Chennai Court November 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.
Yechuri Ramamurthi Vs. Yechuri Ramamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1915
Reported in: (1916)30MLJ308
Coutts Trotter, J.1. My learned brother will give Judgment in this case. I concur in his Judgment and adopt it, and it will stand as the Judgment of the Court.Srinivasa Aiyangar, J.2. The plaintiff, his father Narasayya, Gurumurthi his eldest brother and Venkataratnam the 4th defendant were members of a joint Hindu family. On the 29th of January 1904 while the plaintiff was a minor of the age of 15 or thereabouts the father and the sons (the plaintiff being represented by the father) divided the family properties which consisted of about 6 acres of land and some house sites. There was a deed of partition, Ex. XVII in the case.3. In that partition 3 1/2, acres were allotted to the plaintiff while his brother Gurumurthi and Venkataratnam got a little over 1 acre each. The father retained no portion of the ancestral property except two mango trees. A larger share was allotted to the plaintiff on the ground that he was a minor whose Upanayanam and marriage had not been performed. Besides t...
James Russel Mclaren and ors. Vs. V. Veeriah Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad1038(2); (1915)ILR38Mad1102; 32Ind.Cas.1003
Bakewell, J.1. By a decree of this Court, dated 20th of February 1900, the two defendants in the suit were ordered to pay to the plaintiffs the sum of Rs. 10,938-11-0 and interest thereon and costs, On the 24th February 1903, one of the plaintiffs in the suit presented an application for execution of this decree which prayed that notice under Section 248 of the Code of Civil Procedure might issue to the first defendant to appear and show cause why execution of the decree should not issue and for attachment of a decree in another suit awarding costs to the first defendant. Notice was issued accordingly to the first defendant and on 3rd March 1903 an order was made granting leave to execute as prayed.2. On the 25th February 1914 the transferee from the same plaintiff presented this application for execution of the decree, which states that the -last order in execution is that of 3rd March 1903 and prays that the name of the transferee may be brought on record and leave to execute the dec...
Lakshumanan Chettiar and ors. Vs. Bommachi Naicker and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.416
John Wallis, C.J.1. The main question argued before us in this appeal is as to whether the deed, Exhibit A, is without consideration in so far as it imposes a personal liability upon the 5th defendant, who was then in the line of succession and subsequently in 1905 succeeded to the zemindari of Ammayanaickanoor. The peculiar tenure of the zemindari was established in Sivasubramania Naicker v. Krishnammal 18 M.k 287 and the inability of the reversioners to mortgage their chance of succession in Ramasami Nath v. Ramasami Chetti 17 M.L.J. 201, subsequently to the date of the plaint mortgage. Under the decision in Sivasubramania Naicker v. Krishnammal 18 M.k 287 each zemindar takes a life-estate and as pointed out in Ramasami Naik v. Ramasami Chetti 30 M.k 255, this fact creates considerable difficulties in the way of mortgaging the zemindari. In that case it was held that the mortgage executed by the present 5th defendant and other reversioners was not binding on him after he succeeded to...
Velayudham Pillai and anr. Vs. Perumal Naicker and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1915
Reported in: 31Ind.Cas.811
1. Following Hanoomanpersaud Panday v. Musammat Babooee Munraj Koonweree 6 M.I.A. 393 : 18 W.R. 81n. : Sevestre 253n : 2 Suth. P.C.J. 29 : 1 Sar. P.C.J. 552 : 19 E.R. 147. and Murari v. Tayana 20 B.P 286 we hold (especially having in view the description of the mortgaged property in Exhibit I as having been registered in the name of the mother as the guardian of her minor son) that that document was executed by her in her capacity as guardian of her son, though she is not so described in the body of the document. The case of Kamakshi Nayakan v. Ramasami Nayakan 7 M.L.J. 131 quoted by the appellants Counsel has been dissented from in Sivavadevelu Pillay v. Ponnammal 15 Ind. Cas. 365 : 22 M.L.J. 404 : 11 M.L.T. 198 : (1912) M.W.N. 383, and we have no doubt that Article. 44 of the Limitation Act applies to this suit and that it was rightly held barred by the District Court. The second appeal is dismissed with costs....
Yeechuri Ramamurthy Vs. Yeechuri Ramamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1915
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.961
Coutts Trotter, J.1. My learned brother will give judgment in this case. I concur in his judgment and adopt it, and it will stand as the judgment of the Court.Srinivasa Aiyangar, J.2. The plaintiff, his father Narasayya, Gurumurthi, his eldest brother, and Venkataratnam, the 4th defendant, were members of a joint Hindu family. On the 29th of January 1904, while the plaintiff was a minor of the age of 15 or thereabouts, the father and the sons (the plaintiff being represented by the father) divided the family properties which consisted of about 6 acres of land and some house sites. There was a deed of partition, Exhibit XVIII in the case. In that partition 3 1/2 acres were allotted to the plaintiff while his brother Gurumurthi and Venkataratnam got a little over 1 acre each. The father retained no portion of the ancestral property except two mango trees. A larger share was allotted to the plaintiff on the ground that he was a minor whose upanayanam and marriage had not been performed. B...
Chinnappa thevan and ors. Vs. Pazhaniappa Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad911; 31Ind.Cas.630
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The defendants are the appellants. The plaintiff is the jenmi of the plaint lands. Anganna Mudali became the lessee in 1,882 under Exhibit C from the jenmi's mortgagee, Chinnasawmy Pillai. The jenmi redeemed the mortgage in 1893 (see Exhibit G executed by Chinnasawmy Pillai), the mortgagee having continued in possession even after the redemption of the jenmi title by the jenmi in 1893. The defendants set up title by adverse possession from 1893. The question, therefore, is whether persons who were in possession as tenants from year to year under a mortgagee and who continued in possession' after the mortgage was redeemed by the owner should be deemed to have been in adverse possession from the date of the redemption by the owner, or should be deemed to be tenants from year to year under the owner there afterwards instead of under the mortgagee. In Seshamma Shettati v. Chickaya Hegade 12 M.L.J. 119, the following passages occur at page 512:In the present ca3e, on th...
In Re: Damodara Naidu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad32; 31Ind.Cas.656
ORDERKumaraswami Sastri, J.1. The terms of the license are specific and the privilege extends only to the sale of arrack 32 degrees under proof. Section 56, Clause (6), of the Madras Abkari Act, 1886, renders any person who does any act in breach of the conditions of his license punishable with imprisonment which may extend to three months or with file extending to Rs. 200 or with both.2. The evidence in the case shows clearly that spirits over 32 degrees was sold and the only question is whether Rule 229 of the Standing Orders of the Board of Revenue, which directs Abkari Officers to allow wastage in bottling up to 2 per cent., can be pleaded as a defence to a prosecution under Section 56, Clause (b).3. I do not think the rule can be construed to mean that licensees can adulterate arrack so long as they do not exceed 2 per cent, over the strength mentioned in the permit. It is only a departmental rule for the guidance of its subordinates and fixes a 2 per cent, margin as an allowance ...
Basavana Gowd Vs. Krishna Rao Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad713; 31Ind.Cas.650
ORDERKumaraswami Sastri, J.1. The petitioner, who is the Reddy of the village and a man of means, filed a complaint before the District Magistrate charging the Acting Tahsildar of Siruguppah with having beaten him with a slipper. The District Magistrate dismissed the complaint under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. The sworn statement of the complainant and the deposition of the witnesses examined before the District Magistrate in the enquiry held by him under Section 202, have been read and commented upon and I am of opinion that the evidence recorded certainly affords good grounds for further enquiry. I am unable to see any material discrepancy, or anything on the face of the record to warrant a summary dismissal of the complaint. There can be little doubt from the evidence that the Tahsildar wanted the Reddy to supply him with milk. The evidence of the Revenue Inspector is to the effect that 'there was some trouble between the Tahsildar and the Reddy about the milk.'...
The District Board of Tanjore Vs. Vythilinga Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad1224(1); 31Ind.Cas.919
1. Assuming (without deciding) that there is in this case a covenant by the lessor to renew which is legally enforceable against him in a suit for specific performance, such a covenant cannot be pleaded in bar to a suit for possession brought by the lessor on the expiry of the term mentioned in the lease-deed, Exhibit E. See Achutan Nambudri v. Koman Nair 13 M.L.J. 217; Kurri Veerareddi v. Kurri Bapireddi 29 M.P 336 : 16 M.L.J. 395 : 1 M.L.T. 153 and Gopalan Nair v. Kunhan Menon 2 M.L.T. 161. The covenant in Exhibit E, if enforceable against the lessor, would no doubt be a contract on his part to accept a registered renewal deed for rent for ten years on the same terms of Exhibit I, but such 'a contract does not contain a. promise by the lessor not to eject the lessee on the expiry of the term even though the lessee did not execute the new rent deed on the expiry of the first term.2. The lower Appellate Court's decree is reversed and that of the District Munsif restored with costs here...
Kandum Venkataswamy Vs. Baligadu and ors.,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.179
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. I had the great advantage of a perusal of the judgment just now pronounced by my learned brother before I began to write the following opinion. The material question for decision in these connected cases is whether in the moneys claimable under the mortgage documents sued on, the plaintiff's divided son possesses any interest notwithstanding the decree in the partition suit, Original Suit No. 7 of 1901 on the tile of the District Court of Kurnool, brought by the plaintiff's son against the plaintiff. The decree, Exhibit B, in that suit, Original Suit No. 7 of 1901, contains the schedule of properties, the partition of which was prayed for in that suit. Item 35 of that schedule B is 'Decrees, accounts, documents, vagaira' and Rs. 1,000 is given as the value of these incorporeal personalties. Vagaira means 'things of a similar character to those mentioned just previously.' It is quite clear from the judgment, Exhibit A, and the decree, Exhibit B, that the suit brough...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »