Chennai Court October 1915 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.
Ratnam Alias Nanjunda Chetty and ors. Vs. Kolandai Ramasamy Chetti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad927; 31Ind.Cas.536
Coutts-Trotter, J.1. In this ease, certain matters in the suit were referred to arbitrators who duly returned their award into Court. The petitioners filed objections to this award and the Judge declined to hear them on the ground that they were out of time. A glance at his diary, and at the section of the Limitation Act, shows that they were not out of time.2. Now it is said that my discretion in this matter is restricted by rules of law, and that in obedience to the principle laid down in the decided cases, I must decline to interfere. What that principle exactly is, has not been made very clear to me either by Mr. V.C. Seshacharriar's researches or my own. But it seems to me formulated in some such way as this: you must not interfere with errors of fact or errors of law or wrong decisions as to limitation. You must only interfere where the lower Court has either purported to exercise a jurisdiction which it does not possess, or declined to exercise a jurisdiction which it does posse...
T.B.K. Viswanathaswami Naiker Vs. Kamulu Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1915
Reported in: 31Ind.Cas.833
1. The first question to be decided is whether the plaintiff, as the illegitimate son of his deceased father, is entitled to share equally with his widow, the 1st defendant, or whether he is only entitled to half of her share, i.e., to 1/3rd of the properties. In a series of cases in Madras beginning with Ranoji v. Kandoji 8 M.P 557, it has been held that an illegitimate son succeeding to his deceased father along with a widow, daughter or daughter's son is entitled to half of the properties and not merely to one-third Parvathi v. Thirumalai 10 M.P 334, Chinnammal v. Varadarajulu 15 M.P 37, Meenakshi Anni v. Appakutti 4 Ind. Cas. 299 ; 33 M.L.T. 26 : 20 M.L.J. 359. In Rahi v. Govinda 1 B.K 97, Chief Justice Westropp elaborately reviewed all the texts of Hindu Law dealing with the rights of an illegitimate son and came to the conclusion (as we understand the judgment) that the illegitimate son was entitled to a half share of the properties; and in Shesgiri v. Girewa 14 B.K 282 Sargent, ...
Subba Reddi Vs. Alagammal and anr. and
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1915
Reported in: 31Ind.Cas.674
John Wallis, C.J.1. The only question of any difficulty in this case is whether Exhibit VI is to be construed as effecting a division in status as well as a division of the specific properties with which it deals expressly. This appears to me to be mainly a question of the construction of the document. In Vaidyanatha Aiyar v. Aiyasamy Aiyar 32 M.M 191 : 19 M.L.J. 94 : 5 M.L.T. 49, where a partial partition of property was held to raise a presumption of division in status, there was no deed of partition and I do not think that case is an authority for holding that wherever the co-parceners execute a document dividing a particular item of property that raises a presumption that they intended to become divided in status. If such a presumption is to be raised, there must, in my opinion, be something else in the document to raise it. This was a case of partition between the 1st defendant and his father, the 1st defendant being the son by the second of the father's three wives, and the parti...
Gnanambal Ammal Vs. Veerasami Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad1022; 31Ind.Cas.920; 1916 29 MLJ 698
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. Her paternal uncle Narayanasawmi Chetty died in March 1899 leaving a Will dated May 1898. Under the terms of that Will, the plaint lands (11 and odd acres) were given to the plaintiff and to the plaintiffs; mother (the 2nd defendant). The plaintiff was to take 4 acres 36 cents absolutely and the 2nd defendant to take the remaining 6 acres 65 cents for life with reversion to the plaintiff. Narayanasawmi Chetty also left a widow, the 3rd defendant, to whom other properties were left by his Will. He owed money at his death to one B.M. Marakayar. That creditor, not knowing the existence of the Will and having to bring his suit for the debt before it was barred, filed Small Cause Suit No. 1068 of 1899 soon, after the death of Narayanasawmy Chetty treating his widow (3rd defendant) and his illegitimate son as the heirs and legal representatives of Narayanasawmy Chetty. He also found that the 3rd defendant was in possession of the plaint la...
Subba Reddi Vs. Alagammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1915
Reported in: 47Ind.Cas.552
John Wallis, C.J.1. The only question of any difficulty in this case is whether Ex. VI is to be construed as effecting a division in status as well as a division of the specific properties with which it deals expressly. This appears to me to be mainly a question of the construction of the document. In Vaidyanatha Iyer v. Aiyaswami Aiyar 19 M.L.J. 94, where a partial partition of property was held to raise a presumption of division in status, there was no deed of partition and I do not think that case is an authority for holding that wherever the co-parceners execute a document dividing a particular item of property that raises a presumption that they intended to become divided in status. If such a presumption is to be raised, there must in my opinion be something else in the document to raise it. This was a case of partition between the 1st defendant and his father, the 1st defendant being the son by the second of the father's three wives, and the partition was brought about by the fat...
A.T.S.A. Annamalai Chetty and ors. Vs. S.V. Velayuda Nadar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-22-1915
Reported in: (1916)30MLJ51
1. We agree with Sadasiva Aiyar, J., and for the reasons given by him, that Article 80 is the article applicable and that time began to run from the expiry of the period fixed in Exhibit B. Such an agreement to give time is operative in India under Sections 62 and 63 of the Indian Contract Act, and is recognised by the Legislature in Article 73 of the Limitation Act which excludes on demand bills and notes from the operation of the article when they are accompanied by any writing restraining or postponing the right to sue. Lastly such agreements appear to be expressly saved by the provision in Section 32 of the Negotiable Instruments Act which provides that notes and bills are payable at maturity according to the apparent tenor of the note on acceptance, only in the absence of a contract to the contrary, thus expressly recognising that such a contract may postpone the date of payment. We think that Simon v. Hakim Mahomed Sheriff I.L.R. (1891) M. 368, and Somasundara Chettiar v. Narasim...
In Re: N. Venugopal Mudaly
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-22-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad1098; 31Ind.Cas.353
Abdur Rahim, J.1. I think that in this case there can be no doubt that the convictions are right. The accused somehow or other got hold of orders sent to two different firms and sent value payable articles to the persons who had sent the orders. In one case it appears that the articles sent were not what were wanted, though, as stated, it may be that the market price of the articles actually sent was the same as or even a little more than the price of the articles ordered. In the other case, it appears that three tins of a particular medicine were wanted, and the accused sent two larger tins. The evidence is that they were practically of the same value as the three tins ordered. The accused in common with a large number of other persons in Georgetown carry on the business of what is called 'V.P. firms'; that is to say, when men Jiving outside Madras want certain articles which are to be had at the market these men receive their orders, buy the articles and send them by value payable pa...
A.L.A.R. Arunachelum Chetty by His Authorised Agent, Subramania Aiyar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-22-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad490; 31Ind.Cas.539
1. The first point argued before us, relates to the landlord's claim to an extra charge for 'vanpayir,' (i.e.,) garden crops raised on dry lands by means of wells dug at the tenants' expense. Both the lower Courts have held that this charge is illegal.2. There is no dispute that the wells in question were dug at the tenants' expense: nor, on the other hand, that in spite of this fact, the extra charge has been levied for many years'--the Sub-Collector says, 'from time immemorial,' which we must take to mean ever since the wells were dug, and their water used for raising the garden crops.' But there does not appear to be any finding as to the length of time during which payment has been made in any particular case.3. The respondents rely on Section 13(3) of the Madras Estates Land Act to support the decision of the lower Courts. The appellant contends that the charge is made in pursuance of a contract prior to the introduction of the Act: and that, as held in Venkata Perwmal Raju v. Ram...
Madhava Bhumj Santo Vs. Sri Sri Sri Ramachandra Mardaraj Deogaru Being ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad970(2); 31Ind.Cas.468
Coutts-Trotter, J.1. This was a suit for rent due under a muchilika of the 3rd November 1908, executed to the late Raja of Kallikota by the defendant; and in addition to the arrears of rent claimed, as to which there is no dispute, a claim was also made in respect of interest, which was made payable under the instrument, at the rate of 12 per cent, per annum on the arrears.2. The defendant's case with regard to interest was that he had had a meeting with the Tahsildar and the Manager in November 1911, that he had pointed out that he was quite unable to realise any rent due to him from the ryots, that it would be a great hardship to him to pay interest and that the Manager agreed to remit interest up to date; and in conformity with it, he (defendant) produced Exhibit III in which an account is drawn up giving him credit for a sum of Rs. 10 which he then paid. In that account, the ten rupees is divided up and credited bit by bit against the various instalments due; and the balance is bro...
Muthukrishna Pillai Vs. M.A. Rajam Aiyengar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-1915
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.357; 33Ind.Cas.357; (1916)30MLJ57
1. We have heard the Pleaders on both sides relating to this matter, and though the question discussed before us is not entirely free from diffculties, on the whole we are inclined to take the view of the law applicable to the case which found favour with Mr. justice Hannay. We think the question whether the amendement of the plaint as asked for amounts in law to the substitution of a new plaintiff, is really covered by the Privy Council decision in Peary Mohan Mukerji v. Norendra nath Mukerji (1). In that case there was a debutter estate which does not appear to have been properly represented. After the expiration of the Period of limitation prescribed for the suit, an enquiry was ordered in order to determine who should be appointed as the shebit so that he may represent the estate; one of the defendants was found to be so entitled, and was impleaded as shebit. It was held by the Calcutta High Court and by thier lordship of the Privy Council that this did not amount to adding a new d...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »