment, as no time could be required or Could have been spent in obtaining copy of the judgment when such copy was dispensed with.3. The time spent in ob...
Ramasubba Aiyar Vs. Avudai Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-14-1914
Reported in: 25Ind.Cas.123
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The learned District Judge in arriving at his conclusions has practically set aside the oral evidence on both sides as of very little value. He has considered the documentary evidence at great length and has then come to the conclusion that the documents do not prove the plaintiff's case, that case being that the 2nd defendant's purchase under Exhibit B was made as the 1st defendant's benamidar. In arriving at this conclusion, the learned District Judge has laid (in our opinion) undue stress in very many places on the fact that the burden of proof lay on the plaintiffs. We think that when the whole evidence on both sides has been let in it is not legally sound to lay stress on the burden of proof, and that the Court should weigh the evidence let in and the probabilities as a whole and then arrive at its findings on the facts. Further, as pointed out in Hall v. Venkatakrishna 13 M. 394 at p. 399 the burden of proof in most cases is not a burden that goes on for ever...
The Municipal Council of Tirupati by the Chairman Vs. Sree Mahant Pray ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad594; (1914)27MLJ231
1. The first question for decision in this second appeal is whether the plaintiff (the Tirupatt Mahant) is liable to be taxed under Section 53 of the District Municipalities Act read with Schedule A., Clause (3) as a ' person who exercises ' the ' calling ' of ' money-lender '. The learned Vakil (Mr. Venka-taraghavier) who appears for the appellant (the Tirupati Municipality) argues that lending out moneys even occasionally is following a ' cailing 'and that that ' calling ' is the ' calling of a money-lender. He relies for this contention on certain observations in Jennings v. The President, Municipal Commission, Madras I.L.R. (1886) M. 253. That case was decided on the interpretation of Section 103 of the City of Madras Municipal Act of 1884' read with Sch. A of that Act. The whole arrangement of the classes of persons liable to pay Municipal taxes in Sch. A. of the City of Madras Municipal Act of 1884 is different from the arrangement of the classes of persons made liable in Sch. A ...
Vungarala Seshayya and anr., Vs. Tadapalli Subba Rao and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-1914
Reported in: 25Ind.Cas.61
1. The jagir having been resumed by the Government, the property in question was neither a settled nor an unsettled jagir when the Estates Land Act came into force and hence the definition of an estate in that Act did not apply to it.2. The Subordinate Judge rightly relied on the defendants' (appellants') own admissions in the muchilikas executed by them for his finding that they had no occupancy rights in their respective holdings and that finding of fact cannot be questioned in second appeal.3. This and the connected second appeal are, therefore, dismissed with costs....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »