Chennai Court September 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.
Rajagopala Naidu Vs. M.R. Vijayaraghavalu Naidu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad550; (1915)ILR38Mad1184
1. The plaintiffs sued for (1) a declaration that a certain decree was of no legal effect against them or the various properties in their hands, (2) possession of part of those properties, which had been sold in execution of the decree. No distinction need be drawn between the rights of each of the plaintiff to these reliefs, since they sued for them jointly without objection from the defendants, The learned District Judge held that Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act applied and that therefore the valuation for purposes of jurisdiction was identical with the valuation for court fee and the plaintiffs' presentation of the plaint in the District Munsif's Court was proper. The District Munsif had held that the valuation should be baaed on the value of the property sold in addition to the amount of the decree, in respect of which declaration was asked For, in all Rs. 2,995.2. The learned District Judge was clearly mistaken in his statement that Section 7(iv)(c) regulated the valuation ...
Rajagopala Naidu Vs. N.R. Vijayaraghavalu Naidu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-1914
Reported in: 25Ind.Cas.683
1. The plaintiffs sued for (1) a declaration that a certain decree was of no legal effect. against them or the various properties in their hands, (2) possession of part of those properties, which had been sold in execution of the decree. No distinction need be drawn between the rights of each of the plaintiffs to these reliefs, since they sued for them jointly without objection from the defendants. The learned District Judge held that Section 7 (iv) (c) of the Court Pees Act applied and that, therefore, the valuation for purposes of jurisdiction was identical with the valuation for Count-fee and the plaintiffs' presentation of the plaint in the District Munsif's Court was proper. The District Munsif had held that the valuation should be based on the value of the property sold in addition to the amount of the decree in respect of which declaration was asked for, in all Rs. 2,995.2. The, learned District Judge was clearly mistaken in his statement that Section 7 (iv) (c) regulated the va...
Govinda Goundar and anr. Vs. Ramien and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad335(2); 25Ind.Cas.600
1. The appellants have failed to establish their right to the property. Our attention has, however, been drawn to the provisions of Section 31 (2) and Section 32 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act as to the acquisition of property which the owner has no power to alienate. The inam in question is a service inam granted for the performance of a service in the temple and liable unless it has been enfranchised, to be resumed by Government for failure to perform the service. Unless it has been enfranchised, as to which, we have no evidence, it is, in our opinion, land which the owner is incompetent to alienate within the meaning of the sections. These provisions do not appear to have been brought to the notice of the District Judge and we have decided to remit the case to him to ascertain upon fresh evidence, if necessary, whether these sections are applicable and, if so, to dispose of the case according to law. The 1st appellant must pay the costs of the 1st respondent in the appeal....
Yerraguntla Seshacharlu Vs. Mukkitmalla Chinniah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad530; 25Ind.Cas.721
1. The first point urged in this second appeal is that the plaintiff (who is the appellant before us) has been prejudiced by the procedure followed by the District Munsif with reference to the framing of issues. The District Munsif during the trial of the suit, amended issues Nos. 1 and 3 as originally framed and added another issue. It is alleged that the District Munsif made these alterations at the time of writing his judgment and that the effect was to allow the defendant to change his case as set out in the written statement to that disclosed in his evidence, to the prejudice of the plaintiff who thus had no opportunity of meeting the new case. If this was so, of course, the procedure of the District Munsif was clearly unjustifiable. It nowhere appears, however, from the record at what stage of the case the District Munsif altered the issues and there is nothing to support the allegation that he did so at the stage of writing his judgment. Even in the memorandum of appeal to the l...
A. Thiruvengadatha Aiyangar and anr. Vs. R. Ponnapa Aiyangar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-1914
Reported in: (1915)28MLJ209
1. This second appeal arises out of a suit by one of five trustees of a temple against the members of the temple committee and the other four trustees, the relief asked for being a declaration that two of the trustees have not been appointed lawfully by the temple committee. The Temporary Subordinate Judge of Tuticorin in whose Court the suit was filed dismissed the suit. The District Judge of Tinnevelly on appeal set aside the decree of the lower Court and granted a declaration that the appointment of the trustees by the temple committee was not legally valid, ordered the cancellation of the appointments and issued an injunction restraining the newly appointed trustees from interfering with the management of the temple.2. It is argued before us that the appointment was valid and that the District Judge has misapprehended the powers of a temple committee and wrongly thrown the burden on them of justifying the appointment. For the respondents it was contended, first that the appointment...
A. Thiruvengadatha Aiyangar and anr. Vs. R. Ponnappaiyangar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-1914
Reported in: 25Ind.Cas.965
1. This second appeal arises out of a suit by one of five trustees of a temple against the members of the temple committee and the other four trustees, the relief asked for being a declaration that two of the 'trustees have been appointed unlawfully to the temple committee. The Temporary Subordinate Judge of Tuticorin in whose Court the suit was filed, dismissed the suit. The District Judge of Tinnevelly, on appeal, set aside the decree of the lower Court and granted a declaration that the appointment of the trustees by the temple committee was not legally valid, ordered the cancellation of the appointments and issued an injunction restraining the newly appointed trustees from interfering with the management of the temple.2. It is argued before us that the appointment was valid and that the District Judge has misapprehended the powers of a temple committee and wrongly thrown the burden on them of justifying the appointment. For the respondents it was contended, first, that the appointm...
Nilambur Thacharakkavil Kovilagath Manavikkaravan Alias the Present Va ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-1914
Reported in: 25Ind.Cas.607
1. The appellant's Vakil points out that when the defendants Nos. 2, 3 and 4 were added as parties, at the request of the plaintiffs in consequence of the statements in the written statement of the original sole defendant,' the plaint was not amended so as to set forth a cause of action against them. This is so. But we cannot agree with his contention that it. is an incurable illegality. We cannot see that the defendants Nos. 2, 3 and 4 or his client, the present representative of the 4th defendant, were prejudiced by the omission. The 4th defendant claimed title for himself in the suit land, and was allowed to adduce, and did adduce, evidence to prove it. The defect in the plaint was referred to in his written statement, but no issue was taken on the point and it does not seem to have been argued in either of the lower Courts, and even in the present memorandum of appeal grounds it is not very clearly taken. We think the lower Courts and the parties proceeded with the trial just as if...
Thuri Kothanda Rama Reddiar Vs. thesu Reddiar Alias Veerasami Reddiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-1914
Reported in: (1914)27MLJ416
Sankaran Nair, J.1. The plaintiff brought the suit as the assignee of a promissory note executed by the defendant in favor of one Venkatarama Reddi. The Judge has dismissed it on the ground that the consideration is illegal and the plaintiff is not a holder in due Course. The plaintiff appeals.2. Venkatarama Reddi's daughter Venkatalakshmi Ammal was authorised by her husband to adopt a son. The defendant is her husband's brother's son. Venkatarama Reddi was not willing that his daughter should adopt the defendant. What then happened according to him may be described in his own words. ' The 1st defendant went away and came back in 10 days and asked one to intercede with Venkatalakshmi. I said I would do so. He went away and came back in another 15 days. I advised Venkatalakshmi to adopt in case the defendant and his brother brought litigation. On the several occasions the 1st defendant told me he would give me. the Rs. 10,000 Venkatalakshmi had agreed to give me if the adoption took pla...
In Re: Mala Naicker and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-1914
Reported in: (1914)27MLJ477
ORDERSadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The two accused (very poor coolies) have been convicted and sentenced under Section 20 of the Treasure Trove Act (VI of 1878) read with Section 4.2. Their contention in revision is that neither of them is a ' finder' of the Treasure within the meaning of that term as used in Section 4. The term ' finder ' is not defined in the Act and the established fact is that the accused discovered the treasure buried in the ground while they were cutting a tree under the orders and in the presence of their employer.3. I think that the accused were 'finders ' of the treasure even though they found it in the course of the performance of labor for an employer. It is contended that because the concluding portion of Section 4 imposes a duty on the ' finder ' ' to deposit the treasure in the nearest Government Treasury and etc,' a person who has not the physical control of the treasure found by him cannot be a ' finder' under that section, and that in this case, the accused's e...
Narayana Reddi Vs. Kamakshi Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-1914
Reported in: (1914)27MLJ674
1. The 1st plaintiff, a minor, sued the 1st defendant by his guardian for possession of the suit property, as his by survivorship, and for a declaration that the will purporting to have been made by his deceased father, on which the 1st defendant relied, was null and void. This will vested the property in the 1st defendant in trust for the 1st plaintiff in case he should attain majority and in trust for a temple in case of his failure to do so. 1st plaintiff died a minor. 2nd plaintiff the present appellant, was placed on the record as his legal representative; subject to objection to be disposed off in the final judgment. The 2nd plaintiff then had the other defendants impleaded, as representing the temple and as having taken possession of the property on its behalf in accordance with the will on the 1st plaintiff's decease.2. The Lower Appellate Court held and these defendants have argued here, that the 2nd plaintiff's cause of action is not identical with the 1st plaintiff's and tha...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »