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.
Raja Rajeswari Ammal Vs. Subramania Archakar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.975a
1. The only question raised in this second appeal is, whether a female heir is disqualified from succeeding to the office of archaka and receiving the emoluments attached to the office in cases where such office is hereditary in her family. The District Munsif passed a decree in plaintiff's favour but the Subordinate Judge, who agreed with the District Munsif in all his findings of fact, dismissed the plaintiff's suit on the ground that the decision in Sundarambal Ammal v. Yogavanagurukkal 23 Ind. Cas. 72; (1914) M.W.N. 286 was authority for holding that females were disqualified from succeeding to the office.2. The right of females to succeed to religious offices and perform the duties by proxy where such offices are hereditary has been recognized in numerous cases. As observed by Justices Ayling and Hannay in Ramasundaram Pillai v. Savundaratha Ammal 27 Ind. Cas. 440; 16 M.L.T. 423; (1914) M.W.N. 919 (where all the important cases are collected), the rule enunciated by Sadasiva Aiyar...
Kamaravutu Mrutyunjayadu Vs. Rajah of Pittapuram
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1915
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.901
John Wallis, C.J.1. This is no doubt a case very much on the line and has given rise to a difference of opinion between the District Munsif and the Subordinate Judge, and between the two learned Judges who heard the second appeal, and on the Letters Patent Appeal. On the whole I am disposed to Agree with the conclusion of Sadasiva Aiyar, J., that; there are not sufficient grounds for interfering in second appeal with the finding of the District Judge. As regards the disputed passage in Alexander John Forbes v. Meer Mahomed Tuquee 13 M.I.A. 438 : 14 W.R. 28 : 5 B.L.R. 529 : 2 Suth. P.C.J. 358 : 2 Sar. P.C.J. 588 : 20 E.R. 614 I agree with Ayling, J., that their Lordships considered that the fact that in that case no quit rent had been reserved although the land had been included in the assets of the zamindari on which peishcush was payable, was a circumstance which, taken with all the other circumstances of that case, would have clearly negatived a power of resumption; but that was only...
Narayana and ors. Vs. Kashappaya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.526
Srinivasa Aiyangar, J.1. It is argued that if days of grace are allowed for payment of the rent, Courts have no jurisdiction to relieve the tenant from a proviso for re-entry on non-payment of rent, and the decisions in Narayana Kamti v. Handu Shetty 15 M.L.J. 210 and Naraina Naika v. Vasudeva Bhatta 15 M.L.J. 208 and Adiraya Shetty v. Billa Tyampu (1910) M.W.N. 419 are relied on. This case and the earlier cases and the later cases in this Court as well as English cases were exhaustively reviewed in Appayya Shetty v. Mahammade Beari 30 Ind. Cas. 596, and the conclusion was arrived at that the Court has jurisdiction to relieve against forfeiture in all proper cases, whether days of grace are allowed or not. I respectfully agree. In this case it is impossible to say that the lower Courts have not properly exercised their discretion. I think that this appeal fails and must be dismissed with costs.Napier, J.2. I agree....
In Re: Charles George Hedinger
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.659
ORDERCoutts Trotter, J.1. This case was called up, on revision by a Judge of this Court. The facts are these. The accused Mr. C.G. Hedinger is a Swiss gentleman, who was registered as a foreigner in the District Magistrate's office at Calicut where he resided. He has been convicted of two offences alleged to be violations of the direction of the Governor-in-Council contained in a Notification No. 632, dated the 6th of September 1914. By Section 3 of the Foreigners Ordinance, 1914, the Governor-General in Council has power to regulate or restrict in such manner as he thinks fit the liberty of foreigners residing or being in British India; and by Section 8 of the same Ordinance the Governor-General in Council is empowered to delegate his powers under the Ordinance to any civil authority in British India. By Notification No. 907, dated the 22nd August 1914, the Governor-General in Council has delegated his powers under Section 8 of the Ordinance to the Local Government of the Presidency. ...
K.P.A. Mariappa Nadan Vs. A.R.R.M. Arunachalam Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1915
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.16
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. Several cases have been quoted before me (by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and by the learned Vakil for the respondents) on the question of the scope of Article 31 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. As said in Varadarajulu Chettiar v. Pattra Narayanaswamy Chetty 20 Ind. Cas. 518 : 24 M.L.J. 693 : 14 M.L.T. 46 : (1913) M.W.N. 879, 'The decided cases are perhaps not altogether reconcilable.' I do not intend, therefore, to go through the cases. The above case of Varadarajulu Chettiar v. Pattra Narayanaswamy Chetty 20 Ind. Cas. 518 : 24 M.L.J. 693 : 14 M.L.T. 46 : (1913) M.W.N. 879 (16th April 1913) seems to be the latest decision by a Bench of this Court which has carefully considered the question. That case approves of the following dicta found in Kailas Chandra Mandal v. Kiranenda Ghosh 10 Ind. Cas. 883 and Chidrie Kristappa v. Siddamsetti Yamanappa 13 Ind. Cas. 159 : (1912) M.W.N. 36 : 11 M.L.T. 13 'If, in order to grant relief to the plaintiff, it ...
Murugappa Chettiar Vs. Rangasami Naicken and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1915
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.57
1. We are unable to agree with the District Judge that because the lease-deed 'prescribes no time', therefore, it should be regarded as a permanent lease. The fact that the lessee and his assigns have been allowed to continue to occupy the lease site for 60 years cannot create a permanent lease right and cannot have any legal bearing on the construction of exhibit Z See Sivatha Muthu Asari v. Revd. J.N.H. Mesguita 19 Ind. Cas. 824 : 24 M.L.J. 642 : (1913) M. W N. 480 : 13 M.L.T. 513. We are clear that Exhibit Z can only be treated as creating a monthly tenancy. (See Section 100 of Act IV 1882).2. On the question of the right to compensation and the amount thereof the lower Appellate Court has not given findings and we request it to submit findings on the following issues:1. Whether the trustees of the temple by their conduct afforded hope and encouragement to the defendant and hi predecessors-in-title that the latter would not be ejected without a reasonable return for the expenditure ...
Sulugu Suryanarayana Nayakaram Vs. Gundabolu Butchaiah Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.810
Abdur Rahim, J.1. The plaintiff and the 4th defendant are brothers, the plaintiff being the older of the two. It appears that while the 4th defendant was absent in Hyderabad, the plaintiff effected a sale of a half share of certain lands, which included his own share and his brother's share, to the 2nd defendant, who is his brother-in-law and the son of the 1st defendant. At that time, the plaintiff, who had just attained majority, was living with his father-in-law and his brother-in-law. This was in 1900. In 1906 there was a partition of the property between the 4th defendant and the plaintiff, and in that partition, the share of the property sold to the 2nd defendant was excluded, that is to say, the 4th defendant was deprived of his share in the property in question. It appears that the 4th defendant afterwards discovered that the sale to the 2nd defendant by the plaintiff was a colourable and benami transaction, the object of which was to deprive the 4th defendant of his share, and...
R. Srinivasa Chariar Vs. S.P. Ranganayaki Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.991
1. The application for a succession certificate was misconceived, as the Insurance Company was not the debtor of the deceased Mr. S.P. Rangachary in respect of this sum of Rs. 5,000 and as the applicant (the widow) was not 'entitled' to that sum as part 'of the effects of the deceased person' [Succession Certificate Act, Section 4(1)(a)] the said sum did not 'form part of the deceased's estate' (section 6 of Married Womens' Property Act). The applicant was the beneficiary who became entitled to the beneficial interest in this sum on her husband's death.2. The appeal is, therefore, allowed and the application for a succession certificate will be dismissed. There will be no order as to costs under the circumstances....
Kodandarama Aiyar Vs. Arunachala Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.997
Srinivasa Aiyangar, J.1. The suit is on the pro-note executed by the 1st defendant while he was the managing member of the family consisting of himself and his brothers. The Subordinate Judge finds that the family became divided and that all the co-parceners except the 2nd defendant had sold their share of the family lands. It appears that the and defendant requested his elder brother to manage his lands. At the time when the original pro-note was about to become barred, the 1st defendant renewed the pro-note. The suit is now instituted against the 1st defendant and his brothers also. The lower Court gave a decree against the 1st defendant who executed the promissory note and dismissed it as against the other defendants, on the ground that the 1st defendant had no authority to renew the original promissory note after he ceased to be the manager of his family. I think he is right. Reliance was placed by the petitioner's Pleader in support of his contention on Bhasker Tatya Shet v. Vijal...
S. Manikam Pillai (Receiver) Vs. Kuppa Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1915
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.69
Srinivasa Aiyangar, J.1. In this case, the Receiver filed a suit to recover the rent due to the inamdar, for the collection of which he was appointed as Receiver in another suit. The plaintiff in that suit claimed a decree for money charging the properties of the inamdar; and the Receiver was appointed before decree to collect the rents due to the plaintiff to obtain the realization of the amount for which he might have obtained a decree. The plaintiff obtained a decree for money and there is an appeal pending against that in this Court. Neither the termination of the suit in a decree nor the pendency of the appeal against that decree will put an end to the authority of the Receiver to realize the rents to collect for which he was appointed Receiver. It appears that the District Judge in whose Court the original suit was pending has, subsequent to the decree, continued the same Receiver means even if the appointment of the Receiver terminated with the termination of the suit, the Distr...