Chennai Court December 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.
Thiruvambala Desikar Gnana Sambanda Pandarasannadi Avergal and anr. Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-1915
Reported in: (1916)30MLJ274
John Wallis, C.J.1. In Appeal No. 36 of 1911 : This appeal relates to the headship of the wealthy Mutt or Adhinam of Dharmapuram in the Tanjore District the affairs of which are unfortunately the subject of endless litigation before us. Sivagnana who was for many years Pandarasannadhi or head of the Mutt filed O.S. No. 86 of 1906 in the Subordinate Court of Kumbakonum to set aside a deed of relinquishment Ex. S. executed by him in 1903 in favour of Manikkavasaka, the defendant in this suit, whom he had previously ordained and nominated as junior Pandarasannadhi with the right of succession according to the custom of the institution. Sivagnana died shortly after the institution of the suit and the present plaintiff sought to be brought on the record as his legal representative on the ground that the day before he died, Sivagnana had ordained him and executed a will in his favour. It was held by the Subordinate Court, and by this Court on appeal, that the plaint in O.S. No. 86 of 1906 ca...
Tiruvambala Desikar Gnana Sambanda Pandarasannadhi Avargal and anr. Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-1915
Reported in: (1917)ILR40Mad177
John Wallis, C.J.1. This appeal relates to the headship of the wealthy mutt or adhinam of Dharmapuram in the Tanjore district, the affairs of which are unfortunately the subject of endless litigation before us. Sivagnana who was for many years Pandarasannadhi or head of the mutt filed Original Suit No. 86 of 1906 in the Subordinate Court of Kumbakonam to set aside a deed of relinquishment, Exhibit S, executed by him in 1903 in favour of Manikkavachaka, the defendant in this suit, whom he had previously ordained and nominated as junior Pandarasannadhi with the right of succession according to the custom of the institution. Sivagnana died shortly after the institution of the suit and the present plaintiff sought to be brought on the records as his legal representative on the ground that the day before he died, Sivagnana had ordained him and executed a will in his favour. It was held by the Subordinate Court, and by this Court on appeal, that the plaint in Original Suit No. 86 of 1906 cal...
Thiretambala Desikar Gnana Sambanda Pandarasannadi Avergal and anr. Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-1915
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.57
John Wallis, C.J.1. This appeal relates to the headship of the wealthy Mutt or Adhinam of Dharmapuram in the Tanjore District, the affairs of which are unfortunately the subject of endless litigation before us. Sivagnann, who was for many years Pandarasannadhi or head of the Mutt, filed Original Suit No. 86 of 1906 in the Subordinate Court of Kumbakonam to set aside a deed of relinquishment, Exhibit S, executed by him in 1903 in favour of Manikkavasaka, the defendant in this suit, whom he had previously ordained and nominated as junior Pandarasannadhi with the right of succession according to the custom of the institution. Sivagnana died shortly after the institution of the suit and the present plaintiff sought to be brought on the record as his legal representative on the ground that the day before he died, Sivagnana had ordained him and executed a Will in his favour. It was held by the Subordinate Court, and by this Court on appeal, that the plaint in Original Suit No. 86 of 1906 cal...
Muthaya Shetti Vs. Kanthappa Shetti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1915
Reported in: (1918)34MLJ431
Seshagiri Aiyar, J.1. The predecessors in title of the plaintiff executed Exhibit A to one Shankaranaranappayya in 1872. Shankaranaranappayya sold the property comprised thereunder to Venkappayya under Exhibit 1 in 1879. Venkappayya's widow sold it in 1897 to Puttappayya and Puttappayya's sons sold the same in 1912 to the defendant The present suit is brought by the plaintiff to redeem the mortgage of 1872. The answer of the defendant is that the suit is barred by Article 134 of the Limitation Act as more than twelve years have elapsed since the date of the transfer by the original mortgagee. Both the Courts have come to the conclusion that the suit is barred by limitation. The judgment of the District Judge is so meagre that we were obliged to hear this case as a first appeal. Mr. Sitarama Row contended before us that under Article 134 the burden of proving that the transferee from the mortgagee had acquired an absolute right in the property lay on the defendant.2. Before considering ...
Syed Ahmed Sahib Shuttari Vs. Magnesite Syndicate, Limited by their Ag ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1915
Reported in: (1916)ILR39Mad1049
Seshagiri Ayyar, J.1. The plaintiff and defendants Nos. 2 to 8 own undivided shares in the property in dispute. Plaintiff is entitled to 150/480th share. Defendants Nos. 2 to 8 are entitled to the remaining share. On the 26th January 1899, they jointly gave a lease of the entire property to Mr. G.G. Arbuthnot for thirty years. The present first defendant is the successor in title of the said lessee. The lease was for quarrying magnesite and chalk. It made the rent due thereunder payable in certain proportions individually to the plaintiff and defendants Nog. 2 to 8. It provided for the keeping of accounts for the weighment of the magnesite and chalk in the presence of the lessors and the lessee, and contained provisions for re-entry and for the forfeiture of the lease on certain contingeneies, The plaintiff complains of the broach of three covenants (see paragraph 5 of the plaint *) and prays that it may be declared that the lease had terminated, and for possession of either the entire...
Syed Ahmad Sahib Shuttari Vs. Magnesite Syndicate, Ltd., by their Agen ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.512
1. The plaintiff and defendants Nos. 2 to 8 own undivided shares in the property in dispute. Plaintiff is entitled to a 150/480 share. Defendants Nos. 2 to 8 are entitled to the remaining share. On the 26th January 1899, they jointly gave a lease of the entire property to Mr. G.G. Arbuthnot for 30 years. The present 1st defendant is the successor-in-title of the said lessee. The lease was for quarrying magnesite and chalk. It made the rent due thereunder payable in certain proportions individually to the plaintiff and defendants Nos. 2 to 8. It provided for the keeping of accounts for the weighment of the magnesite and chalk in the presence of the lessors and the lessee, and contained provisions for re-entry and for the forfeiture of the lease on certain contingencies. The plaintiff complains of the breach of three covenants (see paragraph 5 of the plaint) and prays that it may be declared that the lease had terminated, and for possession of either the entire property or the share of t...
Kaki Mutyalu Vs. Kanigolla Siva Raghavayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.826
1. The appellant points out that Exhibit J, on which the decision of the lower Appellate Court very largely proceeds, has been admitted by the Subordinate Judge contrary to the provisions of Order XLI, Rule 27, of the Civil Procedure Code.2. No application is on record for the admission of this document in the Subordinate Court: no reasons for its admission have been recorded as required by Clause (2) of the rule above quoted: and the respondent's Vakil is unable to suggest even now any reason to explain the plaintiff's failure to produce this document in the original Court, or any ground which would have justified the lower Appellate Court in receiving it.3. The judgment of the lower Appellate Court reverses that of the District Munsif.4. We must set aside the decree of the Subordinate Judge and remand the appeal for re-hearing and disposal according to law....
Devaraja Naicken Vs. Ammani Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1915
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.539
1. We agree with the findings of the Courts below that the whole of plot A was sold to the plaintiff. The second appeal must fail with regard to that item. As regards plot B the District Judge has not come to any definite conclusion. If the 3rd defendant was a lessee to plant casuarina trees under defendants Nos. 1 and 2 before they sold the land to the plaintiff, his rights should be safeguarded. We must ask the District Judge to give a finding upon the following issues:(1) Whether there was a valid and subsisting lease to the 3rd defendant when the property was sold to plaintiff?(2) What are the rights which the 3rd defendant has under the said lease?2. The finding must be submitted on the evidence on record.3. The finding should be submitted within four weeks from this date and one week is allowed for filing objections.4. [In compliance with the order contained in the above judgment, the District Judge of Chingleput submitted a finding that there was an oral lease to defendant No. 3...
Subbaraya Goundan Vs. S. Ranganatha Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1915
Reported in: (1916)30MLJ387
John Wallis, C.J.1. The question involved in this appeal is whether a Zamindar or Mittadar who under his sannad has a right to collect the jodi payable by an Inamdar, has a charge for arrears of such jodi on the interest of the Inamdar. Before considering this question it may be well to refer to the right of Government to a charge for arrears of revenue, and to the rights of the Inamdar for arrears against the ryots themselves.2. It was held by Innes, J. in Subbaraya v. The Sub-Collector of Chingleput I.L.R. (1883) M. 303 that 'the right of the Government is only a right to a charge on the land, and a right to forfeit by due course of law, the title of the person holding the land who does not pay the charge;' and this was cited with approval by Shephard, J. in Secretary of Stale v. Ashtamurthi I.L.R. (1889) M. 89. In the present case the Government assigned its right to revenue to the Inamdar subject to the payment of a jodi, and it is well-settled that by virtue of such assignment the...
Subbaroya Goundan Vs. S. Ranganada Mudaliar and Seven ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1915
Reported in: (1917)ILR40Mad93
John Wallis, C.J.1. The question involved in this appeal is whether a zamindar or mittadar who under his sanad has a right to collect the jodi payable by an inamdar has a charge for arrears of such jodi on the interest of the inamdar. Before considering this question it may be well to refer to the right of Government to a charge for arrears of revenue and to the right of the inamdar for arrears against the ryots themselves.2. It was held by Innes, J., in Subbaraya v. The Sub-Collector of Chingleput I.L.R. (1883) Mad. 303 , that 'the right of the Government is only a right to charge on the land, and a right to forfeit by due course of law, the title of the person holding the land who does not pay the charge,' and this was cited with approval by Shephard, J., in Secretary of State v. Ashtamurthi I.L.R. (1890) Mad. 89 . In the present case the Government assigned its right to revenue to the inamdar subject to the payment of a jodi, and it is well settled that by virtue of such assignment ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »