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.
Marian Beeviammal Vs. Kadir Meera Sahib Taragan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad1207(2); 29Ind.Cas.275
1. The suit was brought in November 1911 by the plaintiff, a Muhammadan lady, to recover her share of the property left by her husband, Alii Mallik Mudalia Taraganar, who died on the 14th April 1889 leaving him surviving his sons by his predeceased wives, and the plaintiff and her son, the 5th defendant.2. The Subordinate Judge held, that the plaintiff's deceased husband left all his property to his sons with the knowledge and consent of the plaintiff and that these latter had subsequently effected a partition among themselves of the property left by their father, also with the consent of the plaintiff and that the plaintiff's claim, if any, is now barred by limitation. The plaintiff appeals.3. In 1878 the deceased Mudalia Taraganar effected a partition between himself and his four sons by his second wife then deceased. The property was divided into eight share?, each of the four sons of the second wife getting a share, and Mudalia Taraganar, his third wife, and his two sons by the thi...
Thiruvenkatachariar Vs. Thangayi Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-1915
Reported in: AIR1915Mad1177; 29Ind.Cas.294
1. The Official Receiver of Tanjore, in whom the property belonging to the insolvent vested under an adjudication order, issued a proclamation for the sale of the properties in dispute. In it he stated that the properties would be sold subject to two mortgages subsisting in favour of certain secured creditors. The sale was fixed for the 21st March 191-1. On that day the Official Receiver noted in the sale proclamation, Intending bidders present say that the properties would fetch a better price if they are sold free of mortgage.... Under these circumstances in modification of the terms of the sale proclamation, I propose to sell now the properties free of encumbrance.' The properties were purchased by the appellant for Rs. 22,000. This was on the 22nd March. On the 9th of April an application was made to the District Court by the respondent, who is also one of the creditors of the insolvent, for setting aside the sale on the ground that the variation in the sale proclamation was irregu...
M. Chenga Reddi and ors. Vs. Vasudeva Reddi, Minor, by Guardian Narasi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad1010(2); 29Ind.Cas.770
Sankaran Nair, J.1. The suit was brought by the plaintiffs as the reversioners of one Chenga Reddi, deceased, the admitted owner of the properties in suit, to set aside an adoption made by his adoptive mother Subbamma, the 1st defendant, to her deceased husband. The plaintiffs' case is that Subbamma was not authorized by her husband to make a second adoption. The District Judge of North Arcot dismissed the suit holding that she had been authorized. The plaintiffs appeal.2. The authority is alleged to be given by a Will executed by the husband of the 1st defendant shortly before his death. The Will is in the following terms:The Will dated the 8th Avani of Vishu (22nd August 1881) executed by one Mogili Reeddigari Cheuga Reddi of Thondanada village, Chandragiri Taluq, in favour of yourself Subbu, my wife, is as follows :We have no male issue, but have only got (1) one elder daughter Hubbamma and (2) one sucoud daughter Chinna Subbamma, the said elder daughter having two sons and the seco...
Sri Hotha Virabhadrayya Pantulu Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer, Polava ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad733; 29Ind.Cas.8
1. We think the terms of the muchilikas, Exhibit A, etc., which were entered into before the passing of the Madras Estates Land Act, were intended to amount to an admission by the tenant that he had no permanent interest in the holding and no claim to any compensation in the event of Its being acquired by Government. We think, however, that the muchilika must be read with reference to the state of things when it was entered into, and that the terms in question cannot be read as an agreement by the tenant to transfer to the landlord this right to compensation in respect of any interest in the holding which might afterwards be conferred upon him by the Legislature. We think, therefore, that the Government Agent was right in holding that the 2nd respondent was entitled to a share. As regards the amount owe, compensation, the Government Agent does not say that he has taken the tenant's interest into account and refers only to the landlord's interest. The value of the landlord's share as pa...
Ramanadhan Chettiar Vs. Annamalai Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad1203(1); 29Ind.Cas.132
1. We are of opinion that the plaintiff in this suit could not have been given a decree declaring that the decree in Original Suit No. 42 of 1909 was fraudulent and invalid without a prayer in his plaint for consequential relief. Vide Arunachalam Chetty v. Rangasamy Pillai 28 Ind. Cas. 79 : (1915) M.W.N. 118 : 17 M.L.T. 154 : 28 M.L.J. 118. The consequential relief necessary was an injunction restraining the 1st defendant (plaintiff in Original Suit No. 42) from executing his decree, vide Kunhamed v. Kutti 14 M.P 167 : 1 M.L.J. 338. Whether the District Judge was right or wrong in thinking that he had no power to allow the plaintiff to amend his plaint in spite of the very wide language in which Order VI, Rule 17, Civil Procedure Code, is worded, we are clearly of opinion that the circumstances of the present case were not such as to warrant an indulgence.2. They are, firstly, that having applied without success to have the ex parte decree against him set aside, he did not appeal again...
Kalavagunta Singara Charlu and ors. Vs. Sreeman Gudimalla Venkata Sesh ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad1090; 29Ind.Cas.269
1. In Ramasami Ayyar v. Vengidusami Ayyar 22 M.p 113 a sonless widow was held entitled to make a gift to her daughter's husband of a reasonable proportion of the estate (which the widow had inherited as qualified owner) on the occasion of the daughter's marriage, because such a gift of land ' is believed to enhance the merit of the primary act viz., the giving of a virgin in marriage,' and 'a qualified owner' (like a Hindu widow who has inherited her husband's or son's estate) has the power to do all acts proper and incidental to the marriage of a female ' of the family to which her husband belonged. In Anavilla Sundararamayya v. Cherla Sitamma 10 Ind. Gas. 56 : 21 M.L.T. 695 : 9 M.L.T. 469 (1911) 1 M.W.K. 422 : 35 M.P 628 a Hindu father was held entitled to make a gift of a fair proportion of his lands to his daughter even after her marriage and the gift was held binding on the son of the donor. In Pugalia Vettor Animal v. Vettor Goundan 13 Ind. Cas. 475 : 22 M.L.J. 321 : (1912) M.W.N...
T.R. Gopalasami Pillai Vs. Si. Ru. Pe. KA. Chidambaram
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad619(1); 29Ind.Cas.151
1. The learned Judge is right. Inder Pershad Singh v. Campbell 7 C.P 474 : 8 G.L.E. 501 and Goculdas Madhavji v. Narsu Yenkuji 13 B.P 630 show that where a sub-lease is entered into in the belief that the original contract will be subsisting during the period during which the sub-contract is to be worked, the cancellation of the contract terminates the sub-contract as well: we think that proposition is unobjectionable. The plaintiff has recovered on the principle of quantum meruil for what he has done. The suit was rightly dismissed.2. The appeal is dismissed with costs....
A. Ahmed Ally and Co. Vs. Official Assignee
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad818; 29Ind.Cas.947
Napier, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of Mr. Justice Bakewell sitting in insolvency on a motion by the Official Assignee, calling on the respondents before him to show cause why an order should not be made declaring that the sale to them of the entire stock of the insolvent's girders, alleged to have been made on the 20th May 1913 for a sum of Rs. 23,608-11-4, should not be set aside on the ground that it was a fraudulent preference orthat it was not made in good faith and for valuable consideration.2. The learned Judge has held that the transaction was not a genuine sale but was a nominal one and was not intended to be an out and out sale; and that even if it was a sale the property was in the possession, order and disposition of the insolvent within the meaning of Section 52 of Act III of 1909. On the latter point 1 am quite clear. There is no evidence worth the name that any attempt was made by the respondents to take possession of this property until after the act of ins...
Audiappa Pillai Vs. Nallendran Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad605; (1915)28MLJ442
1. The District Judge held that no circumstances have been proved which could deprive the father of the right of guardianship of his minor daughters. We agree with him. Mr. Krishnaswami Aiyar has taken us through the whole of the evidence; accepting in their entirety the depositions of appellant's witnesses, we are unable to find that any circumstance has been spoken to which would render the father unfit to be the guardian of his minor daughters. There is some evidence that the deceased mother of the girls was not properly treated : that is not a ground for presuming that the children will not be properly looked after. The eldest girl was 12 years of age at the time of the enquiry 'and the grandfather is unable to depose to any single act which shows that either the father or the step-mother ill-treated the girl. The fact that the father has married a second wife is not a sufficient ground for holding that he is unfit to be the guardian of his children.2. The learned Vakil for the app...
Audiappa Pillai Vs. Nallendrani Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-1915
Reported in: (1916)ILR39Mad473
Seshagiri Ayyar, J.1. The District Judge held that no circumstances have been proved which would deprive the father of the right of guardianship of his minor daughters. We agree with him. Mr. Krishnaswami Ayyar has taken us through the whole of the evidence. Accepting in their entirety the depositions of appellants' witnesses, we are unable to find that any circumstance has been spoken to which would render the father unfit to be the guardian of his minor daughters. There is some evidence that the deceased mother of the girls was not properly treated: that is not a ground for presuming that the children will not be properly looked after. The eldest girl was twelve years of age at the time of the enquiry and the grandfather is unable to depose to any single act which shows that either the father or the stepmother ill-treated the girl. The fact that the father has married a second wife is not a sufficient ground for holding that he is unfit to be the guardian of his children.2. The learn...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »