Chennai Court August 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.
Varadaraja Mudaliar and anr. Vs. Narayanasami Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-24-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad603; (1914)27MLJ681
Kumarasami Sastri, J.1. Plaintiffs who are the sons of one Munisami Mudaliar sue for a declaration that the bequests to the grandchildren of the said Munisami made by his will dated the 6th August 1898 are invalid, and for a portion of the properties left by him. The plaint sets out that by his will dated the 6th August 1898 the testator directed that his sons and daughters should have no interest in the estate and that the income should be accumulated for the benefit of the testator's grandchildren who were to take all the property, that defendants 2 and 5 obtained, probate of the will and nave been guilty of various acts of mismanagement, that the bequests to the testator's grandchildren are void as they were not in existence when the testator died and that there has been an intestacy which entitles the plaintiffs as the sons of the testator to claim the estate and a partition, thereof between the various heirs of the testator.2. Defendants 1 and 3 filed a written statement praying f...
Sambasiva Mudaliar Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad808(2); 25Ind.Cas.608; (1914)27MLJ299
Seshagiri Aiyar, J.1. It is with some hesitation that I agree in the conclusion at which my learned colleague has arrived. The facts found may be thus summarised; (1) The property in dispute is a public pathway; (2) The plaintiff built the projection in front of the house between the years 1868 and 1888 and has been in possession. There is no evidence as to any acts of possession by the plaintiff or the Government prior to 1868. On these findings the courts below have come to the conclusion that the Government have a subsisting title. The decided cases lay down that where a private person proves that he has been in possession for over 12 years, the onus is on the Government to show that they had some possession within 60 years of the suit. I think there are two propositions involved in this--one, that from the fact of possession for a long time a presumption arises that the possessor was in enjoyment for a longer period than is actually covered by the evidence let in by him, and the ot...
Bhathey Sundara Rajan and ors. Vs. A.A. Kuppusami Iyer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1914
Reported in: (1914)27MLJ573
John Edward Power Wallis, Kt. Officiating C.J.1. These are appeals from the judgment of the District Court of Madura in several connected cases in which the plaintiffs sued for an infringement of a patent taken but by the 1st plaintiff in the year 1902 for the ' Amp hill Patent Loom,' The District Judge has found that the infringement has been proved and has given judgment for the plaintiffs.2. Under the Patents Act of 1888 ('The Invention and Designs Act V of 1888 ') a defendant in an action for infringement is not allowed to set up by way of defence all the grounds on which the grant of the Patent Could be opposed, grounds which are to be found in Section 20 of the Act. One of those grounds is that invention was not a new invention. Under Section 29(4) a defendant is not allowed to set Up the defence that the invention was not new, 'unless the defendant or some person through whom he claims, has, before the date of the delivery of the application for leave to file the specification, ...
Sabella Appanna Vs. Mallidi Appanna and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad1463; 25Ind.Cas.700
1. Plaintiff, a judgment-debtor, sued for a declaration of his right to certain lands attached by the 2nd defendant and for the setting aside of the summary order passed on the latter's claim petition.2. It is contended, firstly, that only a decree-holder can sue for relief of this nature. It has not, however, been explained how a judgment-debtor is not as directly interested in making a particular portion of his property available for the payment of his debt as the decree-holder is in securing payment from that portion. And, as regards authority, Guruva v. Subbarayudu 13 Ma. 366 and Muthusamy Mudaly v. Ayyhlu Baihadu 13 M.L.J. 367 are against the appellant's contention. The latter case refers to Sardhari Lal v. Ambika Pershad 15 C. 521 : 15 I.A. 123 : 5 Sar. P.C.J. 172 as reconcilable with the judgment-debtor's right to sue. Authority in this Presidency being in favour of that right, it is unnecessary to deal at length with Kedarnath Chatterji v. Rakihal Das Chatterji 15 C. 674 : 13 I...
Aiya Koundan and ors. Vs. Jagan Mandalathipathiar, Gopanna Marudiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1914
Reported in: (1914)27MLJ480
1. We disallow the preliminary objection that no Letters Patent Appeal lies with reference to Rama Aiyar v. Venkatachella Padayachi I.L.R. (1906) M. 311. There is no doubt that an ill-advised grant of permission to withdraw a suit with leave to sue again, under Order XXIII, Rule 1(2)(b) may be such a material irregularity as is contemplated by Section 115(c) of the Civil Procedure Code. Here the District Munsif granted permission, after a substantial portion of the plaintiff's case had been heard, on his affidavit that (1) he could not attend the hearing owing to his brother's death (2) he wished for the issue of a commission, apparently then first mentioned (3) that he had to have certain measurements made and a plan prepared, 2. We are prepared to hold that the ' sufficient ground referred to in Order XXIII, Rule 1(2)(b) must be ejusdem generis with the defect referred to in Rule 1(2)(a) with reference to the usual interpretation of these words elsewhere in the Code, and to the expli...
Gotepati Subban and ors. Vs. Gotepati Narasamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1914
Reported in: (1914)27MLJ486
Sankaran Nair, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs from the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Masulipatam declaring that an alienation of the properties in suit in favor of the 2nd defendant by the 1st defendant, the widow of the last male owner is not binding on them and defendants 3 and 4 who are expectant reversioners. Bapanna the last male owner died in the year 1881. In 1882 his widow the 1st defendant sued to recover possession of the properties from the 2nd defendant who was then a minor. His father as his guardian contended in that suit that his son the 2nd defendant was adopted by the deceased. The Court found that there was no such adoption and decreed possession of the properties to the widow the plaintiff in that suit. In execution of the decree, she obtained possession and in 1897 she executed the registered deed of gift which the plaintiffs now seek to set aside.2. The Subordinate Judge has held that the deed of gift is valid because the first defendant was entitled...
Kanduru Venkata Seshayya Vs. Adam Saib and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad76(1); 25Ind.Cas.661
1. There is no admission by-defendants in the pleadings of any obligation to remove the nattu reeds and it cannot be held that the existence of this obligation is not in issue between the parties. The ruling in Chedamhatam Chetty v. Kurunalyavalwngopuly Taver 3 M.H.C.R. 342 has, therefore, no application.2. It is contended for appellant that the lease-deed, though inadmissible as & lease-deed for want of registration, may nevertheless be received in evidence He prove a contract on the part of defendants to remove the reeds. -It is clear from the plaint that this alleged obligation was a condition of the, tenancy in consideration of which a low rent was fixed; and that the obligation cannot be dissociated from the other terms of the lease. To allow the lease-deed to be adduced in proof of this obligation would be to contravene the provisions of Section 49 of the Registration Act.3. We have considered also whether secondary evidence might be adduced under Section 65 (6) of the Evidence A...
Gopala Muppanar and ors. Vs. Dharmakarta Subramania Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1914
Reported in: (1914)27MLJ253
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The plaintiffs are the appellants in this second appeal. They brought the suit out of which this second appeal has arisen as representatives of the Ilaivaniyar community in the village of Panakudy. The defendants represent the Brahmins, Mudaliars and Pillars in that village. The plaintiffs pray for the following main reliefs:(a) a declaration as against the defendants and their communities, Brahmins, Vellalas and Mudaliars of the right of the plaintiffs and of their castemen residing at Panakudy to go so far as the Sabapathy Sannadhi and as far as the front of the Pulliarai in the Amman Sannadhi in the said Panakudy Sri Ramalingaswami Temple and worship the Swamies and Amman and to receive prasatham, etc., after performing Abishekam, Archanai, Neivediam, etc., during the Mandagapadi occasions and on ordinary occasions;' and(b) a permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their community from causing any obstruction to the plaintiffs and their castemen in t...
Gunnam Dorayya Vs. Vadapalli Ayyama Charyulu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad481; 25Ind.Cas.797; (1914)27MLJ295
1. The second mortgagee is the plaintiff (appellant); and he seeks to redeem the 1st mortgagee, the 2nd defendant. The 2ml defendant, has succeeded in the lower appellate Court on the following conclusions:(a) that 60 and odd rupees of the principal sum of Rs. 200 (the 1st mortgage amount) was still due to the 2nd defendant on date of suit; and(b) that under the terms of the first mortgage, the 2nd defendant was entitled to hold possession of the lands till that 60 and odd rupees was also wiped out by the usufruct.2. The contention of the plaintiff in second appeal is(a) that as the 60 and odd rupees represent irrigation cesses and other cesses due upon other lands of the mortgagor (contained in the same pattah as the mortgaged land) and not cesses due on the mortgaged land (No. 183) itself, the 2nd defendant was not entitled to add that sum to the principal of the mortgage amount and cannot claim a right to remain in possession till that sum of Rs. 60 and odd is also discharged out of...
Nidamurthi Krishnamurthy and anr. Vs. Gargiparthi Gana Pathelingam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1914
Reported in: 25Ind.Cas.583
Oldfield, J.1. The plaintiff in this suit moved the District Court, where it was pending, by Interlocutory Application No. 24 of 1911 for an adjournment on the ground that the parties had already appointed an arbitrator, whose award was awaited. The application was transferred with the suit to the Subordinate Judge's Court and was, in circumstances which are not clear, disposed of by an order appointing as arbitrator the person named in it and fixing a date for the submission of his award. That award was afterwards, in spite of the objection of the 1st defendant, the present petitioner, embodied in a decree. An appeal against this decree to the District Court was afterwards dismissed on the ground that no appeal lay with reference to Section 16 (2), of Schedule II, of the Code of Civil Procedure. In Civil Revision Petition No. 595 of 1913 this Court is asked to revise that order of dismissal and in Civil Revision Petition No. 596 to revise the Subordinate Judge's Court's decree.2. The ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »