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.
Ramalingam Pillai, Agent of Two Minors of Late Chittoorsami thevar Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad640(2); 31Ind.Cas.176
ORDERWilliam Ayling, J.1. The order of the Subordinate Judge, Exhibit A, is passed under Order XXI, Rule 96, of the Civil Procedure Code, which applies only to cases in which the property is in actual possession of a third party--in this case, the present petitioners: and the Subordinate Judge is very careful to state that it does not prejudice their right to the interest claimed by them (petitioners) or their right to resist Periasami Thevan (under whom respondent claims) when he seeks physical possession. Exhibit B, the delivery attakshi, is to the same effect.2. These proceedings have no bearing whatever on the actual possession of the lands in dispute, which is the only subject of enquiry under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code.3. The Joint Magistrate relying on Exhibits A and B, has declined to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him of enquiring into the actual possession of the lands and passing an order in favour of the party in whom such actual possession is found to ...
A. Bharadwaja Mudaliar Vs. Kolandavelu Mudaliar Alias Kolandavelu Naic ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-06-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad136; 31Ind.Cas.786
John Wallis, C.J.1. The legacy in this case is of six acres of good irrigated nanja lands in the village of Pudur. Assuming that the legacy is out of the nanja lands owned by the testator, the Will does not say -which of them the legatee is to have; and in England such a bequest would have been held void for uncertainty, but for the benevolent rule of construction that the testator is intended to have left the choice to the legatee: Tapley v. Eagleton (1879) 12 Ch. D. 683 : 28 W.R. 239, Bacon's Abridged Title, Election A, and the other authorities referred to in Narayanasami Gramani v. Periathambi Gratnani 18 M.P 460, where the rule was applied and recognised. The reasons for reading into the Will something that is not there, viz., that the legatee should himself make the selection, was that without such a provision, the legacy was regarded as bad for uncertainty. In the present case unfortunately, the legatee died without making the election, and the accepted view in England would app...
S.M. Thayelbagam Pillai Vs. M. Venkatarama Krishnayan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-06-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad1058; 33Ind.Cas.858
1. The grantee under Exhibit 5, from whom the plaintiff (respondent) claims title, is estopped from setting up any title in himself inconsistent with the title put forward in Exhibit 5 by the grantor from whom the grantee obtained the possession of the plaint lands. The plaintiff is also similarly estopped. Section 116 of the Evidence Act is not exhaustive on the doctrine of estoppel [see Kadakam Valle Maru Mille Sankarani Moosad v. Othenan Nair 10 Ind. Cas. 339 : (1911) 2 M.W.N. 61; Seshamma Shettati v. Chickaya Hegade 25 M.P 507 : 12 M.L.J. 119 and Alamelu Ammal v. Balu Ammal 26 Ind. Cas. 455 : (1915) M.W.N. 26 : 16 M.L.T. 592 : 28 M.L.J. 685.2. The title of the grantor was mentioned in Exhibit 5 as a right to be in possession of the lands themselves as attached to the office of Sree Bhandaram in the gift of the grantor, to grant the lands themselves as endowments to the person appointed to the office and to get back the lands for the office when the holder of the office for the time...
Venkatasubbier and ors. Vs. Muthusami Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-05-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad901; 31Ind.Cas.487
Phillips, J.1. The suit lands in this case were part of the estate of one Yegnasamy, who died in 1863, His estate passed to the hands of his mother Subbalu, and in August 1863, she executed an agreement (Exhibit A) by which she gave 3/8ths of the estate to her mother- in-law Chellathammal, reserving 5/8ths for herself. In 1864 Chellathammal purported: to sell 1/8th to plaintiff's father (Exhibit VII), 1/8th to Ramanatha Dikshitar (Exhibit VIII), and 1/8th to Subramania Sastri, but it has been found that the transfer was really a gift to the grandsons of her three daughters, i.e., plaintiff, Ramanatha Dikshitar and Subramania Sastri. On 5th June 1871, plaintiff and his father sold 1/8th share to Kuppusawmy Dikshitar (Exhibit I), and on the same day Ramanatha Dikshitar sold his share to the same man (Exhibit II). Subramania Sastri subsequently sold his share in 1909 under Exhibit V. Subbalu did not die until 1911 and now plaintiff sues as reversioner to Yegnasamy to recover his estate. P...
Rebala Babu Reddi Vs. Dodla Rami Reddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-05-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad1219(2); 31Ind.Cas.978
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The District Judge was clearly in error in relying on the case of Subramanian Chetty v. Veerabadran Chetty 31 M.P 442 : 4 M.L.T. 104 : 18 M.L.J. 452 which was decided under the old Code of Civil Procedure which did not contain provisions similar to those found in Order XLI, Rule 33, introduced for the first time in the new Code. He was entitled, in order to promote the ends of justice, to make the 1st defendant a party respondent to the appeal and to pass a decree against him in favour of the plaintiff under Order XLI, Rule 33, if the Court of first instance had erroneously exonerated the 1st defendant. See Jadunandan Prosad Singha v. Koer Kallyan Singh 13 Ind. Cas. 653 : 16 C.W.N. 612 : 15 C.L.J. 61 : Munisami Mudaly v. Abbu Reddy 27 Ind. Cas. 323 : 27 M.L.J. 740 : (1915) M.W.N. 45 : 38 M.P 705 and Imbichunni Nair v. Narayana Nambudri 21 Ind. Cas. 767 : (1913) M.W.N. 1024.2. But I do not think that this is a fit case for interference in revision against an interlo...
Rajam Aiyar Vs. Anantharatnam Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-04-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad958(2); 31Ind.Cas.318
1. This appeal raises a question of limitation. The lower Courts have held that the appellant's petition for execution was barred and that the alleged part payments which are relied upon to save limitation, though made within three years and would therefore be operative for that purpose, did not have the desired effect, because they were certified to the Court by the decree holder more than three years after the date of the last application. The matter has to be construed with reference to Section 20 of the Limitation Act read along with Order XXI, Rule 2, of the Civil Procedure Code.2. Section 20 of the Limitation Act says that, 'debt' within the meaning of the action includes money payable under a decree or order of the Court. The learned Pleader for the respondents has argued his clients' case on the basis that there is no distinction to be drawn between a decree and money payable under a decree of the Court. For the purposes of this section it is rightly conceded that there is no p...
K. Chidambaram Pillai Vs. M.S. Doraiswamy Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-04-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad974; 31Ind.Cas.473
Seshagiri Aiyar, J.1. The plaintiff's assignor executed a deed, of mortgage in favour of the defendant on the 17th August 1898. It was a simple mortgage-bond. Six years after, in November 1904, a document which is styled as bogia patram was executed by the mortgagor to the mortgagee. The terms of the document are that the defendant should be in possession for five years under it and credit the rent fixed towards the interest due under the mortgage of 1898 and that if, after the five years are over, the defendant continues in possession of the property, he should credit the rent towards the interest on the mortgage-debt, I have no doubt that this document is a lease. The fact that it is for five years and the other circumstance that provision has been made for holding over, make that position clear.. The rent is fixed: only the lessee is directed to apply the amount for the interest due under the mortgage document. It was contended before me that this lease-deed supersedes the original ...
Sri Sri Sri Ramachandra Mardaraja Deo, Zamindar of Kallikota and Allag ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-04-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad891(2); 31Ind.Cas.852
1. We think that this is a suit which ought to be tried by a Civil Court and not by the Revenue Court. The suit is to recover a certain gum of money from the defendants who were an occupation of land belonging to the plaintiff, which was let to them for the purpose of building houses. That is the exact language which occurs in the muchilika and in the plaint. It is true that in both these documents the land is described as 'jerayati' land, and it is upon the use of that word that the learned Pleader for the respondents has based his arguments and asked us to say that the defendants are ryots and that the land is their occupancy holding and so on. These inferences do not, it seems to us, necessarily arise from the use of the word 'jerayati'. 'Jerayati' may mean cultivable land but it is also used in this Presidency as opposed to inam land.2. Section 3 of the Estates Land Act defines rent as meaning 'whatever is lawfully payable in money or in kind or in both to a landholder for the use ...
Palaniyandi Pandaram and ors. Vs. Palaniappa thevan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-04-1915
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.651
ORDERWilliam Ayling, J.1. The first contention of petitioners (Palaniandi Pandaram and others) is that the dispute between the parties is not one falling within the purview of either Section 145 or Section 147 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Joint Magistrate has omitted to specify the provision of law under which his order is passed: but the dispute is described as follows: 'a dispute...concerning the management of Selva Vinayagar Temple and the lands attached thereto...and with regard to the performance of puja in that temple.'2. The dispute regarding the lands undoubtedly comes under Section 145 and petitioners' Vakil does not now seek to attack the Order so far as it relates to the lands.3. There remains the question of the management of the temple and the performance of puja therein.4. To disputes of this kind, Section 147 seems' to me to be inapplicable. That section deals simply with disputes regarding 'the use of any land or water.' The words, land or water' are used in t...
Kunthalammal Vs. P.N.K. Suryaprakasaroya Mudaliar Et Al
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-01-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad17; (1915)ILR38Mad1096
1. One Dakahinamurthi Mudaliar was entitled to certain moneys in this Court under decree in Suit No. 45 of 1889. By an order in that suit, dated the 37th March 1893, certain moneys amounting to Rs. 4,056-12-3 were directed to be transferred by the Registrar to the Accountant-General for investment. These moneys represented certain jewels which were found to be part of the inheritance of Dakshinamurthi Mudaliar and not to have passed under the will of his father. At the date of the decree Dakshinamurthi Mudaliar was a minor, but having attained his majority he applied, in February 1904, for payment out of the funds in Court; and it appears from Exhibits H and H-l, the certificate of funds issued by the Accountant-General that his application was confined to the moneys specified in that certificate. Owing to some mistake on the part of the legal advisers of the plaintiff in that suit, the moneys in the hands of the Registrar of the Court were not transferred to the Accountant-General in ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »