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.
Gajjala Yella Reddi and anr. Vs. Syed Muhamadalli Alias Dada Peeru and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-1915
Reported in: (1916)ILR39Mad1026
Abdur Rahim, J.1. This is an appeal by the decree-holders, who were the mortgagees of the property against the order of the Subordinate Judge, dated 30th September 1913, made on an application of the judgment debtors asking that an account be taken of the receipts and disbursements in respect of the income of the property, that the amount so settled be entered in satisfaction of the decree, and that the balance due by the decree-holders who were in possession of the property be paid to the petitioners, that is, the judgment-debtors and also that a direction be made for delivery of the property to them.2. A Commissioner was appointed to go into the accounts and to report to the District Judge as to the receipts and expenditure. Upon receipt of the report, the District Judge went into the matter and arrived at the finding that a sum of Rs. 14,000 and odd should be credited against the amount of the decree.3. The first objection raised before us was that no credit should have been allowed...
The Secreatry of State for India in Council Vs. Illikkal Assan, (Died) ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-1915
Reported in: (1916)30MLJ255
1. We think that a notice under Section 7 calling on the person in occupation to show cause why he should not be proceeded against under Section 5 or Section 6 of the Act, does not give rise to a cause of action. This was pointed out in Narayana Pillai v. Secretary of State : (1912)23MLJ162 and if the learned Judges who decided Bhaskaradu v. Subbarayudu (1913) 26 M.L.J. 60, were of a different opinion we are with respect unable to agree with them. Further whether the present suit be regarded as based on the notice under Section 7, or on the levy of penal assessment in June 1910, more than six months before the date of suit, it is in either view barred under Section 14 because it was not instituted within six months from the time at which the cause of action arose....
Akbar HussaIn Sahib and anr. Vs. Shoukhah Begam Saheba (Died) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad152; 31Ind.Cas.657
Coutts-Trotter, J.1. This is an appeal by two youths, who are the sons of a lady called Mahfil Nagir Bee. They bring this action against a number of relatives of the late Nawab of Masulipatam, as he was called by courtesy, to have it declared that they are the legitimate sons of the late Nawab and entitled to take part in the partition of his landed property.2. The question that has to be determined can be put in two ways. In the first place, has it been affirmatively shown that Mahfil Nagir Bee was a wife of the late Nawab? Secondly, it may be put in another way--do the known circumstances of the relations of the Nawab and his family to Mahfil Nagir Bee lead to the presumption that a marriage must have taken place, though no definite date can be assigned3. The first question, therefore, is one of fact--is it true or is it proved that a marriage actually took place between the Nawab and this lady? If she was married to the Nawab, it is not contended that she was married in any other fo...
Krishna Bhatta and ors. Vs. Udayavar Srinivasa Shambagu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.97
ORDER1. The objection taken before us is that the plaintiffs were not competent to sue on behalf of the temple under Clauses 16, 21 and 22 of Exhibit I, the award under which they hold the office of trustees of the temple. It is argued that these clauses entitle only a majority of the five trustees to sue. The clause relating to powers to sue is Clause 21, which empowers a suit to be brought even though some of the trustees are opposed to it, on the condition that the trustees unwilling to sue are made a party defendants. But Clause 21 refers to Clause 16 and it is argued that by implication, unless the requirements of Clause 16 are satisfied, a suit cannot be properly instituted. Assuming that this contention is correct, that Clause 16 applies to the institution of suits, we do not consider that its provisions are fatal to the present suit. Clause 16, in our opinion, provides(1) that if the trustees are unanimous their acts will bind the temple;(2) if the trustees are divided, then if...
Naina Pillai Maracayar Vs. Arumuga Mudaly
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad805; 31Ind.Cas.387
1. In this suit, a decree for possession and past mesne profits was passed on the 30th March 1904. There are a number of defendants in the suit 3 and the 15th defendant was in possession of the land to which the appeal relates. On the 1st August 1904, he gave notice to the plaintiff that he was willing to surrender possession of the land. The plaintiff said that it was too late for purposes of its cultivation, and that she would not then take possession. Thereupon the 15th defendant made an application to the Court and plaintiff took possession in October, but the land remained uncultivated. The question we are asked to deal with is whether, as a matter of fact, when the 15th defendant was willing to surrender possession or rather gave notice to the plaintiff, it was not too late for cultivation. The learned Subordinate Judge has come to the conclusion that it was rather late in the year for that purpose. We have heard full arguments on the point, but are not prepared to differ from th...
Ayyakutti Mankondan Vs. Periasami Koundan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad709(1); 31Ind.Cas.615
1. We think that Exhibit VIII is a formal declaration of division of status attested by witnesses and that as such, it affects the immoveable properties mentioned therein, and is inadmissible in evidence. We accordingly direct Exhibit VIII and the evidence relating thereto to be excluded from the record, and have decided to call en the District Judge to submit revised findings on issues 1 and 4 on the evidence on record. The findings should be submitted in six weeks. Seven days will be allowed for filing objections. The other questions are reserved.2. In compliance with the order contained in the above judgment, the District Judge of Madura submitted findings which were in favour of the appellant and the High Court, accepting the same, set aside the decree of the lower Appellate Court and restored that of the Munsif with costs in the High Court and the lower Appellate Court....
Soundararajan (Minor by His Mother and Next Friend, Kannammal) Vs. T.R ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-1915
Reported in: (1916)ILR39Mad159
John Wallis, C.J. 1. The arguments in favour of a negative answer to the reference have been very ably presented by Mr. A. Krishnaawami Ayyar, but after all it comes back to this, what is the effect to be given to the following passage in the judgment of their Lordships of the Judicial Committee in Suraj Narain v. Iqbal Narain I.L.R. (1913) Mad. 239: 'The principle applicable to cases of separation from the joint undivided family has been clearly enuneiated by this Board in Rewun Persad v. Mussumat Radha Beeby (1846) 4 M.I.A. 137 and the well known case Appovier v. Rama Subba Aiyan (1866) M.I.A. 75. What may amount to a separation or what conduct on the part of some of the members may lead to disruption of the joint undivided family and convert a joint tenancy into a tenancy in common must depend on the facta of each case. A definite and unambiguous indication by one member of intention to separate himself and to enjoy his share in severalty may amount to separation. But to have that e...
Nalam Viswanatham Vs. the Official Assignee of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.795
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1.These three cases have arisen out of the same order passed by Mr. Justice Bake well on a notice of motion taken out by the Official Assignee in the matter of the insolvency of Nalam Venkataratnam, who was adjudicated as an insolvent on the 30th March 1911. The notice of motion was taken out on the 21st April 1911. The prayers of the motion were for a declaration that the insolvent was guilty of fraudulent preferences in drawing 16 hundis for Rs. 21,682 in favour of Nalam Viswanatham Chetty between the 10th and 13th March 1911 and a hundi in favour of Chikka Padmavathi for Rs. 5,000 on the 11th March 1911 and for directing the said Nalam Viswanatham to pay to the Official Assignee Rs. 10,500 realised on foot of 7 of the 16 hundis or in the alternative that he should be directed to pay Rs. 5,500, and Chikka Padamavathi should be directed to pay the remaining Rs. 5,000. Nalam Viswanatham and Chikka Padmavathi were the two respondents in this notice of motion. Padmavath...
The Secretary of State for India in Council, Represented by the Collec ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad209(2); 31Ind.Cas.590
John Wallis, C.J.1. This is a suit brought by the plaintiff to declare that the properties in South Canara of the late Zalle Subraya, who appears from Exhibit N to have died in that district in the year Parthiva, 1825--6, escheated to the Crown for want of heirs on the death of his widow Manjamma, who appears to have died at an advanced age in January 1906 at Benares. The suit was brought against the defendant in possession, and the latter in his written statement set up the existence, among other alleged heirs, of the junior widow and the senior widow's daughter and daughter's son of one Venkatapathaya, who are described as residing at Shimoga in the Mysore State. The Subordinate Judge has rejected the case set up as to the other alleged heirs but has held that the descendants of Venkatapathaya are in the line of heirs of the deceased. Before dealing with the facts of this somewhat extraordinary case, it will be well to refer to what their Lordships have laid down in Gridhari Lall v. ...
Soundararajam, Minor, by His Mother and Next Friend Kannammal Vs. T.R. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad1170(2); 33Ind.Cas.858a
John Wallis, C.J.1. The plaintiff in this suit, as the illegitimate son by a dancing woman of the late Ramasawmi Chettiar, a Nattukottai Chetty, seeks to recover a one-third share of the joint family properties, as against the legitimate son, the 1st defendant, who would otherwise take the whole by survivorship. The Subordinate Judge found that the paternity of the plaintiff was not proved and dismissed the suit. We are unable to agree with this conclusion.2. The deceased, as found by the Subordinate Judge, appears to have become acquainted with the plaintiff's mother in 1900, when she had for some years been carrying on the profession of a dancing girl and a prostitute. He set her up in a house at Srirangam, near Trichinopoly, where he carried on business, and lived with her there for some years. Shortly before the plaintiff's birth, early in 1903, he was imprisoned for fraud, and the correspondence shows that he regarded the child about to be born as his and that subsequently he reco...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »