Chennai Court March 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.
Gramani Adam Sahib and ors. Vs. S. Haji Abdulla Sahib and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1915
Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.575
1. Both the lower Courts have held that the land which forms the subject of the suit was portion of a burial ground, actually used at some time as such. It is not denied by the appellants that it was so used till about 20 years ago. On the other hand, there is some evidence that I urials have taken place in the land until four or five years of the suit. On this finding the decree of the District Munsif (confirmed by the lower Appellate Court) was quite correct.2. We have had some difficulty in following the argument before us. Authorities were cited to show that in some eases land which has once been used as a burial ground may be utilised for other purposes. These authorities distinguish a graveyard from land which has been dedicated fora mosque: the latfer can never be used for any other purpose, whereas the former may, if it is no longer in use as a burial ground and if certain conditions (which need not be specified) are fulfilled. But those authorities can have no bearing on the q...
Sri Kakarlapudi Lakshminarayana Jagannada Raju Garu and ors. Vs. Sri R ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1915
Reported in: (1915)28MLJ650
John Edward Power Wallis, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from a decree of the District Judge of Ganjam dismissing a suit brought by the plaintiff for the specific performance of a contract entered into on the 11th May 1894 by the defendants and their father who were at that time reversioners of the Urlam estate by which they undertook to sell the estate to the plaintiff and to execute a proper sale-deed in his favour when the time came for putting him in possession. The learned District Judge now Mr. Justice Kumaraswami, has dismissed the suit on the ground that such a contract by reversioners is prohibited by Section 6 of the Transfer of Property Act and is also void under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act as tending to defeat the provisions of the law contained in the aforesaid section of the Transfer of Property Act. The question is undoubtedly one of great importance and Mr. S. Srinivasa Aiyangar has contended forcibly before us that contracts of this kind were enforceable both ...
Sri K.L. Jagannada Raju Garu and anr. Vs. Sri Rajah K.V.S.V.L.N.V.J.B. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1915
Reported in: (1916)ILR39Mad554
John Wallis, C.J. 1. This is an appeal from a decree of the District Judge of Ganjam dismissing a suit brought by the plaintiff for specific performance of a contract entered into on the 11th May 1894 by the defendants and their father who were at that time reversioners of the Urlam estate to the plaintiff to execute a proper sale-deed in his favour when the time came for putting him in possession. The learned District Judge, now Mr. Justice Kumaraswami, has dismissed the suit on the ground that such a contract by reversioners is prohibited by Section 6 of the Transfer of Property Act and is also void under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act as tending to defeat the provisions of law contained in the aforesaid section of the Transfer of Property Act. The question is undoubtedly one of great importance and Mr. S. Srinivasa Ayyangar has contended forcibly before us that contracts of this kind were -enforceable both in England and in India before the Transfer of Property Act and that S...
Sri Kakaralapudi Lakshmi Narayana Jaganadha Raju Garu and anr. Vs. Sri ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1915
Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.241
John Wallis, C.J.1. This is an appeal from the decree of the District Judge of Ganjam dismissing a suit brought by the plaintiff for specific performance of a contract entered into on the 11th May 1894 by the defendants and their father, who were at that time reversioners of the Urlam estate, by which they undertook to sell the estate to the plaintiff and to execute a proper sale-deed in his favour when the time came for putting him in possession. The learned District Judge, now Mr. Justice Kumaraswami Sastri, has dismissed the suit, on the ground that such a contract by reversioners is prohibited by Section 6 of the Transfer of Property Act and is also void under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act as tending to defeat the provisions of law contained in the aforesaid section of the Transfer of Property Act. The question is undoubtedly one of great importance, and Mr. S. Srinivasa Iyengar has contended forcibly before us that contracts of this kind were enforceable both in England an...
Besinath Karumani Vs. Devi Doss and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad959; 29Ind.Cas.511
1. The City Civil Judge rightly followed the decisions in Hanumanthaiyan v. Meenatchi Naidu 12 Ind. Cas. 412 : 35 M.P 183 : 10 M.L.T. 380 : 22 M.L.J. 12 : (1912) M.W.N. 158 and Srinivasa Swami Aiyangar v. Athmarama Iyer 2 Ind. Cas. 612 : 19 M.L.J. 280 : 5 M.L.T. 84 : 32 M.P 281 in refusing to recognize any right to subrogate in the 6th defendant, whose money went only in partial discharge of the prior mortgage, and in refusing to recognize as valid the alleged oral release by the prior mortgagee of his rights over the property purchased by the 6th defendant. The decision, Appeal No. 295 of 1913, quoted by Mr. S. Rangaswamy Aiyangar for the appellant, does not dissent from the decision in Hanumanthaiyan v. Meenatchi Naidu 12 Ind. Cas. 412 : (1912) M.W.N. 158. It is argued, however, that on the facts found by the District Judge in that case, Appeal No. 295 of 1913, the learned Judges could not have given a decree for the appellant (11th defendant) in that case, unless they held that the ...
Subbarayalu Naidu Vs. Papammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad887(1); 29Ind.Cas.579
1. There is no doubt that Article 44 of the Limitation Act is the Article properly applicable: and that the suit is time barred as regards all the suit properties. Its dismissal as against the defendants who did not appeal and were not impleaded in the lower Appellate Court is justified by Order XLI, Rule 33, of the Code of Civil Procedure vide Peria Krishnasami Naik v. Aiyappa Naik 24 Ind. Cas. 924 : 1 L.W. 376 and Venkatachela Pillai v. Ranga Pillai 28 Ind. Cas. 694 : 17 M.L.T. 220 : 28 M.L.J. 334.2. The second appeal is dismissed with costs (one set)....
Mool Chand and anr. Vs. P. Alwar Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-1915
Reported in: AIR1915Mad934; (1916)ILR39Mad548
Napier, J.1. This appeal is from an order passed in execution by Mr. Justice Kumaraswami Sastkiyar. It was on the application by the plaintiff in execution of the decree in Original Suit No. 176 of 1909. The decree is as follows : 'That Kasturchand, Nattoji Mulchand and Amed Mull, the defendants herein, do pay to the plaintiff the said sum of rupees twenty-three thousand,' etc.; subsequently to the decree a petition was put in under Order XXI, Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, by the first and second defendants and not opposed by the decree-holder for a certificate by the Court of the adjustment of the decree as against them, and an order was pissed 'that the plaintiff herein do enter up satisfaction of the decree herein in full as against the first and second defendants herein as agreed to by him by the said agreement.' Later when the execution application above referred to as against the other defendants was put in, objection was taken that the decree had been fully satisfied by th...
Maddala Bagavannarayana and anr. Vs. Vadapalli Perumallacharyulu and o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-1915
Reported in: 31Ind.Cas.236
1. Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that two or more persons having an interest in the trust and having obtained the consent in writing of the Advocate-General may institute a suit under that section. The question is whether when more than two persons interested in the trust have obtained the necessary consent, any two of them may sue without the others. We think the language used shows that the persons authorised to sue are all the persons to whom the consent has been given, and not any two of them. On the opposite contention, there might be competition between the various persons authorised as to who should sue. Besides, the provision for giving consent to two or more persons shows that the Legislature considered that in some cases it might not be desirable for only two to sue.2. In this connection it is worth mentioning that Romilly's Act, upon which this section was founded, enabled any two persons interested to apply, and that here the Legislature has empowered a...
Moolchand and anr. Vs. P. Alwar Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-1915
Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.303
Napier, J.1. This appeal is from an order passed by Mr. Justice Kumaraswami Sastri. It was made on the application by the plaintiff in execution of the decree in Civil Suit No. 176 of 1909. The decree is as follows: That Kastoor Chand, Nattoji, Mulohand and Omed Mull, the defendants herein, do pay to the plaintiff the said sum of rupees twenty-three thousand,' etc. Subsequently to the decree a petition was put in under Order XXI, Rule 2, of the Civil Procedure Code by the 1st and 2nd defendants and not opposed by the decree-holder for a certificate by the Court of the adjustment of the decree as against them, and an order was passed that the plaintiff herein do enter up satisfication of the decree herein in full as against the 1st and 2nd defendants herein as agreed to by him by the said agreement.' Latter when the execution application above referred to as against the other defendants was put in, objection was taken that the decfee had been fully satisfied by the adjustment referred t...
Soundararajan (Minor by His Mother and Next Friend, Kannammal) Vs. T.R ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-1915
Reported in: (1916)ILR39Mad136
John Wallis, C.J.1. I have already attempted to summarise the decisions upon this subject in my order of reference and need not go over the ground again. The order of Seshagiri Ayyar, J., proceeds upon the ground that the illegitimate son of a Sudra is not entitled to inherit unless the mother was competent to marry the father, and he holds that the mother in this case was not competent on two grounds that she was not a Sudra and not an unmarried woman. After hearing the question further argued we think it is unnecessary in our opinion to consider what are the essentials of a marriage among Sudras, because we are not satisfied, that this is the test to he applied. To satisfy the texts it must be shown that the mother is a dasi, not that she is qualified to become a wife. As regards her being unmarried woman the Dayabhaga no doubt mentions this, but this text has been interpreted as meaning not married to the father of the child--Vencatachella Chetty v. Parvatham (1875) 8 M.H.C.R. 143, ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »