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.
In Re: Mamu Beari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad88(2); 25Ind.Cas.979
ORDERAyling, J.1. The question whether an advance was received in cash as recited in the karar is purely one of appreciation of evidence and is not a point on which this Court is accustomed to interfere in revision.2. The District Magistrate solicits a ruling as to whether a contract to convey clay, can be regarded as falling within the scope of Act XIII of 1859. It is difficult to see why the conveyance of clay should not be ' work' within the meaning of that Act--provided that the personal labour of the person who undertakes the conveyance is to be utilized: Vide the judgment of Turner, C.J., in Gilby v. Sabbu Pillai 7 M. 100 : 1 Weir 690 which clearly lays down the distinction to be drawn between' a workman or labourer under the Act and a mere non-working contractor.3. In the present case the defendant under-took to convey clay for the complainant in his (complainant's) boat by means of his own (defendant's) labour and that of another man who' was to be provided free of charge by hi...
Assam Raghavalu Chetty and anr. Vs. Pellati Sitamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-1914
Reported in: (1914)27MLJ266
1. The question argued in this appeal is whether in a suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the removal of a trustee and the settlement of a scheme, the District Judge was right in dismissing the suit with costs as regards the 3rd and 4th defendants who had teen joined by the plaintiffs on the ground that the lease granted to them by the trustees of the charity, defendants Nos. 1 and 2, was a breach of trust. It is well settled that in a suit under Section 92, a decree for possession could not be given against persons in the position of defendants Nos. 3 and 4, and it seems to follow that the contention of the appellants that a mere declaration might be given against them is unsustainable, as, if any relief could properly be given against them in such a suit. There is no reason why it should be limited to a mere declaration and should not award possession as well. The question then is whether they were properly made parties by the plaintiffs as no reliefs were obtain...
P. Alwar Chetty Vs. P. Chidambara Mudali (Died) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad110; (1914)27MLJ400
Spencer, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the learned Chief Justice sitting as a single Judge on the Original Side of the High Court,2. Upon the death of one Rajamanicka Mudali, the father of the 1st defendant, the Administrator-General was directed by an order of Mr. Justice Boddam upon a petition presented to him on the Original Side to take out Letters of Administration to the estate of the deceased. Accordingly, Letters of Administration which are Exhibit Y were granted to the Administrator-General on the 28th March 1899. The 1st defendant is said to have attained his majority on November 1904. On the same day he mortgaged a house belonging to the estate of his deceased father in favour of the 3rd defendant; and on the 26th April 1905 he sold the same house to the plaintiff for Rs. 2500. Subsequently in July 1905 the Administrator-General at the 1st defendant's request sold this house to the 2nd defendant for Rs. 2300 in order to recover the commission due to him for the a...
Sri Datla Venkata Subba Raju Garu and anr. Vs. Gatham Venkatrayudu Min ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-1914
Reported in: (1914)27MLJ580
1. In this case the Court has found that the alienation by the 1st defendant the undivided father of the 2nd defendant was made 276 days before the birth of the 2nd defendant and has come to the conclusion that it was made after the 2nd defendant was conceived and at a time when the 2nd defendant had acquired an interest in the property. This conclusion he has based on S, 112 of the Evidence Act which provides 'that the fact that any person was born during the continuance of a valid marriage between his mother and any man, or within the 280 days after its dissolution, the mother remaining unmarried shall be conclusive proof that he is the legitimate son of that man unless it can be shown that the parties to the marriage had no access to each other at any time when he could have been begotten.' The presumption is that a child born within 280 days after possibility of access shall be deemed to be the legitimate child of the father. It is not that such a child was conceived 280 days befor...
P. Alwar Chetty Vs. P. Chidambara Mudali and Six ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-1914
Reported in: (1915)ILR38Mad1134
Spencer, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the learned Chief Justice sitting as a single Judge on the Original Side of the High Court.2. Upon the death of one Rajamanicka Mudali, the father of the first defendant, the Administrator-General was directed by an order of Mr. Justice Boddam upon a petition presented to him on the Original Side, to take out Letters of Administration to the estate of the deceased. Accordingly, Letters of Administration, which are Exhibit Y, were granted to the Administrator-General on the 28th March 1899. The first defendant is said to have attained his majority on November 19, 1904. On the same day he mortgaged a house belonging to the estate of his deceased father in favour of the third defendant; and on the 26th April 1905 he sold the same house to the plaintiff for Rs. 2,500. Subsequently, in July 1905 the Administrator-General at the first defendant's request sold this house to the second defendant for Rs. 2,300 in order to recover the commission...
Minor Raju Alias Aiyaru Naicken, Represented by His Next Friend, Ammat ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad53; 25Ind.Cas.968
1. One Aiyaru Naicker had two sons Venkatasarni Naicker and Ayyasami Naicker. The sons remained undivided even after the father's death. The plaintiff in this case is the natural son of Ayyasami Naicker. The first defendant is the adopted son of Venkatasami. Ayyasami died on the 17th December 1907, Venkatasami on the 9th January 1908 The alleged adoption by Venkatasami is said to have taken place on the 20th December 1907.2. The plaintiff's case is that even during the life-time of their father Venkatasami had an attack of leprosy of a virulent and nasty type;' that, consequently, on the death of the father, Ayyasami alone became entitled to the whole property, that Venkatasami made no adoption prior to his death, and that, even if he did, it was invalid.3. The defendants Nos. 1 and 2 denied that the adoptive father suffered from leprosy and pleaded that the adoption of the first defendant was true and valid.4. The first issue is in these terms: Whether the deceased Venkatasami Naicker...
Motavengattil Krishna Panikkar Vs. Kezatath Krishna Menon
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad227(1); 25Ind.Cas.369
1. The application of the mortgagee (appellant-defendant)is, in substance, not for compelling the mortgagor, (respondent-plaintiff) to take delivery of. the mortgaged property from the appellant but for the issue of a cheque in favour of the appellant for the amount deposited in Court, by the respondent.2. The money was paid into Court by the respondent expressly in order that the appellant, who was entitled under the decree to have the property sold in default of such payment, might not bring it to sale and might draw the amount from Court. The money became the money of the appellant as soon as it was so deposited and the plaintiff cannot be heard to object to the appellant receiving a cheque to draw that money from the Court.3. The lower Court's order is set aside and the Munsif's order restored with costs on the respondent (plaintiff) in all Courts....
Jambagathammal Vs. Kanakathammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad355(2); 25Ind.Cas.645
1. We do not see sufficient reason to interfere with the discretion of the lower Court in refusing to direct the Receiver not to spend money for the conduct of the defence of the minor 2nd defendant, especially as the learned Subordinate Judge has directed the Receiver to obtain the orders of the Court before actually disbursing amount or incurring the expenditure.' We take it that, if necessary or desirable, the lower Court will pass orders that the Receiver shall give security for restitution to the estate of such expenses in certain events.2. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal with costs without deciding the rather difficult question whether an appeal really lies from the order of the Subordinate Court, that is, whether' the order really falls under Order XL, Rule 1 (d), of the Civil Procedure Code. See Kamalathammal v. Srinivasachariar 14 Ind. Cas. 277 : 11 M.L.T. 383 : Mohunt Anant Das v. Ram Perhash Das 5 Ind. Cas. 69 : 14 C.W.N. 183; Civil Revision Petition No. 555 of 1912; Easte...
K.M.P. Parameswaran Nambudripad and ors. Vs. K.M.S. Sankaran Nambudrip ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad723; 25Ind.Cas.755
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. Plaintiffs Nos. 2 to 5 are the appellants. The suit was brought by the appellants and 15 other members of their tarwad for a declaration that the karar executed the plaintiffs' karnavan, the 1st defendant, in favour of the 2nd defendant in 1899 acknowledging the right of the 2nd defendant's tarwad to a half share in the uraima right in the plaint devaswom, was obtained by the 2nd defend ant by fraud, etc., and that the said agreement is not binding upon the plaintiffs' tarwad. The plaint also contained a prayer for an injunction restraining the 2nd defendant and the members of his tarwad from interfering with the devaswom affairs. The suit was brought in 1910.2. The lower Appellate Court dismissed the plaintiffs' suit on three grounds: (a) that the suit is opposed to the provisions of Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, I of 1877; (6) that the plaintiffs could not be allowed to amend the plaint so as to bring the prayers in the plaint into conformity with Sectio...
M.P. Chidambaram Chetti and ors. Vs. S.R.M.A.R. Ramaswami Chettiar and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad506(2); (1914)27MLJ631
1. The suit was brought by the plaintiffs the members of S.R.M.A.R. firm against the defendants members of the M: P. M.R. firm for the recovery of Rs. 24,036-0-6 due to the plaintiffs on account of dealings between them. Both of them are money lenders. The Subordinate Judge has passed a decre in favour of the plaintiff. Against this decree the defendants 1, 3 & 4 appeal. The first objection taken is that on the facts set out in the plaint the suit is not maintainable. There is an allegation in the plaint that any amount payable by the defendants should be made good out of the money deposited by R. M, R. M. firm with the plaintiffs through and to the order of one Chokkalingam Chetti who was a member both of the defendants firm and that of said R. M.R. M. firm. As to this it is sufficient to say that no discharge is either allowed by the plaintiffs or by the defendants. An agreement that the debt due may be discharged in a certain manner does not shew that the plaintiffs waived any other...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »