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.
Govindammal Vs. Marimuthu Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad357; 25Ind.Cas.582
Spencer, J.1. The plaintiff-appellant is the widow of one of four brothers, who, when all were alive, formed a joint Hindu family. One of the brothers, on his death without issue, left a widow named Alamelu, to whom' the other brothers assigned certain lands to be enjoyed for her maintenance. Alamelu has since died, and the plaintiff has brought this suit for a third share of the said immoveable properties. All the four brothers being now dead, one branch is extinct, two branches are represented by sons who are 1st and 2nd defendants, and the 4th branch is represented by the plaintiff. The plaintiff obtained a decree in the District Munsif's Court, but on appeal the District Munsif's decision was reversed and her suit was dismissed with costs.2. After the death of Alamelu's husband, the three remaining brothers are alleged to have become divided, and Exhibit A is evidence of a partition affecting the plaintiff's husband, the 2nd defendant and his father. It has not been made out whethe...
Palantappa Mudali and anr. Vs. the Official Receiver of Trichinopoly a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-1914
Reported in: 25Ind.Cas.948
Hannay, J.1. In connection with the insolvency of one Chidambara Mudali, the Official Receiver of Trichinopoly applied to the District Munsif of Namakkal under Section 36 of the Provincial Insolvency Act to have two sale-deeds executed by the insolvent and others annulled. The District Munsif, however, refused to annul the sale-deeds holding that they had been effected bona fide and for valuable consideration. The sale-deeds were executed by the insolvent, his father and grandfather and covered the whole of the family property, one deed (Exhibit A) relating to the lands and the other (Exhibit B) to the family house.2. In appeal the District Judge, while finding that the consideration for the sales recited in the deeds (viz., Rs. 2,500 in Exhibit A and Rs. 700 in Exhibit B) was adequate, held that it had not been proved that more than Rs. 1,736 had actually been paid in the former case and Rs. 94 in the latter. On a consideration of certain statements made by the insolvent himself as we...
In Re: P. Venkatachallam Chetti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-1914
Reported in: 25Ind.Cas.995
1. The petitioner has been convicted of an offence under Section 9 of the Opium Act for possessing one seer of opium in contravention of the Opium Rules. The possession of the opium is admitted: in fact the petitioner himself took it to the Tahsildar's house at Nellore and produced it. It is further proved, and not denied, that a license, Exhibit A, had been issued authorizing him to transport this identical opium from Nellore to his (petitioner's) shop at Allur. The petitioner's story of how Exhibit A got out of his possession may or may not be true and there may be ground for suspecting that he contemplated a breach of the Opium Rules, as surmised by the lower Courts. But it cannot be said that up to the time he handed the drug over to the Tahsildar, he had contravened any rule.2. The conviction must be set aside and the fine, if paid, refunded. We also set aside the order of confiscation of the opium....
Akkaraju Narayana Rao and Namburi Venkatakrishna Rao Vs. Akkaraju Sesh ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad426(2); (1914)27MLJ677
1. The true question is as to whether the appeal is out of time. The appellant under Order 44 presented an application for leave to prosecute his appeal in forma pauperis accompanied by a memorandum of appeal as required by the order. The application for leave was two months out of time and was filed on the last day allowed for filing the appeal. Eight days later the court returned the application and the memorandum on the ground that the application was out of time and gave two days' time to explain the delay. Two days later the appellant again presented the memorandum of appeal with the full Court fee and applied under Section 149 that the delay should be excused. In the case of plaints insufficiently stamped Order 7, Rule 11 (Section 54 of the old Code). the Court is bound to give a few days to pay the correct fee. Delay could be excused if the insufficiency was caused by a mistake as to the amount of the requisite stamps. But under Section 149 it is now left to the discretion of th...
Muthalagiri Reddy Vs. Pappi Naicken
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad249; 25Ind.Cas.510
1. The only point of law raised is that the decision of the district Judge is based on inadmissible evidence, viz., Exhibits B, C, and D. These are deeds of sale and mortgage executed by plaintiff's witnesses Nos. 2 and 3 in which the suit land is referred to as 'Gunman's Nanja' or 'Pappanaicken's Nanja'--Pappanaicken being the plaintiff and Guruvan his father. The witnesses have deposed to the possession (not the title) of the plaintiff and his father in the suit land, and these documents have been admitted under Section 157 of the Indian Evidence Act as corroborative of their evidence. Possession (as distinguished from title) is a 'fact' within the definition of Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, and we are unable to agree with the contention of the appellant's Vakil that the word 'fact' in Section 157 is used only in the limited sense of 'event,' and does not include a continuing fact, such as possession, which is embraced by the definition.2. In our opinion the documents were ad...
Arasappa Pillai Vs. Manika Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-03-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad68; 25Ind.Cas.587
1. The plaintiff sued for a declaration of title in respect of certain lands bought by him (from, one Venkata-challam Pillai) under a registered sale-deed and for cancellation of an attachment order which had been passed against the properties. The defence was that the sale was a colourable transaction to defeat creditors and that it was for an inadequate consideration. In the Court of first instance, the plaintiff succeeded in obtaining a decree. The defendant examined no witnesses and filed no documents to prove his case. When the case came up in appeal, the District Judge, apparently suo motu, made an order remanding the case for fresh evidence to be taken and calling for a finding upon the issue whether the sale was for grossly inadequate consideration. The finding was in favour of the plaintiff, but the lower Appellate Court took the contrary view on the evidence and dismissed the plaintiff's suit.2. It is contended for the appellant that the District Judge was wrong in remanding ...
Gandla Pedda Nayanna and ors. Vs. Sivanappa and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-1914
Reported in: (1914)27MLJ520
1. The Lower Appellate Court has dismissed the suit on the pleadings on the grounds that (1) it is barred under Order II, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (2) that it is not maintainable as framed.2. The material facts are as follows:-The plaintiffs claim the suit property and are in possession of it as reversioners of Nagisetti. The (1st and 2nd) defendants husband and wife, have also been claiming it as reversioners, but under a different title derived from one Veeranna. In O.S. No. 651 of 1910 the 1st defendant obtained a decree against the 2nd defendant for a declaration of his title as Veeranna's reversioner, her mother having been the last person in possession of the property. In O.S. No. 298 of 1911 the present plaintiffs obtained a decree against the present defendants declaring their right as reversioners of Nagisetti to certain properties other than those now in suit. O.S. No. 651 was pending, when O.S. No. 298 was filed but was decided before it.3. The objection to the ...
Gandla Pedda Naganna and Two ors. Vs. Sivanappa and Two ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad348; (1915)ILR38Mad1162
Oldfield, J.1. The lower Appellate Court has dismissed this suit on the pleadings on the grounds that (1) it is barred under Order II, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, (2) that it is not maintainable as framed.2. The material facts are as follows: The plaintiffs claim the suit property and are in possession of it as reversioners of the Nagisetti. The first and second defendants, husband and wife, have also been claiming it as reversioners, but under a different title derived from one Veeranna. In Original Suit No, (651 of 1910, the first defendant obtained a decree against; the second defendant for a declaration of her title as Veeranna's reversioner, her mother having been the last person in possession of the property. In Original Suit No. 298 of 1911 the present plaintiffs obtained a decree against the present defendants, declaring their right as reversioners of Nagisetti to certain properties other than those now in suit. Original Suit No. 651 was pending, when Original Suit N...
Venkateswara Aiyar Vs. Cherasseri Madathil Ravanumi Nair
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-01-1914
Reported in: (1914)27MLJ405
Seshagiri Aiyar, J.1. O.S. No. 369 of 1905 was instituted by a next friend of the petitioner who was then a minor. Sometime after, the next friend died on the 25th October 1906 the Munsif declared that the suit abated in consequence of his death. On attaining majority, the petitioner moved in 1912 to set aside this order of abatement. The petition was dismissed on the ground that it was bound by limitation. The present suit was instituted for the same reliefs as those prayed for in O.S. No. 369 of 1905. The Subordinate Judge dismissed this suit on the ground that the order of abatement precluded the filing of a fresh suit. This petition is against that decision.2. There can be no doubt that the order directing the suit to abate was illegal. There is no provision of law which enables a Court on the death of the next friend to dismiss the suit. It was the duty of the Court to see that a new friend was appointed or to allow the suit to be pending till the minor attained majority. The orde...
Venkateswara Iyer Vs. Cherrseri Madathil Ravunni Nair
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-01-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad461; 25Ind.Cas.597
Seshagiri Aiyar, J.1. Original Suit No. 369 of 1905 was instituted by a next friend of the petitioner who was then a minor. Some time after, the next friend died; on the 25th October 1906 the Munsif declared that the suit abated in consequence of his death. On attaining majority, the petitioner moved in 1912 to set aside this order of abatement. The petition was dismissed on the ground that it was barred by limitation. The present suit was instituted for the same reliefs as those prayed for in Original Suit No. 369 of 1905. The Subordinate Judge dismissed this suit on the ground that the order of abatement precluded the filing of a fresh suit. This petition is against that decision.2. There can be no doubt that the order directing the suit to abate was illegal. There is no provision of law which enables a Court on the death of the next friend to dismiss the suit. It was the duty of the Court to see that a new friend was appointed or to allow the suit to be pending till the minor attain...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »