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.
Saravana Pillai Vs. Arunachellam Chettiar Minor by His Next Friend Ven ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1916
Reported in: (1917)32MLJ553
1. The petitioner in this case applied for rateable distribution along with others to the District Munsif. Objection was taken that the decree of the petitioner was a collusive one and that consequently he should not be allowed to share in the distribution of the assets. The District Munsif held that it was open to him to enquire into the bona fides of the decree obtained by the petitioner. The question for consideration is whether the District Munsif's view is right.2. As the counter-petitioner was unrepresented, we requested Mr. K.V. Sesha Aiyangar to assist us in this case. We are indebted to him for the care and energy he has displayed in arguing the case on behalf of the counter-petitioner.3. We do not propose to consider the question whether under no circumstances can an executing court enquire into the validity of a decree. It is fairly well settled that a judgment-debtor is not entitled in execution to impeach the soundness of a decree obtained against him. Sudindra v. Budan I....
Godavarty Sundaramma Vs. Godavarty Mangamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1916
Reported in: (1918)34MLJ558
1. The report of the District Munsif now received places it beyond doubt that the portion of Survey No. 304, which is part of the subject-matter of the suit, has not been subdivided and separately assessed to land revenue.2. It cannot therefore be valued under Clause (b) of Section 7(v) of the Court Fees Act. The order of the learned Judge is clearly right.3. The appeal must be dismissed with costs....
R.M.M.S.T. Somasundaram Chettiar Alias Vairavan Chettiar and ors. Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1916
Reported in: (1917)ILR40Mad846
1. These are appeals from the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Negapatam in a suit brought by the plaintiffs to recover the suit properties as next reversioners of the last male owner whose widow died in 1902. The defendants relied on long possession under an adoption made by the widow in 1862 and pleaded that the suit was barred by limitation and res judicata. The Subordinate Judge overruled both pleas and gave the plaintiffs a decree against which several of the defendants have appealed. We propose to deal, in the first place, with Appeals Nos. 206 and 207 of 1908 filed by the defendants Nos. 7 and 8 who are alienees from the heirs of the alleged adopted son. The main facts are not now in dispute, and may be briefly stated. Arunachala, the last male owner, died in 1849 leaving a widow Chokkamal. In 1862, Chokkammal adopted one Alagasundara, a younger brother of her deceased husband. This adoption was afterwards impeached on the ground that Alagasundara was not given in adoption by ...
Subba Naick Vs. Rama Ayyar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1916
Reported in: (1917)ILR40Mad775
Seshagiri Ayyar, J.1. In. this case the facts are that a promissory note belonging to a minor was endorsed over by his mother after it was decided in an application under the Guardians and Wards Act that a third party should be appointed guardian of the said minor. In the proceedings above referred to, the District Judge of Ramnad, Mr. Dutt, held on the 19th of January, 1914 that the mother was not the proper guardian and that one Srinivasa Ayyangar should be appointed guardian of the minor's property. It seems clear that the statement in the body of the judgment that 'I appoint Srinivasa Ayyangar accordingly,' has been inserted incautiously. The subsequent proceedings place it beyond doubt that it was not the intention of the District Judge to make any appointment on the date of the order, Srinivasa Ayyangar was directed to furnish security. The successor of the District Judge passed proceedings on the 26th of September, 1914 accepting the security bond and issued an order of appointm...
Saravana Pillai Vs. Arunachalam Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1916
Reported in: (1917)ILR40Mad841
Seshagiri Ayyar, J.1. The petitioner in this case applied for rateable distribution along with others to the District Munsif. Objection was taken that the decree of the petitioner was a collusive one and that consequently he should not be allowed to share in the distribution of the assets. The District Munsif held that it was open to him to inquire into the bona fides of the decree obtained by the petitioner. The question for consideration is whether the District Munsif's view is right.2. As the counter-petitioner was unrepresented, we requested Mr. K.V. Sesha Ayyangar to assist us in this case. We are indebted to him for the care and energy he has displayed in arguing the case on behalf of the counter-petitioner.3. We do not propose to consider the question whether under no circumstances can an executing Court inquire into the validity of a decree. It is fairly well settled that a judgment-debtor is not entitled in execution to impeach the soundness of a decree obtained against him: S...
The Secretary of State for India in Council Vs. Sri Sri Sri Meerja Sri ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1916
Reported in: (1917)ILR40Mad1083
Ayling, J.1. In this case we have had the benefit of an exhaustive argument on both sides and are particularly indebted to the learned Government Pleader, Mr. Ramesam, for the pains he has taken in presenting the facts to us in the clearest and most intelligible light. I have also had the advantage of perusing the judgment which my learned brother is about to deliver, and can add nothing material to it. The evidence leaves no doubt in my mind that the lower Court's decision on the question of fact is correct. The nucleus of the suit lanka is not an island formed vertically in the bed of the Godavari, but an accretion to plaintiff's pre-existing Voota Chiguru Lanka formed in 1883 and severed from the latter about four years later. I do not think we should be justified in refusing to recognize plaintiff's title to the land thus formed on the ground of the comparative rapidity with which the formation took place. No doubt the reported decisions of the English Courts would, seem to indicat...
Chettiar Alias Vairavan Chettiar, Vs. Vaithilinga Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1916
Reported in: 41Ind.Cas.546
1. These are appeals from the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Negapatam in a suit brought by the plaintiffs to recover the suit properties as next reversioners of the last male owner, whose widow died in 1902. The defendants relied on long possession under an adoption made by the widow in 1862 and pleaded that the suit was barred by limitation and res judicata. The Subordinate Judge overruled both pleas and gave the plaintiffs a decree against which several of the defendants have appealed. We propose to deal, in the first place, with Appeals Nos. 206 and 207 of 1908 filed by the 7th and 8th defendants, who are alienees from the heirs of the alleged adopted son. The main facts are not now in dispute, and may be briefly stated. Arunachala, the last male owner, died in 1849 leaving a widow, Chokkammal. In 1862, Chokkammal adopted one Alagasundara, a younger brother of her deceased husband. This adoption was afterwards impeached on the ground that Alagasundara was not given in adoption ...
Subba Naick Vs. Rama Aiyar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1916
Reported in: 37Ind.Cas.892
1. In this case the facts are that a promissory note belonging to a minor was endorsed over by his mother, after it was decided in an application under the Guardians and Wards Act that a third party should be appointed guardian of the said minor. In the proceedings above referred to, the District Judge of Ramnad, Mr. Dutt, held on the 9th of January 1914 that the mother was not the proper guardian, and that one Srinivasa Aiyangar should be appointed guardian of the minor's property. It seems clear that the statement in the body of the judgment that 'I appoint Srinivasa Aiyangar. accordingly' has been inserted incautiously. The subsequent proceedings place it beyond doubt that it was not the intention of the District Judge to make any appointment on the date of the order. Srinivasa Aiyangar was directed to furnish. security. The successor of Vine District Judge passed proceedings on the 26th September 1914 accepting the security-bond and issued an order of appointment to Srinivasa Aiyan...
Godavarthy Sundaramma Vs. Godavarthy Mangamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1916
Reported in: 47Ind.Cas.543
1. The report of the District Munsif now received places it beyond doubt that the portion of Survey No. 304, which is, a part of the subject-matter of the suit, has not been sub-divided and separately assessed to land revenue.2. It cannot, therefore, be valued under Clause (6) of Section 7(v) of the Court Fees Act. The order of the learned Judge is dearly right.3. The appeal must be dismissed with costs....
K.M.P.R. Palaniappa Chettiar Vs. V.R.M.M. Ramaswami Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-1916
Reported in: (1917)32MLJ54
Ayling, J.1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal against an order of Napier, J. passed under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, sanctioning the prosecution of the appellant for making false statements in an affidavit filed by him in connection with C.M.P. No. 1403 of 1915 on this Court's file.2. Such difficulty as its disposal presents is owing mainly to the divergent views which have been held regarding the principles which should be observed by a court in granting or refusing sanction under this section.3. The section itself undoubtedly neither lays down nor even suggests any principles for the court's guidance. As Jenkins, C.J., put it in In re An Attorney. I.L.R. (1913) C. 446 . 'The section is expressed in the widest terms, and vests in the court an absolute and unfettered discretion.' On the other hand, as the learned Judge proceeds to say at page 458, 'There are, however, certain Rules of prudence to which any court exercising its discretion would have regard, and pre-em...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »