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.
Sri Sri Sri Vikrama Deo Garu Vs. Sri Sri Sri Vikarama Deo Maharajulang ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad670(1); 31Ind.Cas.272
William Ayling, J.1. I am by no means clear that the decree of this Court in so far as petitioner wishes to appeal from it, should not be regarded as on confirming the decree of the Agent Vide Raja Sree Nath Roy v. Secretary of State 8 C.W.N. 294, and there appears to be no substantial question of law involved in this appeal. As however, my learned brother is: clearly of opinion that the appeal lies, and as ah appeal has already been admitted by the opposite party against other portions of the decree I do not feel called upon to differ. I, therefore, agree, the more so as I think in dealing with an application for leave to appeal, the petitioner should have the benefit of any doubt in the order granting certificate.Phillips, J.2. Objection is taken to this application for permission to appeal to the Privy Council on the ground that although the subject-matter of the appeal is Rs. 10,000 in value, the decree of this Court is an affirming decree in so far as the rate of the maintenance c...
Chirakkal Pudiamadathummal Peringati Koyatti Haji Vs. Chirakkal Pudiam ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad962; 31Ind.Cas.446
1. In this case two persons applied for certificatie succession to a deceased man who was a member of a Muhammadan family in Malabar. The appellant was an anandravan of the deceased's tavazhi and the respondent was the Karnaran of the tavazhi as well as of the main tarwad. The appellant asked for a certificate with respect to certain property, which he alleged was the self-acquired property of the deceased. The learned District Judge has dismissed the petition of the appellant, on the ground that by virtue of a certain karar whatever property the deceased might acquire in his life-time, belonged to the tavazhi; so that the Will under which the appellant claimed the certificate was not operative in respect of the property of the deceased. The karar is a family settlement and what is its effect, so far as this matter is concerned, depends upon the proper interpretation of paragraph 5. What that paragraph says is: The properties acquired, by the members of each tavazhi as their own as wel...
In Re: Kalluru Ramalingam and Three ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-1915
Reported in: AIR1915Mad1033; (1917)ILR40Mad100
Abdur Rahim, J.1. These are applications to set aside an order under Section 476, Criminal Procedure Code. The order was passed by the District Munsif in the course of a certain execution proceeding in his Court. It appears that the property attached in execution of the decree was alleged to have been sold by the judgment-debtor to a third person and the vendee put in a claim. The consideration for the deed of sale was two promissory notes which the learned District Munsif had reasons to suspect were forgeries. The claimant did not appear in support of his claim, but the District Munsif examined the executant of the promissory notes as well as an attestor of one of the promissory notes and he then came to the conclusion that the petitioners, i.e., the executant of the notes and the attestors should be prosecuted as he was of opinion that the notes were forged documents. The question before us is whether Section 476 applies at all to this matter. The section says that any Civil, Crimina...
In Re: Kallaru Ramalingam and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-1915
Reported in: 31Ind.Cas.653
Abdur Rahim, J.1. These are applications to set aside an order under Section 476 Criminal Procedure Code. The order was passed by the District Munsif in the course of a certain execution proceeding in his Court. It appears that the property attached in execution of the decree was alleged to have been sold by the judgment-debtor to a third person and the vendee put in a claim. The consideration for the deed of sale was two promissory notes which the learned District Munsif had reasons to suspect were forgeries. The claimant did not appear in support of his claim, but the District Munsif examined the executant of the promissory notes as well as an attestor of one of the promissory notes and he then cams to the conclusion that the petitioners, i.e., the executant of the notes and the attestors should be prosecuted, as he was of opinion that the notes were forged documents. The question before us is whether Section 476 applies at all to this matter. The section says that any Civil, Crimina...
Thotakura Govindu Vs. Pepakayala Mallayya Alias Tatabbayi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-1915
Reported in: 31Ind.Cas.678
Phillips, J.1. Plaintiff-appellant is the assignee of the equity of redemption in the plaint lands, which were mortgaged in 1882 to the grandmother of defendants-respondents. It is respondents' case that in 1884 four items of the mortgaged property were sold orally to the mortgagees in discharge of the mortgage-debt. This case has been found to be true by the lower Appellate Court. It is also found that the alleged sale being oral is invalid, as the property is worth over Rs. 100, but as defendants and their grandmother have been in adverse possession from 1884 until date of suit in 1910, they have acquired a title by prescription. Plaintiff's suit for redemption and for accounts from defendants as mortgagees in possession has been dismissed. The appeal is pressed on three main grounds:(1) that the plea of oral sale has been negatived and that the matter is res judicata by reason of the decision in Original Suit No. 19 of 1890 in the Peddapur District Munsif's Court,(2) that the posses...
In Re: Hassan Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad1028(1); 30Ind.Cas.1004
ORDERWilliam Ayling, J.1. This reference involves the question of whether sand falls within the category of 'other building material' in Bylaw No. 45 of the Ootacamund Municipality.2. The By-Law runs as follows: 'Every vehicle used within the Municipality for the conveyance of bricks, stone, metal, or other building materials shall be so constructed that the contents shall be duly secured therein during transit through the public streets. Owners of vehicles failing to secure such conditions shall be liable to a fine not exceeding Rs. 20.'3. The majority of the Bench were of opinion that sand should be regarded as 'other building material'. One member of the Bench, Mr. Parsons, in a very able minute of dissent took the opposite view, in which he is supported by the Sessions Judge, who has referred the case under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The question is one by no means easy of decision: but on the whole it appears to me that the view of the dissenting Magistrate is cor...
Arunachalam Chetty (Died) and ors. Vs. Ramanathan Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad1195; 31Ind.Cas.664
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. After hearing the arguments of the appellants' learned Vakil, I am of opinion that no misconstruction of any doments or the ignoring of any material evidence by the lower Appellate Court has been established . Then, it was contended that the lower Appellate Court had failed to give effect toe the doctrine that where a public path is admitted to be the boundary between two estates, the presumption is that the soil up to half the breadth of the road belongs to each estate. Assuming that that presumption is applicable in India, it must be confined to cases where it is clearly proved, or both sides are agreed, that the limits of each village do not extend beyond the offside of the path In this case, the plaintiffs claimed in their plaint that besides the whole width of the path, something beyond to the west of that breadth belonged to their village and the defendants made a similar claim as regards some breadth east of the path and the Courts could not come to any conc...
Mohideen Bee Et Al Vs. Syed Meer Saheb Et Al
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad1122; (1915)ILR38Mad1099
1. The plaintiffs in this case are the heirs of one Syed Oomer Sahib who died about nineteen years ago leaving three sons and three daughters all of whom attained their majority considerably more than three years before this suit. Syed Oomer had a brother Syed Meer who survived him and is the first defendant in the case. The plaint itself is very difficult to understand as it appears to intermingle Muhammadan and Hindu law in a very confused manner; but paragraph 7 sets out that Syed Oomer carried on business jointly with his brother the first defendant and that the properties set out in Schedule A 'were purchased out of the moneys acquired in the said joint business and the sale-deeds thereof were clandestinely secured by the first defendant in his own name.' Clearly the allegation is that the two brothers carried on a partnership business which was dissolved by the death of Syed Oomer and that the properties set out in Schedule A are part of the assets. It is perfectly clear that the...
In Re: Ramasamier and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-1915
Reported in: 30Ind.Cas.1001
ORDERWilliam Ayling, J.1. The order of the second Class Magistrate of Pattukottah, dated 12th April 1915, purporting to dispose of Calendar Case No. 1308 of 1918 runs as follows: 'In this case, while the trial was proceeding the complainant is dead, and so it abates and is closed without any judgment.'2. There is no abatement of a criminal case on the death of complianant and the order is illegal and of no effect whatever. Calendar Case No. 1308 of 1913 must be regarded as still pending.3. The subsequent complaint presented by Singaravela Thevan, which has been taken on file and numbered as Calendar Case No. 341 of 1915, admittedly related to exactly the same facts, as those which formed the subject-matter of the Calendar Case No. 1308 of 1913. It should, therefore, have been dismissed under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Instead of this the Magistrate directed that it should be filed and process issued under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.4. Under Sectio...
Mohideen Bee and ors. Vs. Syed Meer Saheb and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.1002
Bakewell, J.1. The plaintiffs in this case are the heirs of one Syed Oomer Sahib who died about nineteen years ago, leaving three sons and three daughters all of whom attained their majority considerably more than three years before this suit. Syed Oomer had a brother Syed Meer who survived him and is the first defendant in the case. The plaint itself is very difficult to understand as it appears to intermingle Muhammadan and Hindu Law in a very confused manner; but paragraph 7 sets out that Syed Oomer carried on business jointly with his brother, the first defendant, and that the properties set out in Schedule A 'were purchased out of the moneys acquired in the said joint business and the sale-deeds thereof were clandestinely secured by the first defendant in his own name.' Clearly the allegation is that the two brothers carried on a partnership business which was dissolved by the death of Syed Oomer and that the properties set out in Schedule A are part of the assets. It is perfectly...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »