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.
Thoppukattu Ramaya Gounden and anr., and Vs. R. Sadagopachariar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad1154; 32Ind.Cas.759
Seshagiri Aiyar, J.1. In these cases suits for declaration were filed in the District Munsif's Court. Among the reliefs prayed for, the questions regarding the right of the tenant to the trees on their holding whether the trees can be cut by them, were asked to be decided. The District Munsif was invited to give and did give his finding upon the matters in controversy between the parties. Ultimately he held that the suits ought to be instituted in the Revenue Court and that he had no jurisdiction; he, therefore, directed the plaintiff to present his plaints in the proper Court. Against those orders appeals were preferred to the District Judge. Before the District Judge the parties agreed that, as there was a prayer which asked for a declaration of rights, the District Munsif had jurisdiction to dispose of the suits. In this view the only order that should have been passed was to annul the orders of the District Munsif directing the return of the plaints for presentation to the proper C...
Govindasamy Raja Vs. Kuppammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad1215; 31Ind.Cas.77
1. The findings of the District Judge are not as clear as they might be. But we understand them to amount to this: that no title was intended to pass under the document Exhibit I until the death of plaintiff, on which the properties would vest in defendants. There is evidence to support this view, and we see no reason for not accepting it. It follows that the document was really intended to operate as a Will and would be revocable by plaintiff at any time.2. On this view, we see no reason to modify the decree of the lower Appellate Court except as to costs. Bearing in mind that plaintiff has only herself to blame for the litigation into which her disingenuous conduct has landed her, we direct that both parties bear their own costs throughout....
In Re: K. Parameswara Nambudri
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad72; 31Ind.Cas.161
ORDERWilliam Ayling, J.1. The complaint in this case sets out that sometime in the month of Chingom 1087 (Malabar) corresponding to August 1912, the accused persons, the present petitioners, wrote an endorsement on a promissory note, which had been executed in favour of the complainant (present counter-petitioner), purporting to record a payment of Rs. 1,500 towards that promissory note. No such payment, according to complainant, was ever made; and his case is that the endorsement was written with the intention that it might appear in evidence in case he (complainant) brought a civil suit to recover the amount due on the promissory note.2. Now assuming that complainant is in a position to make out (1) that accused wrote the endorsement, (2) that the payment which it purports to record was never made, (3) that the intention of accused was that the endorsement should appear in evidence in a judicial proceeding, then the offence of fabricating false evidence defined in Section 192, Indian...
Veeraraghava Thathachariar and ors. Vs. Krishnaswami Thathachariar and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad845; 31Ind.Cas.269
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. This suit was brought for the recovery of emoluments amounting to Rs. 167-1-11. It was decreed by the District Munsif for the appreciably lesser amount of Rs. 127-4. That decree was confirmed by the District Court against whose decision this second appeal has been preferred, valuing it at Rs. 127-4. But the eight grounds mentioned in the memorandum of second appeal are concerned only with that portion of the plaintiffs' claim which relates to the emoluments due to other temple servants (other than the plaintiff) working during the annual festival of the Sri Manavala Mahamuni shrine, which is a minor shrine situated in the famous Conjeevaram Varadaraja swami temple. The emoluments thus in question in this second appeal amount to the rather paltry sum of Rs. 5-1-0 (at the rate of Re. 6-13-6 per year for the six years before suit).2. This litigation is now nearly 10 years' old, the plaint having been filed on the 2nd January 1906. This second-appeal which really relat...
Mukkoosa Nair Veetil and anr. Vs. the Secretary of State for India in ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-1915
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.541
1. The plaint seeks for a declaration of the plaintiff's right of easement and damages for interference therewith. The first issue raised the question whether the plaintiff had acquired a prescriptive right to take water by building a dam across the river. The order of remand of Sankaran Nair and Sadasiva Aiyar, JJ., only directed the Judge to return findings on the issues and on any other issues he might frame and did not alter the nature of the suit, and no other issues were framed nor was the plaint amended. The District Judge found that no easement had been acquired by the plaintiff as the dam was erected by permission of the defendant and there is evidence to support the finding. He only discussed the question of title to the bed of the river with reference to the period in which a prescriptive right could be acquired. On the finding that the dam was erected by permission there was no question of easement and the suit must fail, unless we are prepared to treat it as a suit for dec...
In Re: Mukka Muthrian and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-1915
Reported in: 31Ind.Cas.343
ORDERSpencer, J.1. After re-hearing the appeal the Deputy Magistrate has acquitted the appellants on the charges of house-trespass and mischief for the acts alleged to have been committed during the second stage of the disturbance.2. He has confirmed the conviction of the present petitioners on the charges of rioting and voluntarily causing simple hurt for the acts alleged to have been committed during the first part of the occurrence, namely, when the car was being taken in procession through the streets and when the Ambalagars were carrying 'sevalai kalis' in front of the ear.3. He draws the inference that the Ambalagars intended to commit rioting because the carrying of these bamboo sticks, which are said to be used for catching flower balls, was unprecedented on the occasion of the festival and was objected to by the Pallars. He adds: 'To explain it still further, these sticks have been in the end the cause of the rioting, for it was the use of those sticks that was remonstrated (s...
Ratna Pathan Vs. Para Sundaram
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad547(2); 30Ind.Cas.634
Seshagiri Aiyar, J.1. The point for decision was whether the defendant executed the note sued on. The conclusion came to by the District Munsif is that that document is not genuine. This is based upon the evidence of witnesses who, it is contended by the petitioner before me, all speak to the execution of the document. In the note appended to the judgment it is stated that six witnesses were examined, five for the plaintiff and one for the defendant. In the notes sent up to this Court the evidence of the sixth witness does not appear. As regards the fifth witness for the plaintiff, the only portion of his evidence is that which stops with 'I am' and is not taken any further. It is contended before me that the Judge did not take an abstract of the deposition of the 5th witness, nor of the witness for the defendant The learned Counsel for the counter-petitioner is unable to say whether this contention is well-founded or not. The records sent up to this Court do not show that the depositi...
Musammat Devupalli Ammanna Window of Dalayya of Kathulapeta Vs. Pedire ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad1049; 30Ind.Cas.689
Seshagiri Aiyar, J.1. I think the Subordinate Judge acted in the exercise of his jurisdiction with material irregularity in dealing with the petitioner's pauper application. The petitioner stated that her husband died in January 1902, and that the 2nd defendant disposed of the property in April 1903. Her case was that the cause of action for this 3uit arose in April 1903. According to that statement in the plaint the suit is in time. The Subordinate Judge considered it very likely that the husband died before the 30th January 1902 and that as the plaint was presented on the 30th January 1914, the suit was barred by limitation. He is not justified in assuming, without any proof in that behalf, that the husband died before the 30th January 1902 and from the allegations made in the petition there is nothing to suggest that the suit was not in time. Moreover, in this case before the judgment was delivered by the Subordinate Judge, an affidavit was put in by the pauper applicant alleging th...
Sri Rajah Inuganti Kasturamma Bahadur, Zamindarini Vs. Chelikani Venka ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad65; 30Ind.Cas.878
1. The plaint is to the effect (1) that the plaintiff and his father rendered great services to the defendant's husband, the late zemindar of Kirlampudi; (2) that in consideration of such services the late zemindar agreed to give to the plaintiff a salary of Its. 20 per mensem during the plaintiff's life-time; (3) that accordingly the defendant's husband gave possession of his estate to the defendant and executed a deed of mortgage with possession' (viz., Exhibit B on the record) and asked the defendant to pay the allowances payable to the plaintiff.' There is a reference to natural love and affection, but there is no registered document between the plaintiff and the zemindar and Section 25(1) of the Indian Contract Act has not been relied upon. The prayer is that a decree be passed for recovery of the arrears of the alleged allowances after July 1907 from the estate of the late zemindar (who died on 2nd November 1906) in the hands of the defendant.2. The written statement denies both ...
Suppa Bhattar Vs. Suppu Sokkaya Bhattar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad465; 30Ind.Cas.962
Coutts-Trotter, J.1. The facts which gave rise to this appeal are as follows: A certain Chandrasekara Bhattar was entitled to certain manibham lands appertaining to the office of alankara miras in a temple in Madura. He died on the 3rd May 1881. He had no children, but he left a widow called Thalamuthammal: he also had a nephew called Rajah Bhattar, who succeeded him as alankara mirasdar and enjoyed the properties partly under a Will alleged to have been made by Chandrasekara Bhattar before he died and partly by an agreement with Thalamuthammal. Rajah Bhattar died on the 25th January 1882, leaving a widow Akilandammal. Questions arose between the two widows, but they were settled by agreement, and Thalamuthammal went into possession of the lands and remained in possession till her death in 1885. Meanwhile, the plaintiff who is found by the lower Court to be the nearest agnate of Rajah Bhattar brought a suit, Original Suit No. 15 of 1882, to establish his reversionary rights, apparently...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »