Chennai Court September 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.
Govindasami Pillai Vs. Ramasami Aiyar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad517; 31Ind.Cas.604
Tyabji, J.1. The question in this petition is whether the plaintiffs are entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 290 from the defendant for the use and occupation of certain lands.2. There was a document between the parties purporting to be a lease but in as much as the agreement was reduced to writing hut not registered, it could not affect the immoveable property by reason of Sections 49 and 17(4) of the Indian Registration Act, XVI of 1908.3. The learned Subordinate Judge has, however, proceeded on the basis that, though this document is inadmissible for want of registration, to prove the leasing or the tenants right to the term in it, 'yet it is admissible to prove', the rent agreed to be paid.' In my opinion this is an erroneous view of the law. Section 17(d) of the Indian Registration Act provides that leases of immoveable property from year to year, or for any term exceeding one year, or reserving a yearly rent shall be registered; and Section 49 provides that no document required by S...
Alamelammall Vs. P.N.K. Suryaprakasaroya Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad512(2); (1915)ILR38Mad988
1. The plaint in this suit alleges that the husband I of the plaintiff died in 1911 possessed of certain properties and having made a will appointing the defendant as his executor, who entered into possession and management of the properties immediately after the testator's death but has taken no steps to obtain Probate of the will. It alleges various acts of mismanagement by the defendant and that the plaintiff is interested as the mother of the testator's son, who died subsequently to the testator and to whose interest the plaintiff has succeeded as heir. The prayer of the plaint is that the defendant may be directed to apply for Probate of the will, that he may be ordered to account for the administration of the estate of the deceased and the monies collected by him or that ought to have been collected by him but for his wilful default or negligence, and that an account may be taken of the estate and the same be duly administered under the orders of this court,2. It is stated that t...
Dharmaraja Ayyar and anr. Vs. K.G. Srinivasa Mudaliar and Four anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-1915
Reported in: (1916)ILR39Mad876
Sadasiva Ayyar, J.1. There is a preliminary objection taken that no appeal lies against the order of the lower Court extending the time for payment of the mortgage-amount, an order passed under the proviso be Order XXXIV, Rule 8, and under Section 148 of the Civil Procedure Code; (as regards that portion of the order of the lower Court which effected an addition of parties under Order XXII, Rules 10 and 11, we were told chat this appeal wag not directed against that portion.2. We think that the preliminary objection is sound. The order extending time does not come within the definition of a decree (see Section 2, Clause (2) of the Civil Procedure Code). We are clear that it does not determine any question coming within Section 47 as was ingeniously contended by the appellant's learned vakil Mr. S. Varadachariyar.3. We, however, allow this appeal to be converted into a revision petition under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code.4. The question for consideration on this footing will be whe...
In Re: Sithava Naik
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-1915
Reported in: 30Ind.Cas.751
1. Exhibit C has been clearly proved to be a forgery by the evidence to which the Sessions Judge has referred. This being so, there is no reason to assume that when the accused in Exhibit B spoke of the settlement of the claim under the decree and of satisfaction being recorded by the Court he was referring to anything else but Exhibit C. This use of Exhibit C to support a false claim did, in our opinion, constitute an, offence under Section 471, Indian Penal Code. It is urged that the Sessions Judge was not entitled to rely on the evidence of the handwriting expert, because the processes by which the handwritings were compared were not performed in open Court; but we do not consider that any such objection as was raised in Suresh Chandra Sanyal v. Emperor 14 Ind. Cas. 753 can be supported when, as here, there are examples of the writer's handwriting either proved or admitted to be genuine which can be used as standards of comparison and when the documents were shown to the expert in o...
Ambalath Veettil thekkethil Mossa Vs. Valiyakath Pathumma and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad707; 30Ind.Cas.924
1. The parties are Muhamadans. The first defendant was married to the plaintiff in 1907. It is found that for some time after that the plaintiff kept a low easte woman as his concubine. It is not clear that at the time of the suit, she was still in his keeping. He married a second wife. He now sues for the restitution of conjugal rights against the first defendant. The District Munsif decreed the suit. The lower Appellate Court has reversed that decision. Hence this second appeal.2. We are unable to agree with the District Judge. The grounds mentioned by him are not sufficient to nonsuit the plaintiff. It is suggested that this is not a bona fide suit, as it was instituted after the father-in-law sued the plaintiff for moneys due to him. This is not a ground for refusing relief. It was held in Scott v. Scott 4 Sw. & Tr. 113 : 34 L.J. Mat. 23 : 12 L.T. 211 that the Courts are not concerned with the sincerity of the plaintiff's motive, and that if there is no legal defence, the suit shou...
Kolangorath Raman Nayar and ors. Vs. Kannoth Alias Kandoth Vellarikka ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad652; 31Ind.Cas.184
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The plaintiffs are the appellants. They are the jenmies of the plaint lands, but their predeeessors-in-title had executed a perpetual kanom (see Marupat, Exhibit A), in December 1857 in favour of the 1st defendant's ancestor for the sum of Rs. 120 reserving anominal rent of one fanom per year. Whether this one fanom is to be treated as the agreed excess annual profits which the usufructuary kanom mortgagee is to pay to the mortgagor, or whether a kanom mortgage being usually held to be (as a combination of a mortgage and a lease) an anomalous mortgage, the one fanom is to be treated as rent seems to be an arguable, point. The plaintiffs treat the 1st defendant in the plaint as both mortgagee and lessee, and contend that the lease has been forfeited because the 1st defendant denied in a reply notice, Exhibit F (alleged to have been signed and sent by him), dated January 1908 that he was a tenant under the plaintiffs. (See paragraphs 4 and 5 of the plaint which does ...
Dharmaraja Iyer and anr. Vs. K.G. Sreenivasa Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad694; 31Ind.Cas.240
1. There is a preliminary objection taken that no appeal lies against the order of the lower Court extending the time for payment of the mortgage amount, an order passed under the proviso to Order XXXIV, Rule 8, and under Section 148 of the Civil Procedure Code. (As regards that portion of the order of the lower Court which effected an addition of parties under Order XXII, Rules 10 and 11, we were told that this appeal was not directed against that portion).2. We think that the preliminary objection is sound. The order extending time does not come within the definition of a decree (See Section 2, Clause 2, of the Civil Procedure Code). We are clear that it does not determine any question coming within Section 47, as was ingeniously contended by the appellant's learned Vakil, Mr. Section Varadachariar.3. We, however, allowed this appeal to be converted into a revision petition under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code.4. The question for consideration on this footing will be whether an Ap...
The Firm of K.E.P.T.V. Draviyam Pillai and Venkatachellam Pillai of Tu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad569; 31Ind.Cas.322
1. The facts of this case are very simple. Plaintiffs are the firm of K.E.P.T.V. Draviyam Pillai and Venkatachellam Pillai. They are registered in the voting register of the Tuticorin Municipality as 'K.E.P.T.V. Draviyam Pillai and another.' Note (1) to Rule 4 of the rules promulgated by Government under Section 250(1)(a) of the District Municipalities Act provides that a firm desirous of voting, 'when entitled to be registered, must cause the nams of a partner, member, agent or secretary to be entered in the register maintained under Rule 3 supra, as their representative, and he alone shall be entitled to vote on behalf of the Company or family.' This rule has been interpreted in G.O. No. 2020 M, dated 27th September 1905, as follows: 'it is the duty of the Chairman to see that proper representatives for purposes of voting arc registered by the Companies, Associations and undivided families entitled to such privileges and brought on the register of voters at the time of its preparatio...
Alamelammall Vs. P.N.K. Surayaprakasaroya Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-1915
Reported in: 31Ind.Cas.491
Bakewell, J.1. The plaint in this suit alleges that the husband of the plaintiff died in 1911, possessed of certain properties and having made a Will appointing the defendant as his executor, who entered into possession and management of the properties immediately after the testator's death but has taken no steps to obtain Probate of the Will. It alleges various acts of mismanagement by the defendant and that the plaintiff is interested as the mother of the testator's son, who died subsequently to the testator and to whose interest the plaintiff has succeeded as heir. The prayer of the plaint is that the defendant may be directed to apply for Probate of the Will, that he may be ordered to account for the administration of the estate of the deceased and the moneys collected by him or that ought to have been collected by him but for his wilful default or negligence, and that an account may be taken of the estate and the same be duly administered under the orders of this Court.2. It is st...
Duja Bhandary and ors. Vs. Venku Bhandari and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad825; 31Ind.Cas.854
1. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 are the daughters of one Kochu. Plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 4 are 1st defendant's children, 5th plaintiff and 3rd defendant are the children of the 2nd defendant. In March 1876, Kochu's husband gave a permanent lease of the properties in dispute to his wife. Kochu, in her turn, executed a deed of gift in respect of the major portion of these properties in favour of her two daughters, the 1st and 2nd defendants. In 1910, the 2nd defendant sold some of the properties which fell to her share to the 4th defendant. The present suit is for. a declaration that the alienation is not binding on the plaintiffs.2. We think the Subordinate Judge is right, but not for the reasons given by him. The argument of the learned Vakil for the appellants is that the gift to Kochu by her husband is as puthrabakasam property and that the 2nd defendant has no right to alienate it. Reliance was placed on Kunhacha Umma v. Kutti Mammi Hajee 16 M.p 201 : 2 M.L.J. 226 and on the recent Full Benc...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »