Chennai Court April 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.
Meenakshi Ammal Vs. Mr. R.G. Orr and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-08-1915
Reported in: AIR1915Mad1175; 29Ind.Cas.457
Napier, J.1. The order in this case is one passed by the District Judge of Ramnad under Section 186 of the Madras Estates Land Act. The preliminary order which is appealed, against was passed on the 20th August 1911, and the judgment assessing the compensation, on the 30th June 1913. The present petition was filed on the 5th November 1913, The Court authorised acquisition of the land for the purpose sought, namely, a threshing floor. The petitioner now complains that the Court erred in basing its decision solely on the certificate of the Collector and in refusing to allow him to adduce evidence. He, however, took no steps to get that order set aside, but allowed the proceedings to continue; and it was not until he had failed in getting compensation as high as he wanted that he objected to the preliminary order. On this ground alone I would dismiss the petition.2. On the examination of the record I find that the allegation that the District Judge bases his decision on the certificate al...
Seshagiri Aiyangar Vs. Sadachi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-08-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad909; 29Ind.Cas.924
1. We are not prepared to hold that the lower Appellate Court's treatment of Exhibits D and K would justify interference.2. The learned District Judge has, however, made no reference to Exhibits F and H series, and in view of the description of their purport in the District Munsif's judgment, we cannot assume that the District Judge considered them. In these circum-stances we must ask him to submit revised findings on the questions raised in the appeals with reference to them.3. He has also made no reference to the fact that 2nd defendant in Original Suit No. 179 of 1911 (2nd Respondent in Second Appeal No. 753 of 1913) admitted plaintiff's claim fully in her written statement. The importance of this seems to, have been recognized in neither Court. For no issue was framed with reference to it, though on this pleading plaintiff was clearly entitled to a decree against 2nd defendant for any portion of the suit site found to be in her exclusive possession; and it was, therefore, necessary...
Rajah Sahib Meharban-i-doston Sri Raja Row V.K.M. Surya Rao Bahadur, S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-1915
Reported in: (1916)ILR39Mad645
John Wallis, C.J. 1. I think that Sadasiva Ayyar, J., was right in following the carefully considered judgment of Benson and Sundara Ayyar, JJ,, in Ramakrishna Chetty v. Subbaraya Ayyar I.L.R. (1915) Mad. 101, and that the principle to be applied is that where an Act contains provisions for the limitation of suits which take away altogether a vested right of suit without providing any equivalent remedy, then according to the approved rule of construction, the provisions must be considered to have been enacted subject to the implied exception that they were not to extend to such vested rights of suit which were to continue subject to the rules of limitation in force at the passing of the Act. This rule of construction was adopted to give effect to the presumed intention of the Legislature not to take away vested rights in this fashion; it is recognised in Section 8 of the Madras General Clauses Act, 1891, and the provisions now in question must be taken to have been enacted with referen...
Row Venkata Kumara Mahipati Surya Row Bahadur Garu, Sirdar Rajamundry ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-1915
Reported in: 30Ind.Cas.94
John Wallis, C.J.1. I think that Sadasivia Aiyar, J., was right in following the carefully considered judgment of Benson and Sundara Aiyar, JJ., in Ramakrishna Chetty v. Sub-ray a Iyer 18 Ind. Cas. 64 and that the principle to be applied is that where an Act contains provisions for the limitation of suits which take away altogether a vested right of suit without providing any equivalent remedy, then according to the approved rule of construction, the provisions must he considered to have been enacted subject to the implied exception that they were not to extend to such vested rights of suit which were to continue subject to the rules of limitation in force at the passing of the Act. This rule of construction was adopted to give effect to the presumed intention of the Legislature not to take away vested rights in this fashion. It is recognised in Section 8 of the Madras General Clauses Act, 1891, and the provisions now in question must be taken to have been enacted with reference to it....
Segu Chidambaramma Vs. Sareddi Hussainamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-1915
Reported in: 30Ind.Cas.101
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The facts are as follows. The plaintiff is the decree-holder in Original Suit No. 311 of 1901 on the file of the Nandyal Munsif's Court. The judgment-debtor is the first defendant, a Hindu widow who represented her husband's estate fully, and the decree was passed for a debt due by her husband. The plaint property was attached by the plaintiff (decree-holder) as belonging to her husband's estate. The attachment was made on the 11th November 1908, but the widow (the first defendant) had sold the property in 1899 itself to the third defendant, who sold it in his turn to the second defendant in 1905. The widow's sale was not made for necessity and was invalid beyond her life-time.2. On these facts the question in second appeal is whether the plaintiff, who is the appellant before us, is or is not entitled to attach and bring to sale in execution of his decree in Original Suit No. 311 of 1901 that portion of the husband's estate which is left unaffected by the sale exe...
Thrikkidiri Manakkal Vasudevan Atisseripad Vs. Konurupettamanna Alias ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-1915
Reported in: 30Ind.Cas.818
Tyabji, J.1. On the 8th April 1896, under Exhibit A, the defendants mortgaged with possession nine items of property estimated to yield 1,000 paras of paddy which, after meeting the assessment and interest, left 126 paras to go in reduction of the principal. On the same day, by Exhibit B, the mortgagors leased back from the mortgagees the nine items on the terms that they were only to pay the mortgagees the 650 paras due for interest on the mortgage and retain 350 paras out of which they were to pay the assessment.2. On the 1st September 1903 the mortgagors executed another mortgage in favour of the mortgagees, Exhibit C, for Rs. 3.300, of 19 items of property, of which items 1 to 9 were the subject of the mortgage with possession (Exhibit A).3. The mortgage was expressly recited to be given as security for the principal sum of Rs. 3,300 and the interest thereon, and as to items 1 to 9 was with possession and as to the other items without possession. On the same day the mortgagors agai...
Municipal Council Vs. R. Sadagopachariar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-1915
Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.380
1. The questions for consideration are : (1) Whether an application for execution to obtain the benefit of restitution, which a person became entitled to by reason of an Appellate Court having reversed the decree of the Court of first instance, is an application for execution of the decree passed on appeal, the reversing appellate decree being dated in 1907 before the new Civil Procedure Code came into force. In other words, whether the party who succeeded in the appeal has got a right to treat the appellate decree as not only a decree reversing the decree of the first Court, but also as a decree containing a direction to his opponent to restore whatever benefit the latter had derived through execution under the reversed decree.2. (2) If the above question is answered in the affirmative on the construction of Section 583 of the old Civil Procedure Code, whether the successful party in appeal lost the benefit of that portion of the appellate decree which granted restitution, by reason o...
Venkataperumal Raju Bahadur Varu, Raja of Karvetnagar, Minor, by Guard ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad20(2); 29Ind.Cas.231
1. The respondents in these connected appeals obtained mortgage decrees against the appellant. These decrees provided for the recovery of the balance from the person and the other properties of the judgment-debtor. Certain properties, not included in the mortgage to the respondents, were attached in execution of two other decrees against the same judgment-debtor; the realised assets were paid into Court. The present respondents applied for rateable distribution; notwithstanding the objection of the judgment-debtor, the applications were granted. The judgment-debtor has appealed. A preliminary objection is taken that as the order was passed under Section 73 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against which no appeal is provided by Section 104 of the Code, no appeal should be entertained. It is conceded that the question agitated in those applications relates to the execution of the decrees between the parties to the suits in which the decrees were passed. Prima facie, therefore, the order i...
Ooppath Naramparambath Kuttan Alias Kunhaman and anr. Vs. V.P.M.P.V. K ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-1915
Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.344
1. The assignor of the plaintiff obtained a mortgage from the jenmi in 1893. In 1894, the said mortgagee sub-mortgaged a portion of the properties to the predecessor-in-title of defendants Nos. 1 to 3 (Exhibit A). The Government revenue due upon the property fell into arrears, and it was put up to sale. One eressan Nair, who, it is alleged, was only a benamidar for the sub-mortgagee, purchased it in 1900. There was a partition among the members of the sub-mortgagee's family, and the property in dispute fell to the share of the 2nd defendant. Defendants Nos. 4 and 5 have purchased it from the 2nd defendant. Plaintiff, claiming to stand in the shoes of the mortgagee, sues to redeem; the Courts below have given him a decree.2. We are unable to agree with the conclusion at which they have arrived. The deed of mortgage, Exhibit B, distinctly provides that the Government revenue shall be paid by the mortgagor, the jenmi. Reference to this document is made in Exhibit A, which sub-mortgages on...
Sathyabhama Vs. Kesavacharya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad464; (1916)ILR39Mad658; 29Ind.Cas.397
1. This is a suit by a widow against her deceased husband's brother for maintenance. There was an agreement on on the 30th April 1906 by which the amount was fixed. The plea of the defendant is that since the date of the agreement, the plaintiff had been leading an immoral life and that consequently she is not entitled to claim maintenance. The Courts below have found that she did lead an immoral life, but that, at the time of the suit, she had reformed her ways and was living with her people. Mr. B. Sitarama Rao wanted to argue that she had gone wrong with a Sudra, that that entails upon her degradation from caste and that consequently she is not entitled to any maintenance. But there is no finding that the pregnancy which is found, was caused by cohabitation with the Sudra. We cannot allow that question to be argued in second appeal.2. On the facts found by the Courts below the question for consideration is, whether the plaintiff is not entitled to what is called 'starving allowance'...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›