Chennai Court December 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.
Kailasam Pillai Vs. Nataraja Tambiran and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1916
Reported in: (1917)32MLJ271
John Wallis, C.J.1. These are appeals in two suits originally numbered Original Suits Nos. 1 and 2 of 1905 in the District Court of Madura brought with the consent of the Advocate-General under Section 539 of the Code of Civil Procedure by different plaintiffs. In Original Suit No. 1, the subject of Appeal No. 317, it was sought to have it declared that there was no lawful trustee of the Tiruvannamalai Mutt and of the dependent Devasthanams or temples, while in the second, the subject of Appeal No. 318, the declaration was only sought in respect of the Devasthanams or temples. The reason for filing the two suits was that it was considered doubtful whether the holder of the religious office of Pandarasannadhi of the Mutt was a trustee within the meaning of Section 539 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The case set up in the plaint was that after the death in May 1893 of Arumugam a former Pandarasannadhi one Tandavaraya took wrongful possession of the Mutt under a will which the Sub-Regist...
Natesa Pillai and ors. Vs. Ganapathia Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1916
Reported in: (1917)32MLJ621
Ayling, J.1. The sole question for disposal in this appeal is whether the decree holder's execution petition filed on 18th December 1912 is an application for execution in accordance with law within the meaning of Article 182 of the Indian Limitation Act (Schedule I). It was ordered to be returned for amendment on account of certain defects; but was never taken back and in consequence never amended.2. The two defects which the District Judge regards as serious, and on account of which he has held the application to be inoperative to save limitation are : (1) The omission to file an encumbrance certificate with the application. (2) The omission to specify the assessment on the land sought to be brought to sale. The leading case on the point is Ramanadan v. Periatambi I.L.R. (1883) M. 250 in which the learned Judges say : 'We are of opinion that the application of 1879, although not complying in every particular with the requirements of Section 235 of the Code of Civil Procedure (XIV of ...
Syed Hasan Raza Sahib Shamsul Ulama and ors. Vs. Mir Hasan Ali Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1916
Reported in: (1917)33MLJ348
Ayling, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was brought by plaintiff (1st respondent) to declare the validity of his election as a member of the committee of the Abbas Ashoor Khana or Thousand Lights Charities in Madras. These charities are governed by a scheme framed by this Court in O.S. No. 392 of 1878. The decree in that suit (Exhibit VII) provides inter alia for a managing committee of five members (including the president), and three muttawallis working under them. Vacancies in the committee were to be filled by election by an electoral body consisting of the remaining committee members and the three muttawallis. According to plaintiff, he was validly elected in accordance with the rules contained in the decree at a meeting held on 7th June, 1914.2. Defendants Nos. 1, 4 and 5 who are admittedly members of the electoral body above referred to, raised various objections to the validity of the election, which were all rejected as baseless by the City Civil Judge, who gave ...
Karunkara Menon Vs. Kutti Krishna Menon (Died) by His Legal Representa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1916
Reported in: 38Ind.Cas.666
Phillips, J.1. Plaintiff is an anandravan, 1st defendant the karnavan and the 2nd defendant the senior anandravan of a tarwad, whose members entered into a karar in 1901. Under this karar, the powers Of the karnavan were considerably restricted, and a portion of the tarwad properties was placed under the management and control of the 2nd defendant with a view to discharging certain debts due by the tarwad. The suit is now brought on behalf of the tarwad in' order to compel 2nd defendant to render an account of his management to the plaintiff on behalf of ,the tarwad. The District Judge has given a decree on the ground that 2nd defendant is an agent of all the members of the family under the karar and any member may call on him as an agent to account. We do not think that this view of 2nd defendant's position can be supported. An agent can only be employed to do acts on behalf of his principal, and in this case when the karar was executed the karnavan alone had the right to manage the t...
Rangasami Udayan Vs. Manickam Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-1916
Reported in: 40Ind.Cas.223
Ayling, J.1. Appellant before us was the 4th defendant in Original Suit No. 480 of 1915 on the file of the District Munsif of Tirukoilur. He received notice of suit and appeared in person on the 4th September 1915. He was then ordered under Order VIII, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, to file a written statement and at his own request was allowed time till 21st September 1915 to do so. He again appeared on the latter date, and apparently asked for further time but as the reasons he gave were insufficient in the opinion of the District Munsif, this request was refused. As he did not file the written statement on the 21st September 1915, as required, an order was passed on that date declaring him ex parte.2. On the 12th October 1915, he applied under Order IX, Rule 7, to have the ex parte order set aside: but this application was dismissed.3. He then presented a revision petition to this Court against the order dated 21st September 1915, which was dismissed by Coutts Trotter, J., on t...
Tuljaram Row Vs. Gopala Aiyan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-1916
Reported in: (1917)32MLJ434
Srinivasa Aiyangar, J.1. In A.S. No. 74 of 1915 : This is an appeal of the 2nd defendant the present owner of the equity of redemption in a suit by the mortgagee to enforce hisMISSING TIFE NO 435evidence to prove his title to sell the A schedule properties with which alone the contesting defendants 'were concerned. This was allowed by the Judge and a mortgage decree was passed for the interest by sale of the B schedule properties; as regards the claim for Rs. 1000 the order was 'suit withdrawn in respect of the claim with liberty to sue again and plaintiff to pay corresponding costs of defendants 2 to 4'. The appellant contends that the order permitting the withdrawal was beyond the competence of the Court and is a nullity and the present suit in so far as it includes a claim to recover Rs. 1000 and the subsequent interest is barred as the matter was res judicata. There is a short answer to this contention, viz., that if the previous order is a nullity, that being the only order which ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›