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.
Edward Charles Dawson Vs. Matty Dawson
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad675(2); 30Ind.Cas.565
1. In order to support a suit for nullity of marriage in this country on the ground of impotence on the part of one of the parties, such impotence must of course be proved, or there must be facts from which impotence, that is, physical unfitness for consummation may be inferred both at the date of the marriage and at the date of the institution of the suit. The only evidence here is that the respondent never attained puberty and that the petitioner never had intercourse with her. Nor are the allegations in the plaint any more satisfactory. In the circumstances, we think it best not to confirm the decree and to dismiss the suit, but with liberty to bring a fresh suit as the whole nature of the proceedings appears to have been misconceived....
Bommareddi Polireddi Vs. Bommareddi Bapireddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1915
Reported in: 30Ind.Cas.639
1. From the issues framed and the whole tenor of the judgment of the District Munsif it is clear that the suit was dealt with as one based on the karamama, and the point urged on behalf of appellant (1st defendant) is that the Subordinate Judge was not justified in disregarding the karamama and giving a decree for plaintiffs merely on the basis of the compromise decree in Original Suit No. 298 of 1908 as he has done. It is argued that appellant has thereby been prejudiced in that he has had no fair opportunity of showing that, as alleged in paragragh 5 of his written statement, his consent to the razinama was obtained by misrepresentation and fraud.2. The Subordinate Judge has held that it is not open to appellant to attack the decree in Original Suit No. 298 of 1908 on these grounds without bringing a suit to set it aside. This is wrong, vide Section 44 of the Indian Evidence Act, and also Nilmony Mookhopadhya v. Aimunissa Bibee 12 C.K 156 and Rajib Panda v. Lakhan Sendh Mahapatra 3 C...
Padma Krishna Chettiar Alias Kristna Iyer Vs. Nagamani Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1915
Reported in: 30Ind.Cas.574
1. The finding in this case is that the mother of the defendant as his guardian borrowed from the plaintiff the amount sued on, and that it was spent for purposes binding on him. The question of law argued very strenuously by Mr. Bhashyam Iyengar is that as the promissory note executed by the mother was not signed by her as guardian, she alone is liable on the note and that the decree against the defendant is wrong. He relies on the language of Section 28 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and contends that the principle which renders the agent personally liable on a contract entered into on behalf of the principal applies to the case of guardians also. The short answer to this contention is that, as the Act contains no provision relating to notes signed by guardians whereas it specifically legislates for the case of agents in Section 28 and of legal representatives in Section 30, Courts should not by analogy extend these provisions to a deliberately unprovided case. The learned Vakil d...
Sankaralinga Moopanar and ors. Vs. T.V. Subramania Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad1050; 31Ind.Cas.273
Seshagiri Aiyar, J.1. The plaintiffs as trustees of a temple sue to eject the defendants. The allegation in the plaint is that the defendants erected a house upon a portion of the holding' and are, therefore, liable to be evicted. The Suit Collector dismissed the suit. In appeal, the District Judge came to the conclusion that the erection of the building by the the tenants impaired the value of the land and rendered it substantially unfit for agricultural purposes; but instead of passing decree in ejectment he directed compensation to be paid to the landlords under Section 152 of the Estates Land Act. Both the tenants and the landlords have appealed to this Court.2. In the appeal by the tenants, it is argued that as the building was erected only on a small portion of the holding, the finding that the whole laud has been rendered unfit for agricultural purposes is unsustainable. As was pointed out by the Judicial Committee in the case Hari Mohan Misser v. Surendra Narayan Singh 17 M.L.J...
Dhupati Srinivasacharlu Vs. A. Perindevamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1915
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.602
1. The decision in Samiya Mavali v. Minammal 23 M.P 490 : 10 M.L.J. 240 has been consistently acted on and is in accordance with the decision in Delroos Banoo Begum v. Nawab Syud Ashgur Ally Khan 15 B.L.R. 167 : 23 W.R. 453 and Banwari Lal v. Sheo Sankar Misser 1 Ind. Cas. 670 : 13 C.W.N. 815.2. We are not prepared to differ from it, and are of opinion accordingly that the appellant is bound by the valuation in the plaint....
M. Narayanan Singh Vs. Aiyasami Reddi and Two ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1915
Reported in: (1916)ILR39Mad602
Seshagiri Ayyar, J.1. We think the learned Judge is right. The first defendant obtained a decree against the second defendant and attached the suit property as his. The plaintiff put in a claim petition. He made the judgment-debtor and the decree-holder (second and first defendants) parties to that petition. His claim was disallowed and he has brought this present suit under order XXI, Rule 63. The value of the property in suit is Es, 4,000, whereas the decree of the first defendant is for Rs. 300. The question for determination is what is the value of the suit for purposes of jurisdiction. The Court fee under Schedule II, Article 17 of the Court Fees Act, will be the same whatever the value of the property. The District Judge held that the suit ought to be instituted in his Court as the value of the land in dispute exceeded the pecuniary limits of the District Munsif'a jurisdiction. The defendant asks this Court to revise that order on the ground that the value of the suit is the valu...
Hidayat Ali Khan Sahib and ors. Vs. Khadar Khan Saheb and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad1097; 30Ind.Cas.586
1. This is a suit for a declaration that certain properties which were in the plaintiffs' possession were their property. The properties, it is found, had been in the possession of their relation one Roshar. Ali, through whom the defendants claim, until his death when they were taken possession of by the plaintiffs. The plaint alleged that they were originally the property of one Mirja Mahommed Beg and that on the death of his widow they were inherited by the children of Imam Ali Khan, from whom the plaintiffs, Roshan Ali and the 5th defendant are descended and alleged that defendants Nos. 1 to 4, who are the descendants of Roshan Ali, were disentitled to share in the inheritance by reason of their illegitimacy, but their legitimacy is not now questioned. The defendants denied that the plaintiffs ever had any right to the suit properties and alleged that they had dispossessed the defendants after Roshan Ali's death in 1909. They alleged that part of the suit properties had belonged to ...
M. Narayan Singh Vs. Aiyasami Reddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad858; 31Ind.Cas.188
1. We think the learned Judge is right. The 1st defendant obtained a decree against the 2nd defendant and attached the suit property as his. The plaintiff put in a claim petition. He made the judgment-debtor and the decree-holder (2nd and 1st defendant) parties to that petition. His claim was disallowed and he has brought this present suit under Order XXI, Rule 63. The value of the property in suit is Rs, 4,000, whereas the decree of the 1st defendant is for Rs. 300. The question for determination is, what is the value of the suit for purposes of jurisdiction. The Court-fee under Schedule II, Article 17, of the Court Fees Act, will be the same whatever be the value of the property. The District Judge held that the suit ought to be instituted in his Court, as the value of the land in dispute exceeded the pecuniary limits of the District Munsif's jurisdiction. The defendant asks this Court to revise the order on the ground that the value of the suit is the value of the decree obtained by...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›