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.
Swaminatha Aiyar Vs. Srinivasa Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-1916
Reported in: (1917)32MLJ259
1. The appeal has been argued before us on the basis that the 1st defendant at the thus when the promissory note in question was executed by him was a trustee of the temple concerned in the suit. The 2nd defendant was appointed trustee about 2 years before the institution of the suit. The plaintiff has obtained a personal decree against the 1st defendant. But he says that he is also entitled to a decree as against the temple property, that is to say to a direction that the amount due to him may be obtained out of the trust property. But the lower Courts have held that inasmuch as the 1st defendant did not sign the promissory note as manager all that the plaintiff was entitled to was a decree against him personally. The suit as framed however appears to be not merely on the basis of the promissory note but also for debt and issues were framed raising the questions whether the debt was contracted for the benefit of the temple, whether the note was supported by consideration and whether t...
Pichu Vadhiar Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-1916
Reported in: (1917)ILR40Mad767
Ayling, J.1. The conclusions arrived at by the learned City Civil Judge in this case appear to me to be entirely correct. What the High Court Bailiff did was to seize under a distress warrant, issued under Section 386 of the Criminal Procedure Code, a sum of money which was held by the Mylapore Hindu Permanent Fund on behalf of and in trust for Sivapatha Mudaliyar who was legally entitled to the same under Section 69 of the Transfer of Property Act. The main contention of appellant's vakil before us has been that this was not a case of trust but of an ordinary debt, and that a debt cannot be made the subject of distress under Section 386 of the Criminal Procedure Code as held in a recent case. The Secretary of State for India v. Sengammal Appeal Suit No. 154 of 1907 to the decision of which I was a party. That there is a trust in favour of the mortgagor in respect of all surplus sale proceeds is, I think, clear in spite of the somewhat curious change of language in the last paragraph b...
Narayana Bharatigal Alias Kappiyur Swamiyar Avergal and Vs. Ittuli Amm ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-1916
Reported in: 39Ind.Cas.893
Seshagiri Aiyar, J.1. In this case, a subsidiary question, out of all proportion to the point involved in the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has arisen for decision. The suit out of which the Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal has arisen was brought by Vishnu the then head of a mutt to evict a tenant. The amount of compensation payable to the tenant on eviction was the subject matter of the appeal. Vishnu died after he preferred the appeal. Rival claimants to the headship of the mutt which possesses extensive properties have presented petitions to this Court to be added as legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff. These petitions were referred to the District Judge for report. It has been pointed out to us that a report or a finding of the District Judge is not contemplated by Order XXII, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. There is force in this contention. The rule requires the Court to which the petitions are presented to decide the question. Although it is anomalous that we sh...
Nagoji Row and ors. Vs. Subbarayulu Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-1916
Reported in: 36Ind.Cas.876
Spencer, J.1. The Magistrate, acting under Section 145 of the code of Criminal Procedure, has adjudicated upon a dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace in the presence of two groups of individuals whom he designates as Party No. I and Party No. II.2. From the Magistrate's preliminary order it appears that the individuals composing No. I party are the servants of the purchaser of the village of Kandadu in Kalahasti Estate, and that No. II party has been administering the forest in dispute which is claimed diversely by the Kalahasti and Karvetnagar Estates. From the description of the parties in the final order it appears that on one side we have a forest amin, a tanadar and two forest watchers, and on the other side a forest amin and seven forest watchers.2. The words in Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure parties concerned in such dispute have been understood as including persons who are interested in or claim A right to the property Bam Chandra Das v. Monohur Roy 21 C...
Gangadara Mudali Vs. Sambasiva Mudali
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-1916
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.769; (1917)33MLJ51
1. We agree with Seshagiri Aiyar, J., that this case falls within Section 77 of the Registration Act. This is in agreement with the interpretation adopted by our Court in Narasimha Nayanim Varu v. Ramalinga Row (1899) 10 M.L.J. 104 and Sivarama Pattar Kariahar v. Krishna Aiyar : (1914)26MLJ307 and we also may point out that the rules framed under the Act are in accordance with this view.2. A contrary view, it is true, has prevailed in Gangava v. Sayava I.L.R. (1899) B. 699 but the fallacy of the reasoning in that case, if we may say so with respect, lies in thinking that there is any substantial distinction between refusal to accept a document for registration and a refusal to register within the meaning of Section 77 read with Ss. 76 and 72. Here the District Registrar had in fact refused to direct registration of the document and none the less so because he made no enquiry as to whether the document was executed or not, proceeding on the ground that the document was in his opinion pr...
Raja Damara Kumara Thimma Nayani Bahadurgaru, Zemindar of Kalahasti an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-1916
Reported in: 48Ind.Cas.887
1. The suit in which the appeal arises was instituted under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the defendant, the Raja of Kalahasti, who is the hereditary trustee of the Kalahasti temple and its endowed property. By a preliminary decree the Subordinate Judge who tried the suit ordered accounts to be taken from Faslis 1315-1320 and objections have been taken before us, in the first place, to a number of items in the accounts as finally settled by the Court of first instance. Then there is the important question whether the order suspending the defendant from the office of trustee until he pays certain debts due to the temple is right. The contention of the appellant, the defendant in the suit, is that the order of suspension ought to be set aside altogether, while the plaintiffs contend that the defendant should be removed from his office2. We shall first deal with the items of account to which objections have been taken on one side or the other. It is necessary to state ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›