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.
Sri Raja Mulraju Lakshmi Venkayamma Rao Bahadur Vs. Sri Raja Venkatadr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad1222(2); 30Ind.Cas.372
ORDER1. It is argued for the petitioner that as our decree did not affirm the decision of the lower Court, and as the value of the contemplated appeal to the Privy Council is over ten thousand rupees, leave ought to be granted under Section 110, Civil Procedure Code, and Order XLV, Rule 3(1).2. We see no sufficient reason to dissent from the view of the Calcutta High Court See Rajah Sreenath Roy v. Secretary of State for India 8 C.W.N. 294 that where as regards the subject-matter of the proposed appeal, the High Court has affirmed the decree of the Court of first instance (though it made some modifications in that decree in the appellant's favour as regards another portion of the plaintiff's claim) leave to appeal to the Privy Council ought not to be granted unless the proposed appeal involved some substantial question of law (last paragraph of Section 110, Civil Procedure Code).3. There seems to be no 'substantial question' of law involved in the proposed appeal. It is, of course, pos...
M.K. Veeraraghava Chariar Vs. A. Krishnamachariar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-1915
Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.907
1. There is no finding by the District Judge on the plea of adverse possession set up by the defendant, and embodied in issue No. 3, though this was made the 7th ground of appeal before him. It appears to have been overloked. We must call for a finding on this point.2. As regards limitation, the appellant's Valcil urges that the original order of the survey officer adverse to the plaintiff was dated 31st Oct ber 1908, and that Exhibit C is only an order on his (appellant's) appeal and will not give the respondent a starting point for limitation under Section 13 of Madras Act IV of 1897. The respondent has now been allowed to file a public copy of an appeal petition filed by him against the Survey Officer's order (Exhibit D) and he represents that this appeal also was disposed of by Exhibit C.3. As the facts are not clear, we must call for a finding: 'Was there any decision of an appellate authority adverse to the plaintiff within the meaning of Section 13 of Madras Act IV of 1897, whic...
Sri Raja Row Venkata Mahipathy Gangadhara Rama Rao Bahadur Vs. Sri Raj ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1915
Reported in: (1915)28MLJ624
Sankaran Nair, J.1. These are appeals from the decree of the Subordinate Judge, Rajahmundry, directing the defendant the Rajah of Pittapur to pay to the plaintiff the sum of Rs. 46,250 for maintenance.2. The Zemindary of Pittapur is an impartible estate descending by lineal primogeniture but otherwise governed by the Mitakshara law. The plaintiff's father was adopted by the late Zamindar who died in the year 1890, having executed testamentary instruments disposing of all his properties in favour of the defendant who also claims to be the natural son of the testator. The late Rajah had previously entered into an agreement with the plaintiff's father in 1882 whereby he had agreed to pay him Rs 1,500 per month and a lump sum of Rs. 6,000 a year. The will confirmed that arrangement. On the death of the Rajah the plaintiff's father sued to recover the Zamindary denying that the defendant was the late Rajah's natural son, and also, the validity of the will. But the suit was finally dismissed...
Sri Rajah Row Venkata Mahipathy Gangadhara Rama Row Bahadur Vs. Sri Ra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1915
Reported in: (1916)ILR39Mad396
Sankaran Nair, J.1. These are appeals from the decree of the Subordinate Judge, Rajahmundry, directing the defendant the Baja of Pittapur to pay to the plaintiff the sum of Rs. 46,250 for maintenance.2. The zamindari of Pittapur is an impartible estate descending by lineal primogeniture but otherwise governed by the Mitakshara law. The plaintiff's father was adopted by the late zamindar who died in the year 1890, having executed testamentary instruments disposing of all his properties in favour of the defendant who also claims to be the natural son of the testator. The late Raja had previously entered into an agreement with the plaintiff's father in 1882 whereby he had agreed to pay him Rs. 1,500 per month and a lump sum of Rs. 6,000 a year. The will confirmed that arrangement. On the death of the Raja the plaintiff's father sued to recover the zamindari denying, that the defendant was the late Raja's natural son, and also, the validity of the will. But the suit was finally dismissed b...
Muhammad HussaIn Sahib and anr. Vs. Abdul Karim Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1915
Reported in: (1916)ILR39Mad544
Seshagiri Ayyar, J.1. This appeal raises an important; question of limitation. A preliminary decree in a mortgage suit was passed on the 7th of October 1901. On the 6th of April 1904, the first application was presented to obtain the order absolute. This apparently was filed as an application for the execution of the preliminary decree. Subsequent applications were made in 1907, 1910 and 1912 all within three years of the immediately preceding application. Notices were 3ent in most of the applications. They were all dismissed without granting the relief prayed for. The present application is dated the 15th of April 1912. It was objected to in the Court of First Instance that as more than three years had elapsed from the date of the preliminary decree, the application was barred. The District Munsif held that there was no bar of limitation for such applications. On appeal the District Judge held that the present application must be treated as one in execution of the decree and that Arti...
Raje Bommaraju Venkata Perumal Raju Bahadur Varu Minor by Guardian W.A ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad728(1); 31Ind.Cas.87
1. An order for attachment was made on the execution application in 1897. That application has not been disposed of in any way. The present one was to sell the attached property. There can be no bar of limitation in such cases, as the decree -holder only asks that effect be given to the application which is still pending before the Court. His present prayer should not be regarded as a new application. We are unable to hold that the decree-holder has either abandoned his application or that he has disabled himself by laches from seeking to enforce his remedies under the pending application. Following Subba Charia v. Muthuveeram Pillai 14 Ind. Cas. 264 and Venkatamma v. Manikam Nayani Varu 26 Ind. Cas. 244, we hold that the application is in time and dismiss this appeal with costs....
Authikesavaloo Naicker Vs. Syed Shah Abdulla HussaIn Sahib Khadiri and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad494; 29Ind.Cas.62
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The learned City Civil Judge correctly describes the suit as praying for a declaration that the sale of the property mentioned in the plaint on 1st April 1909, in favour of 1st defendant is null and void against plaintiff and that it is liable to be proceeded against in execution of the decree in Suit No. 89 of 1909 passed in favour of the plaintiff. The learned Judge further describes the suit as praying for an injunction restraining the 1st defendant from alienating the plaint property, but this seems inaccurate.2. Turning to that portion of paragraph 12 of the plaint which refers to injunction, the prayer contained in that portion is that the 1st defendant be restrained by an injunction from alienating the plaint property in any manner 'pending the disposal of this suit.' This cannot be treated as a prayer for an injunction to be embodied in the decree to be passed in the suit, but only as a prayer for an interlocutory order of in...
Annamalai Mayammad Meera, Rowthan's son, Abdulla Rowthan Vs. the Honou ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1915
Reported in: AIR1915Mad107; 29Ind.Cas.286
1. The 1st defendant is the appellant. The suit was for redemption of a Tcanoin for taking the accounts as between the mortgagor and mortgagee, including the value of improvements due to the mortgagee, and for the usual other reliefs.2. The lower Appellate Court has decreed redemption and has given certain directions as to how the value of the improvements is to be calculated. The questions raised by the first defendant in this second appeal are:3. (1) Whether the plaintiff could redeem that portion of the lands demised on the kanom of 1850 which portion is in the possession of the 1st defendant, on payment of the proportionate kanom amount and of the value of the improvements made on that portion by the 1st defendant;4. (2) whether the 1st defendant is entitled to the value of the cost of the conversion of the jungle lands into paramba lands; and5. (3) whether the rate of compensation to be allowed per para of seed-sowing lands is to be Rs. 7 per para as agreed upon between the mortga...
Sri Rajah Row Venkata Mahipaty Gangadhara Rama Row Bahadur Vs. Sri Raj ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1915
Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.356
Sankaran Nair, J.1. These are appeals from the decree of the Subordinate Judge, Rajahmundry, directing the defendant, the Rajah of Pittapur, to pay to the plaintiff the sum of Rs. 46,250 for maintenance.2. The zemindary of Pittapur is an impartible estate descending by lineal primogeniture but otherwise governed by the Mitalcshara Law. The plaintiff's father was adopted by the late zemindar who died in the year 1890, having executed a testamentary instrument disposing of all his properties in favour of the defendant, who also claims to be the natural son of the testator. The late Rajah had previously entered into an agreement with the plaintiff's father in 1882, whereby he had agreed to pay him Rs. 1,500 per month and a lump sum of Rs. 6,000 a year. The Will confirmed that arrangement. On the death of the Rajah the plaintiff's father sued to recover the zemindary, denying that the defendant was the late Rajah's natural son, and also the validity of the Will. But the suit was finally di...
Mahammad HusaIn Saib and anr. Vs. Abdul Kareem Saib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad288; 29Ind.Cas.237
1. This appeal raises an important question of limitation. A preliminary decree in a mortgage suit was passed on the 7th October 1901. On the 6th April 1904, the first application was presented to obtain the order absolute. This apparently was filed as an application for the execution of the preliminary decree. Subsequent applications were made in 1907, 1910 and 1912, all within three years of the immediately preceding application. Notices were sent in most of the applications. They were all dismissed without granting the relief prayed for. The present application is dated the 15th April 1912. It was objected to in the Court of first instance that as more than three years had elapsed from the date of the preliminary decree, the application was barred. The District Munsif held that there was no bar of limitation for such applications. On appeal the District Judge held that the present application must be treated as one in execution of the decree and that Article 181 of the Limitation Ac...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »