Chennai Court February 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.
A.L.A.R. Arunachellam Chettiar and ors. Vs. Velappa Thambiran and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1915
Reported in: (1915)28MLJ410
1. In Appeal No. 137 of 1910. This is a suit brought by the plaintiffs, suing under Section 30 of the Old Civil Procedure Code on behalf of themselves and all the disciples of the Dharmapuram Mutt, in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Tinnevelly for a declaration that the decree obtained by defendants Nos. 3 to 6 against the 1st and 2nd defendants, in O.S. No, 100 of 1902 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Kumbakonum (subsequently transferred to the Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Kumbakonum (subsequently transferred to the Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Tanjore) on a mortgage executed by the 1st defendant, the then Pandarasannadhi of the Mutt, is not binding oh the Mutt and its properties, and for an injunction restraining defendants Nos. 3 to 6 from executing the decree and defendants Nos. 1 and 2 from alienating the Mutt properties in satisfaction of it. The Subordinate Judge passed a decree declaring that the suit properties are not ...
Musalium Veetil theyathil Mahammadunni Vs. Kudumpalath Padinhara Param ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad888; 29Ind.Cas.145
1. The parties have been litigating for a very small amount, unless (as seems probable from the District Munsif's judgment) the real question at issue between them was not that which is argued before us, but whether the one side or the other was entitled to the documents referred to in the third issue.2. Before us the only argument has had reference to the question whether the respondent had validly deposited under Section 83 of the Transfer of Property Act the amount of the mortgage due to the appellant. The learned District Judge has held that there was a valid deposit. We find, however, that the respondent put in a petition for deposit on the third of August 1910, and yet the sum was not deposited till the 10th of August and on that day he brought into Court only the sum due as on the 3rd of August. This was clearly not the proper amount, and his deposit was consequently not valid and technically the deposit cannot prevail so as to stop interest running under Section 84 of the Trans...
Nanu Nair and ors. Vs. Kantan Ashta Moorthi Nambudripad and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad127; 29Ind.Cas.386
1. The plaintiff's case is that the properties in suit belong to his mana in jenmi, that they were demised by two kanom-deeds in the year 1840 to two ladies, who were members of the defendants' tarwad, and that the defendants have denied his jenmi title. He sues to recover possession and michavaram on payment of the kanom amount. The defendants pleaded that the properties did not belong to the plaintiff's mana and alleged that they were their tarwad properties. They also denied, the demises sued on.2. The District Munsif held that the demises were not proved and dismissed the suit. On appeal, the Subordinate Judge came to the conclusion that the demises sued upon were true and that the plaint lands were held under them.' He reversed the decree of the District Munsif and remanded the suit.3. An appeal was preferred to the High Court against this order of remand. The learned Judges who heard it pointed out that as the District Munsif did not dispose of the suit on a preliminary point, th...
Rao Rama Rao Minor by Adoptive Mother and Next Friend Rao Achamma Garu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-1915
Reported in: (1915)28MLJ363
1. The question for decision is whether the 1st plaintiff is the adopted son of the deceased Lakshmipathi Nayanim Varu.2. Lakshmipathi died about 30 years ago. His widow the 2nd plaintiff adopted the 1st plaintiff on 2-11-1908. The District Judge finds that she failed to obtain the consent of Venkataramana Rao and Venkata Rao, two sapindas of the deceased who were divided from him. He finds further that the 1st defendant who was the undivided brother of the deceased and who admittedly refused to give his consent to the adoption did not withhold it from improper motives. He also holds that the 2nd defendant who gave his consent in writing (Exhibit B) did so probably on account of some misrepresentation and that the 3rd defendant never gave his consent. He was therefore of opinion the adoption was invalid. All these findings are disputed in appeal.3. In the absence of any authority from her husband the 2nd plaintiff was bound to obtain the consent of sapindas. As her husband died a membe...
N. Subbayya and anr. Vs. P. Ramayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-1915
Reported in: (1916)ILR39Mad537
Spencer, J.1. We are of opinion that no appeal lies in this case against the order passed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by a single Judge of this Court.2. Orders made under Section 133 and connected sections are not excluded from the operation of Section 435 and there is no good reason for treating orders passed under this Chapter X which deals with public nuisances and prescribes that the procedure shall be that of a summons case, as not orders passed1 in a criminal trial within the words of Section 15 of the Letters-Patent Act.3. It is argued on the authority of Hirananda Ojha v. The Emperor 9 C.W.N. 983 that cases where the person against whom proceedings are taken can give evidence on his own behalf are cases of a quasi-civil nature; but in proceedings under Section 488 persons against whom orders of maintenance are applied for are permitted to tender themselves as witnesses and yet they are styled 'accused.' Assuming that a counter-petitioner in proceedings u...
Pakala Rama Rao and ors. Vs. Appana Kumaraswami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad926(2); 29Ind.Cas.471
1. Three points have been argued before us. We agree with the District Judge that there were no partners not joined and that the suit is not bad for non-joinder. We also agree with him that the contract was not rescinded by reason of the failure of the plaintiff to make stipulated payments.2. Assuming that the defendant was liable in damages, it has been argued that one of the partners has since died and that as his death would in any case have put an end to the partnership, this fact must be considered in reduction of damages. Mr. Mayne in his Work on Damages lays down broadly that matters arising subsequently to the cause of action are inadmissible in reduction of damages and in Joyner v. Weeks (1891) 2 Q.B. 31 : 60 L.J.Q.B. 510 : 65 L.T. 16 : 39 W.R. 583 : 55 J.P. 725, it was observed by Fry, L.J., that as a general rule where a cause of action exists, the damages must be estimated with regard to the time when the cause of action came into existence. Applying this principle we think...
Pichaikuttia Pillai Vs. Ranganadan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-1915
Reported in: AIR1915Mad951(2); (1915)28MLJ323
Seshagiri Aiyar, J.1. The plaintiff's case is that the promissory note sued upon was executed to his undivided uncle for monies advanced from the joint family-property. The District Munsif held that without a succession certificate the suit upon the promissory note is not sustainable. It was not seriously contended that his conclusion can be sustained, in so far as he has not given the plaintiff an opportunity of producing, a succession certificate. This procedure of the District Munsif is opposed to Section 4 of the Succession Certificate Act and does not find support in any of the reported cases.2. The important point argued by the learned vakils on either side is as to whether a succession certificate is necessary in the ease of debts due to a member of a joint family; and secondly, whether the fact that the document sued upon is a promissory note should make any difference in regard to the law upon the subject. The Act itself is designed to facilitate the collection of debts on suc...
T.R. Sundaram Aiyar Vs. Subbammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad544(1); 29Ind.Cas.23
1. No authority has been adduced to support the appellant's contention that any absolute alienation of joint family property to a maintainance-holder in lieu of maintainance is necessarily illegal: and in the present case we must accept the finding of the lower Appellate Court that the alienation by Exhibit I was not excessive or unreasonable in the circumstances in which it was made.2. The second appeal is dismissed with costs....
Ratna Bai Alias Hira Bai and ors. Vs. the Official Assignee of Madras ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad415; 29Ind.Cas.168
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. I entirely agree with the judgment, just now pronounced by my learned brother, and for the reasons stated by him, that the house in question could not be claimed by the insolvent's widow, Raton Bai, through any gift from her mother-in-law that the house vested in the insolvent on his mother's death in 1897 and that the property in the next instant passed over to the Official Assignee. The widow's case that she held it adversely to her husband afterwards is not worth serious notice. I have also nothing to add to the reasons given by my learned brother in support of his conclusion that for the vesting of the property in the Official Assignee, it is not necessary to have judgment entered up under Section 86 of the Indian Insolvency Act of 1843 and I join with him in respectfully dissenting from the decision in In re Ackrill 18 M.P 24.2. Coming to the contention that, the Official Assignee should have been Deferred to a suit even as regards this house (as he was referr...
Saptharishi Reddiar (Now Minor) and ors. Vs. the Secretary of State fo ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1915
Reported in: AIR1915Mad1081; (1915)28MLJ384
Ayling, J.1. The facts of this case as found by the Lower Court may be summarised thus : The plaintiff and defendants hold approximately equal areas of land irrigated from the same source the Andapuram tank and the Karuvattar anicut and channel feeding the same. Certain repairs became necessary for the preservation of these irrigation works. The plaintiff prepared an estimate for the repairs, informed the defendants that it was proposed to effect them and called on them for a proportionate contribution. The defendants replied that they had no objection to the plaintiff's carrying out the repairs, but that it was not customary for them to contribute to such repairs and they declined to do so. The plaintiff then effected the repairs; and brought the present suit to recover a proportionate share of the cost from the defendants, basing his claim on Section 70 of the Contract Act. The only question is whether this section applies.2. That the repairs were lawfully effected is not disputed. T...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »