Chennai Court November 1916 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.
Divi Punniah Vs. Goruntla Kotamma (Dead) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1916
Reported in: 38Ind.Cas.237
1. The dispute in this second appeal is regarding the right to a tope site. The tope was, in the words of the plaint 'transferred from charitable inams, by Government and assessed to jeroyati' or shortly 'resumed', patta being granted to the 1st defendant.2. The lower Appellate Court, gave plaintiff a decree for a half share of the land on partition on the ground that she represented the interest of one of the two trustee: of the tope before its resumption, defendant representing the other. The lower Appellate Court applied Gunnaiyan v. Kamakchi Ayyar 20 MK 339 and Pingala Lakshmipathi v. Bommireddipalli Chalamayya 80 M.S 431 dealing with the case on principles applicable to cases of enfranchisement of personal or service imams.3. Those principles in our opinion afford no guidance in cases of resumption of charitable inums, In cases of enfranchisement there is a charge, not in the ownership of the land, but in the tenure, on which it is held. In cases of resumption the land previously ...
Vutuchuru Ramachandra Reddi and ors. Vs. Kakutur Audemma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-1916
Reported in: 42Ind.Cas.228; (1917)32MLJ627
1. Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 (1st and 2nd defendants in the suit) were not brought on record in this appeal within the time allowed. No proper explanation is given for the delay. The appeal is dismissed as against them with costs.2. There is no substance in. the objection raised by the plaintiff - respondent that because the 2nd and 3rd respondents, her sisters, were not made parties in time, the appeal must be dismissed as against herself aa well. The appellants take exception to particular items of property in which the plaintiff-respondent has been given Jth share by the decree appealed from. If the appellants succeed the result would be that the respondent to the extent of th share would be liable to make restitution. It may be that the 2nd and 3rd respondents would still retain their shares, but it does not lie in the mouth of the plaintiff-respondent to complain of that.3. The only substantial question raised in the appeal is as to the effect of the judgment in O.S. No. 13 of 1895...
Abdul Majeeth Khan Sahib Vs. C. Krishnamachariar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1916
Reported in: (1917)32MLJ195
Abdur Rahim, J.1. The question referred to us is in these words: When one of the co-heirs of a deceased Muhammadan, in possession of the whole estate of the deceased or of any part of it, sells property in his possession forming part of the estate for discharging the debts of the deceased, is such sale binding on the other co-heirs or creditors of the deceased and, if so, to what extent? The answer must be in the negative.2. On the death of a Muhammadan, the inheritance vests in his heirs according to their respective shares, although in the administration of the estate the funeral expenses, debts and legacies must be paid first and it is only the residue that is available for distribution among the heirs. It is not correct to say that the devolution of the estate on the heirs does not take place or is postponed until the funeral expenses and the debts and legacies have been paid. This is evident from the following facts : if an heir designated by the law dies after the death of the pr...
The Mylapore Permanent Benefit Fund Ltd. in Liquidation by Its Liquida ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1916
Reported in: (1917)32MLJ528
1. The vendor of the plaintiff took five shares in the defendants' fund (The Mylapore Permanent Benefit Fund) in July 1910. In August following he borrowed from the fund Rs. 500 and executed a deed of mortgage in respect of the suit property in his own behalf and on behalf of his minor sons, as their guardian. Under the rules of the Fund, he had to pay Rs. 5 a month as share-holder, and was entitled to Rs. 500 at the end of 84 months. There are provisions in the rules for payment of penal interest in case the subscription was not regularly paid. Under the deed of mortgage, he and his sons were liable to pay interest at a particular rate every month. The document contains provisions for the payment of a higher rate in case interest was not regularly paid. The plaintiff's vendor paid the subscription on his shares and the interest on the mortgage till August 1913. The plaintiff purchased the equity of redemption of the property mortgaged to the Fund in April 1914. The Fund went into liqu...
The Mylapore Permanent Benefit Fund Limited in Liquidation by Its Liqu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1916
Reported in: (1917)ILR40Mad1004
Seshagiri Ayyar, J.1. The vendor of the plaintiff took five stares in the defendants Fund (The Mylapore Permanent Benefit Fund) in July 1910. In August following, he borrowed from the Fund Rs. 500 and executed a deed of mortgage in respect of the suit property in his own behalf and on behalf of his minor sons, as their guardian. Under the rules of the Fund, he had to pay Rs. 5 a month as shareholder, and was entitled to Rs. 500 at the end of eighty-four months. There are provisions in the rules for payment of penal interest in case the subscription was not regularly paid. Under the deed of mortgage, he and his sons were liable to pay interest at a particular rate every month The document contains provisions for the payment of a higher rate in case interest was not regularly paid. The plaintiff's vendor paid the subscription on his shares, and the interest on the mortgage till August 1913. The plaintiff purchased the equity of redemption of the property mortgaged to the Fund in April 19...
In Re: Appavu Kavundan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1916
Reported in: 36Ind.Cas.878
1. The contention that the District Judge has no jurisdiction to interfere under Section 195, Clause 7(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the order of the District Munsif acting as a Small Cause Court is not accepted by us. We prefer to follow the decision of this Court in Jamna Das v. Sabapathy chetti 12 Ind. Cas. 512 : 21 M.L.J. 1074, 10 M.L.T. 278 : (1911) 2 M.W.n. 259, and we dissent from the decisions in Ajodhia Parshad v. Ram Lal 13 Ind. Cas. 284 : 9 A.L.J. 124 : 13 Cri. L.J. 44 and Ambica Tewari v. Emperor 34 Ind. which decide otherwise.2. On the merits we see no reason to interfere with the order of the learned District judge3. The appeal is dismissed...
Narayanasamy Aiyar Vs. Kuppusamy Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1916
Reported in: 37Ind.Cas.41
Coutts Trotter, J.1. I must set aside the order of the District Magistrate. Unfortunately it is clearly inconsistent with the ruling in Raghunatha Pandaram v. Enperor 26 M.k 130. I think it is obviously an inconvenient thing that Magistrates of co-ordinate jurisdiction should interfere with each other's jurisdiction. Thaman Ghetti v. Alagiri Ghetti 14 M.k 399, points out the distinction. Where a Magistrate acts on his, own initiative in transferring a case, his order is not vitiated by the fact that another Magistrate of co-ordinate authority has refused it. But if he examines the reasons given by the co-ordinate authority and finds that that authority is wrong, that is interfering by way of appeal. This case is clearly within the mischief referred to in Raghunatha Pandaram v. Emperor (1).I must sat aside the order of the Magistrate and the case will be remanded for trial to the second class Bench Court of Kumbakonam....
Maliyakkal Kathiri Mutte Musaliar Vs. Purathayil Puthiyakath Kutti Che ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1916
Reported in: 39Ind.Cas.425
Oldfield, J.1. The facts in this case are stated fully in the lower Appellate Court's judgment: and I can deal shortly with the second defendant's appeal against its decree granting a declaration, because on the memorandum of objections, I hold that the decree should have been for possession.2. The second defendant's first contention is that a declaration should not have been granted, because none was asked for in the plaint: and Virasami Gramani v. Ayyasvami Gramani 1 M.H.C.R. 471 and Janaki Ammal v. Narayanasami Aiyar 37 Ind. Cas. 161 are relied on. Those cases, however, must be distinguished on the ground that in them the relief specifically asked for did not include a declaration, whilst here the prayer is not only for possession, but also for the establishment of the invalidity of the kanom on which the second defendant based his right to hold the property. The fact that plaintiffs paid the additional Court-fee for a declaration, only when called on to do so, cannot affect the val...
Ramanathan Chetty, Minor, by His Next Friend Seethai Achi Vs. A. R. A. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1916
Reported in: 37Ind.Cas.897
1. This is an appeal against a proclamation under Order XX , Rule 66, of the Code of Civil Procedure, fixing the market value and upset price of the property to be sold. The respondent takes the preliminary objection, relying on the Pull Bench decision in Sivagami Achi v. Subrahmania Ayyar 14 M. h. J. 57. that no appeal lies. To this, the appellant relips that this decision proceeds on the basis that such an order is administrative and not judicial, and that the deletion of the old Section 288 from the present Code implies that the Legislature intended to stamp the order with a judicial character. However, this may be, and we express no opinion on the point) we are clear that an order of the Court, tentatively fixing for the purpose of an auction sale the market value of the property, and deciding the figure at which the bidding should commence cannot be regarded as a conclusive determination of any right of parties, so as to come within the definition of a decree given in Section 2 of...
P.L.S. Palaniappa Chetty Alias Shanmugam Chetty Vs. P.L.P.P.L. Palania ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1916
Reported in: (1917)32MLJ304
Srinivasa Aiyangar, J.1. The substantial question referred to us for determination is whether an order determining that it is just and convenient to appoint a receiver, i.e., an order for the appointment of a receiver, and before a particular person is selected and appointed as such receiver, is appealable.2. The right of appeal is conferred by Clause S of Order XLIII which provides inter alia that an appeal shall lie from an order under Rule 1 of Order XL; and that rule, omitting the portions not material for the present purpose, is in these terms 'where it appears to the Court to be just and convenient the Court may by order (a) appoint a receiver.' The question is whether the order referred to above is an order under this rule.3. When an application is made for the appointment of a receiver, the most important question for determination is whether it is just and convenient to appoint a receiver in the circumstances, and if the Court comes to the conclusion, that it is not shewn to b...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »