Chennai Court August 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.
Karri Ramayya and ors. Vs. Villoori Jagannadhan and Nine ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1915
Reported in: (1916)ILR39Mad930
Spencer, J.1. The suit was brought for the partition of a bariki service inam which was enfranchised in 1905 in the name of the first defendant. The contesting defendants were the purchasers from the first defendant and three of his sons by a sale deed executed in 1906. The plaintiff was a purchaser from the first defendant's elder son and two of his brothers in 1909. The brother's share in the joint family property being two-thirds and the first defendant's son's being one-fifteenth, the claim of the plaintiff was to recover eleven-fifteenths of the whole inam. He got a decree accordingly in the first Court which was confirmed in appeal.2. The first question now raised is whether the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 had a saleable interest prior to enfranchisement. The short answer to this is that the sale, through Exhibit B, having been executed on 21st September 1909 subsequent to the enfranchisement, passed all the rights which they then possessed. There was a previous agreement to sell in ...
Thiruvengadaswami Iyengar Vs. Veera Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad1062(1); 30Ind.Cas.778
Seshagiri Aiyar, J.1. The plaintiff in this case is content with a personal decree against the 1st defendant and has not chosen to come to this Court in revision. The finding of the lower Court is that there was no necessity for borrowing the money although the amount of the note was spent for the benefit of the temple. It has not been shown before me that the necessity was so urgent as to compel the 1st defendant to borrow even without the consent of his co-trustee from a third party. I express no opinion as to whether the 1st defendant will not be entitled to recover this money from the trust funds as admittedly the money has been spent for the benefit of the temple. I think the conclusion come to by the Subordinate Judge is right. The 1st defendant who executed the promissory note without consulting his colleague has rendered himself personally liable. On that simple ground I think that the decree of the Subordinate Judge should be upheld.2. The petition is dismissed with costs....
Veerammal and anr. Vs. Kamu Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad342(2); 30Ind.Cas.815
1. The only declaratory relief to which a contingent reversioner is ordinarily entitled when he disputes the alienation by qualified female heirs, is that those alienations are not binding beyond the life-time of the qualified female owner or owners. The other declarations given by the first Court decree (confirmed by the Appellate Court), namely, that the plaintiff be declared entitled to inherit the property after the death of defendants Nos. 1 and 2' and 'that 3rd defendant has no interest, etc.', were unnecessary and the discretion of the Courts as to declaratory reliefs was not exercised properly in granting those two declarations. The decrees will be modified by striking out the words relating to the above two declarations. The decrees are confirmed in other respects. As regards the contention that the release, Exhibit I, was invalid under Hindu Law, the only new argument brought forward by appellants' learned Vakil for re-considering our decision in Thangavelu Pillai v. Doraisam...
Madapaty Venkateswara Row Pantulugaru Vs. Nandum Rajagopalam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad708(2); 30Ind.Cas.927
Seshagiri Aiyar, J.1. The respondent is unrepresented. The suit was by the proprietor to recover kattubadi from a minor inamdar. The District Munsif held that, having regard to Section 77 of the Madras Estates Land Act, the plaint ought to have been presented to the Revenue Court. On the authorities which have been cited before me this conclusion is wrong. In Gopisetti Narainsawmi Naidu v. Tallanraju Vencatusubrayudu 9 Ind. Cas. 642 : (1911) 1 M.W.N. 233 : 9 M.L.T. 315 under similar circumstances it was decided that a suit for kattubadi is not beyond the jurisdiction of the ordinary Civil Courts. In Second Appeal No. 716 of 1913 a similar conclusion was come to with reference to quit rent. There is no allegation in this case that the inamdar is also a cultivator. Under these circumstances the decision of the District Munsif is wrong. It must be set aside and the District Munsif must be asked to restore the case to his file and dispose of it according to law....
Karri Ramayya and anr. Vs. Villoori Jagannadham and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1915
Reported in: AIR1915Mad998; 30Ind.Cas.889
1. The suit was brought for the partition of a bariki service inam, which was enfranchised in 1905 in the name of the 1st defendant. The contesting defendants were the purchasers from the 1st defendant and three of his sons by a sale-deed executed in 1906. The plaintiff was a purchaser from the 1st defendant's eldest son and two of his brothers in 1909. The brothers' share in the joint family property being two-thirds and the 1st defendant's sons being 1/15th, the claim of the plaintiff was to recover 11/15th of the whole inam. He got a decree accordingly in the first Court which was confirmed in appeal. The first question now raised is whether the defendants, Nos. 2 and 3 had a saleable interest prior to enfranchisement. The short answer to this is that the sale through Exhibit B, having been executed on 21st September 1909 subsequent to the enfranchisement, passed all the rights which they then possessed. There was a previous agreement to sell in 1906, which does not affect the quest...
G. Seshaiyangar Vs. A.B. Venkatachalam Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad1088; 31Ind.Cas.15
Seshagiri Aiyar, J.1. A preliminary objection is taken by Mr. Ranga Ramanujachariar that this petition does not lie as the proper remedy of the petitioner was to have filed an appeal to the District Court against the order of the Subordinate Judge. The Subordinate Judge in directing the arrest of the petitioner acted in the exercise of his powers as a Small Cause Court Judge. The plea of the petitioner was that so long as the insolvency proceedings were undisposed of, he was not liable to be arrested in execution of the decree of the Small Cause Court. The Sub-Judge dealt with this objection as a Judge of the Court of Small Causes. Its correctness can be decided only by a Court to which the Small Cause Court is subordinate and that Court is the High Court. Therefore the petition was rightly filed in this Court.On the merits.2. This was an application in execution of a decree of the Small Cause Court to arrest the petitioner who had been adjudicated an insolvent already. Proceedings wer...
In Re: Subbaraya Chetti (Accused in Calendar Case No. 242 of 1915 on t ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-1915
Reported in: (1916)ILR39Mad928
ORDERTyabji, J.1. The Magistrate's Court had no power to remand the accused. Section 167 of the Criminal Procedure Code applies to proceedings under Chapter XIV and not to those under Section 110: Emperor v. Basya (1903) 5 Bom. L.R. 27. The conviction is therefore set aside and the bail bonds cancelled....
A.L.M.S.S. Chinnakarupan Chetty Vs. M.V.M. Meyyappa Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad732(1); 30Ind.Cas.753
Seshagiri Aiyar, J.1. It is to be regretted that the respondent is not represented before me, as the matter argued by the Vakil for the petitioner is one of some importance.2. An application was made to the Subordinate Judge to stay proceedings in his Court as an appeal relating to the same subject-matter between the parties to the suit was pending in the Chief Court of Lower Burma at Rangoon. The Subordinate Judge considered that, as there was no evidence before him that an appeal had been filed before the suit in his Court was instituted, Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code had no application. I do not think that this view is correct. It was decided in Pichuvayyangar v. Seshayyangar 18 M.k 214 by a Full Bench of this Court that proceedings in appeal are only a continuation of the suit instituted in the first Court. That view was accepted in Kristnama Chariar v. Mangammal 26 M.k 91. Order XLI, Rule 82, of the Code of Civil Procedure leads to the same conclusion: an Appellate Court ...
Parvathi Ammal Vs. Govindasami Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad290(2); (1916)ILR39Mad803; 30Ind.Cas.827
1. The facts of the case are not in dispute. The defendant obtained a decree against certain persons. Immoveable properties were sold under that decree, and the plaintiff became the purchaser. At the instance of the judgment-debtors the sale was set aside on the ground of irregularities in the conduct of the sale. Plaintiff, the purchaser, sued to recover the amount of the poundage fee deducted from the purchase-money paid by him, and also interest. The claim for Vakils' fees, etc., has not been pressed before us. The District Munsif held that plaintiff was entitled to interest at 6 per cent, and that a separate suit does not lie to recover poundage. Both the parties appealed. The Subordinate Judge held that the claim for poundage was sustainable, but that interest should not have been decreed. Second Appeal No. 1127 of J 914 is by the defendant against the decree for poundage. Second Appeal No. 1147 of 1914 is by the plaintiff for the interest disallowed.2. Before dealing with the que...
Methuku Sivaramayya Vs. Munireddigari Chinna Muneappa and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad1206; 30Ind.Cas.812
1. Assuming that Exhibit B is a genuine document and also that Exhibit A has the legal effect of a transfer for valuable consideration of the kudivaram, right in favour of the zemindar, Section 8, Clauses (1) and 3, of the Estates Land Act clearly enact that ryoti land cannot cease to be such owing to such merger of the melraram and kudivaram rights and that the landholder purchaser shall continue to treat the land as ryoti land' of which he is the landholder.2. As Exhibit B of 1872 was relied on by the plaintiff from the beginning, as there is nothing in the records to show that the plaint land was treated as home-farm land before the date of Exhibit C and as the grounds of appeal to the lower Appellate Court relied on the transfers under Exhibit B and Exhibit A and not on the ground that the land had even before the date of Exhibit B beer, home-farm lands, we cannot allow the appellant to set up such a new case for the first time in second appeal, a case evidently not set up in the l...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »