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.
Sheik Ibrahim Rowther Alias Chinnappa Rowther and ors. Vs. Muhamad Ibr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-1915
Reported in: 30Ind.Cas.806
John Wallis, C.J.1. This case raises a question of considerable difficulty and importance as to the existence of a special custom among Labbais or Tamil-speaking converts to Muhammadauism in the District of Coimbatore, or alternatively in the family of the parties to the present suit who belong to that district, to depart from the Muhammadan rule of succession and, as alleged by the defendants, to follow the Hindu Law as regards the law of property succession and partition. This, however, is too broadly produced as the only question arising in the suit is whether they follow the particular rule of Hindu Law which excludes females from the right of succession. The suit is brought by the plaintiffs, who are respectively the husband and minor daughter of the deceased Ponnuthayee, as her heirs to recover her share under the Muhammadan Law in the estate of her father, the late Mahomed Hussain Rowther who predeceased her. In 1877, in a suit tried by Innes, J., in the original side of the Hig...
Valiakath Puthiah Maliyakkal Mammi Kutti Haji Vs. Thachar A. Manakkal ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-1915
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.240
1. In this case an interesting question relating to the construction of Order XXI, Rule 57, of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, was argued before us. After the respondent had got the property attached, on an appeal preferred by the judgment debtor, the sale was stayed. Thereupon the District Munsif dismissed the application. It is contended that this dismissal had the effect of putting an end to the attachment under Rule 57. We are unable to agree. Under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1882, dismissals for default by Courts of first instance were regarded with disfavour, as there was an impression that these were attempts to increase the number of disposals without really deciding the matter in dispute, and as there was no provision for striking off applications, the attachments made under them were held as still subsisting, notwithstanding the disposal. Rule 57 has been passed to provide against this indefinite prolongation of execution proceedings. Under that rule, if the application ...
Machikandi Parkum Maramittath Tharuvil Mootha Chettiam Veettil Chakkra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-1915
Reported in: (1916)ILR39Mad317
John Wallis, C.J. 1. It seems desirable at the outset to point-out that the decision of the Full Bench in Kunhacha Umma v. Kutti Mammi Hajee I.L.R. (1893) Mad. 201, which is questioned in the reference merely decides that among the followers of the Marumakkattayam law, when a gift is made by the father to the mother and her children, there is a presumption that they are intended to take such properties as the exclusive properties of the branch or tavazhi consisting of the mother and her children, that is to say, with the usual incidents of tarwad property. In the absence of express provision the presumption is that the property is to be enjoyed by the mother and her issue in the way in which property is customarily held and enjoyed among followers of the Marumakkattayam law. The decision proceeded on the authority of two decisions of their Lordships of the Judicial Committee which laid down that the law governing the parties is one of the circumstances to be taken into consideration in...
Muthuraman Chetty Vs. Krishna Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1915
Reported in: (1905)ILR29Mad72
1. The plaintiff-appellant Rues for the recovery of the price alleged to have been paid by him to the first defendant on account of the sale of land (exhibit A) executed by that defendant to the plaintiff on the ground that he has been deprived of the land in consequence of the judgment in Original Suit No. 496 of 1901 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Chidambaram brought by one Shanmugam Pillai. That suit was on the ground that the property belonged to Shanmugam Pillai, having been orally sold to his father by the then admitted owner one Ponnusami Pillai, the sale being followed by possession, and further, subsequently supported by an unregistered instrument of sale. The present plaintiff who was a party to that suit set up an alleged title under exhibit A, a registered document. The then plaintiff Shanmugam Pillai's answer to the defence thus set up was that exhibit A was brought about by fraud, the present plaintiff being the prime mover in it Shanmugam alleged that...
Sukramania Mudali and ors. Vs. Kuppammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1915
Reported in: 31Ind.Cas.106
1. The decision in Singarappa v. Talari Sanjivappa 15 M.L.J. 228 is exactly in point. At this stage we are not required to examine the averments in the plaint and to say whether plaintiff can succeed in the face of the deed she had executed. The plaint sets up a case of fraud, and states that the defendants were not given any present interest in the property. The cause of action is stated to be defendants' unlawfully taking possession of the property. Therefore, according to the plaintiff, the necessity for suing to set aside the sale-deed arose on the attempt to take unlawful possession, which event happened within three years of the suit. The decision in Singarappa v. Talari Sanjivappa 15 M.L.J. 228 follows an earlier ruling of this Court in Sundaram v. Sithammal 3 M.L.J. 144, which has been accepted as good law in Vithai v. Hari 2 Bom. L.R. 638; the decision of the Judicial Committee in Janki Kunwar v. Ajit Singh 14 I.A. 148 : Rafique and Jackson's P.C. No. 99, has been considered i...
Nathar Hussian Meera Levai Rowther and anr. Vs. the Deputy Collector o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad1146; 31Ind.Cas.259
1. There is uncontradicted evidence that the remaining lands of the claimants were injuriously affected by the construction of the channel and flood bank. They are entitled to be compensated for this injury, even if the loss was more than counterbalanced by the advantages they gained from the execution of the project. Eaglet v. Charing Cross Railway Co. (1867) 2 C.P. 638 : 36 L.J.C.P. 297 : 15 W.R. 10. What we have to consider is, what would be the injury to the claimants if they were cultivating the lands themselves, as they might if so minded. It is not very easy to assess the damages for diminished facilities of communication and access. The figures and evidence of the claimants are altogether, extravagant; but we think that in the absence of evidence to the contrary, Rs. 500 may fairly be allowed. As regards the garden land dealt; with in paragraph 12 of the award, the District Judge himself says, the lands are probably as valuable as wet lands. We increase the award from Rs. 750 t...
HussaIn Saib and ors. Vs. Hassan Saib and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad165; 31Ind.Cas.927
Tyabji, J.1. This appeal arises out of suit which has been referred to as a suit for partition. In reality, its subject-matter consists of what might have given rise to several suits for partition, for administration and perhaps for dissolutions of partnership, relating to the estates of persons who lived and carried on business in the beginning and middle of the last century.2. It is not disputed that the parties are governed by the Muhammadan Law of succession and inheritance. Whether their mode of life will affect the law applicable to the property acquired or inherited by them, is one of the many questions that will have to be considered.3. I will deal in the first instance with the history of the family; and will then consider the rights of the parties in the circumstances and events that are proved.4. In referring to the names of the parties, I shall try to adhere to the same corrupt form which the parties themselves seem to have adopted.5. One Shavaki Abdul Rajack is admitted to...
Appayya Shetty Vs. B.P.M. Mahammad Beari and Two ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad680; (1916)ILR39Mad834
Seshagiri Ayyar, J.1. I have had the advantage of reading the judgment which my learned brother is about to deliver. As the question is one of considerable importance and as the decisions bearing on it are not consistent with each other, I think it desirable to state my views on the subject shortly.2. The lease to defendants Nos. 1 and 2 is a permanent one. The plaint says that the produce was set apart for a religious service. I take it that the grantor was only anxious that ho should be paid the rent. He gave up rights of possession, etc., when he granted this permanent lease. The original grantees paid the rant regularly for sixteen years. It was after the transfer of their interests to the third defendant in 1907 that default was made. There were three years' arrears of rent when the suit was brought. The document in question provides for the payment of the first year's rent with that of the second year. If rent remained unpaid even then, the lessees were liable to be evicted. The ...
Krishnan Kidavu (Meppat Parkum Anandravan) and Eleven ors. Vs. Raman A ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1915
Reported in: (1916)ILR39Mad918
Seshagiri Ayyar, J.1. The facts of this case are not in dispute. Defendants Nos. 1 to 17 are members of a Malabar tarwad. The first defendant is the karnavan. The eighteenth defendant was the karnavan before him. This tarwad along with four others possesses three atanams. Succession to the stanams is by seniority. The eighteenth defendant became a atani, He was then succeeded in the karnavanship by the first defendant. It was found that ha was not capable of managing the tarwad affairs. Thereupon, he (the first defendant), the eighteenth defendant, the previous karnavan and the senior female member entered into a karar (Exhibit I) on the 12th May 1884. It is said there were other members. They were not parties to the karar.2. Mr. Anantakrishna Ayyar says that they were all minors. The effect of the karar is to vest the management in the eighteenth defendant, although he was no longer a member of the tarwad. At the time of the karar, the defendant's tarwad had obtained an otti deed of t...
Hakeem Patte Muhamad Vs. Sheikh Davood
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad841; 30Ind.Cas.569
Spencer, J.1. A vendee from the original mortgagors brought this suit for redemption. The suit document is termed swadina tanaka meddatu sharatu pattiram,' which may be translated as a possessors mortgage-deed containing a condition for a period fixed. It recites that the mortgagors have received Rs. 10 and have mortgaged their house site with a thatched house standing thereon, that they undertake to pay the principal and interest of these Rs. 10 within a year and take back possession of their house and site, and that, if they do not act according to these conditions, they will surrender the house and land treating the transaction as a sale.2. This suit for redemption was brought seventeen years after the term expired.3. The District Munsif dismissed the suit on the ground that the 3rd defendant had had adverse possession for over 12 years, following Usuman Khan v. Nagalla Dasanna 16 Ind. Cas. 694. The facts of that case were somewhat different. The parties agreed to treat the possessi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »