Chennai Court February 1916 Judgments
K.P. Alagappa Iyengar Vs. Mangathai Ammangar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-29-1916
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.766; (1916)30MLJ504
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. This appeal has arisen out of an application filed in the District Court of Tinnevelly under Sections 39, 10 and 7 of the Guardians and Wards Act of 1890. The petitioner in the District Court is the appellant before Rs. The prayers in the petition are (a) that the 1st respondent, namely the mother of the minor boy, may be declared the sole guardian of the minor and his estate, removing respondents 6, 7 and 8 if they should be deemed to have been appointed by the minor's father; (b) if necessary the petitioner or the 4th Respondent or any other fit and proper person may be appointed by the Court as guardian solely or with the 1st respondent for the minor's estate for both his person and estate, and (c) other fit and necessary orders be made.2. Now the minor's father died on the 13th December 1911 and the Respondents No. 6, 7 and 8 set up that themselves and the 1st Respondent have been appointed by a will executed by the minor's father on the 11th December 1911 as t...
Tag this Judgment!Seshappier Vs. Subramania Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-29-1916
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.751; (1916)30MLJ587
1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment of Mr.. Justice Seshagiri Aiyar in Civil Revision Petition No. 122 of 1912.2. The material facts are as follows:On 19th May 1907 the 1st respondent entrusted a jewel to one Kolandaisami Pathar (the husband of the 2nd respondent and the father of the 3rd respondent) who undertook to sell it on commission. Kolandaisami pledged the jewel with the appellant who is a money lender for Rs. 17-3 n 20th May 1907. Kolandaisami died 2 or 3 months afterwards without having redeemed the pledge. On 15th December 19.09 the appellant took the jewel to the 1st respondent's shop, and asked him to sell it for him. The. 1st respondent then came to know that the jewel had been improperly pledged and demanded its return, The appellant having refused to return it, the 1st respondent brought a Small Cause suit on 29th June 1911 for the return of the jewel or its value Rs. 400 and in answer to the suit, the appellant contended that he acted in good faith ...
Tag this Judgment!K.P. Alagpappa Ayyangar Vs. Mangathai Ammangar and Eleven ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-29-1916
Reported in: (1917)ILR40Mad672
Sadasiva Ayyar, J.1. This appeal has arisen out of an application filed in the District Court of Tinnevelly under Sections 39, 10 and 7 of the Guardians and Wards Act of 1890. The petitioner in the District Court is the appellant before us. The prayers in the petition are: (a) that the first respondent, namely, the mother of the minor boy, may be declared the sole guardian of the minor and his estate, removing respondents Nos. 6, 7 and 8 if they should be deemed to have been appointed! by the minor's father; (b) that if necessary, the petitioner or the fourth respondent or any other fit and proper person may be appointed by the Court as guardian solely or with the first respondent for the minor's estate for both his person and estate, and (c) that other fit and necessary orders be made.2. Now the minor's father died on the 13th December 1911 and the respondents Nos. 6, 7 and 8 set up that themselves and the first respondent have been appointed by a will executed by the minor's father o...
Tag this Judgment!Seshappier Vs. Subramania Chettiar and Two ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-29-1916
Reported in: (1917)ILR40Mad678
Moors, J.1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment of Mr. Justice Seshagiri Ayyar in Seshappier v. Subramania Chettiar I.L.R. (1915) Mad. 7832. The material facts are as follows:3. On 19th May 1907, the first respondent entrusted a jewel to one Kolandaisami Pathar (the husband of the second respondent and the father of the third respondent) who undertook to sell it on commission. Kolandaisami pledged the jewel with the appellant who is a money-lender for Rs. 175 on 20th May 1907. Kolandaisami died two or three months afterwards without having redeemed the pledge. On 15th December 1909, the appellant took the jewel to the first respondent's shop and asked him to sell it for him. The first respondent then came to know that the jewel had been improperly pledged and demanded its return. The appellant having refused to return it, the first respondent brought a Small Cause Suit on 29th June 1911 for the return of the jewel or its value Rs. 400 and in answer to the suit, the app...
Tag this Judgment!R.M.P.S. Muthiah Chetti and ors. Vs. M.A.R.M. Periannan Chetti and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-29-1916
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.551
John Wallis, C.J.1. The plaintiffs in this case sued under Section 539 of the old Code of Civil Procedure for the settlement of a scheme for the management of the suit temple, alleging that it is a public Hindu temple and that the management thereof is vested in the Ilayathakudi Kovil Nagara-thars, as certain families of Nattukotai Chetties residing near the suit temple are styled, and that management by so large a body has become impracticable. They also allege that if, as is contended by the defendants, the management is already vested in some of the defendants as trustees, the necessity for a scheme is equally made out.2. The Subordinate Judge has found that the temple is a public Hindu temple and that the suit accordingly lies under the section. This is the first point contested by the appellants, who contend that it is a private temple owned by the Nattukottai Chetties or Nagarathars of the locality, whereas the case for the respondents is that the temple is an ancient one founded...
Tag this Judgment!P.A. Raghunatha Chari Vs. N.S. Aravamuthaiyangar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-29-1916
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.617
John Wallis, C.J.1. This is a case in which the parties have so conducted themselves as to make it difficult to arrive at the exact truth. The main consideration for the sale-deed, Exhibit A, which was executed on the 13th July 1897 though dated the 10th, is a promissory note, Exhibit B, which there is evidence to show was antedated and was really executed on the same day as the sale-deed, Exhibit A. Exhibit B was for Rs. 3,200 made up of five items, and on the same day a conditional sale-deed of other items for Rs. 1,150, Exhibit GG, was executed, and there is evidence that a third sale-deed of other items for Rs. 500 was prepared but not executed. These deeds purport to show an indebtedness of Rs. 5,150 on the part of the 1st defendant to the plaintiff. The defendants pleaded that the sale-deed sued on was benami, and the 2nd defendant, the son, also pleaded that in any case it was not executed for antecedent debts, but to defraud creditors from whom the 1st defendant had borrowed fo...
Tag this Judgment!Raghubhushana Tirthaswami and anr. Vs. Vidiavaridhi Tirthaswami and an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-29-1916
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.875
Abdur Rahim, J.1. The 1st appellant (1st plaintiff in the suit) is the Swami of a mutt called the Bhimanakattai and the 2nd appellant (the 2nd plaintiff) was nominated by him to the headship of another mutt called the Bhandarikere. The 1st defendant in the suit is a person who claims to have been nominated Swami of the Bhandarikere Mutt by the 2nd defendant who is described as the Pariyaya Swami. The suit was instituted in order to obtain a declaration that the head of the Bhimanakattai Mutt for the time being is entitled to appoint a Swami to the Bhandarikere Mutt in default of any appointment by the last Swami of the latter mutt during his lifetime and that the Pariyaya Swami of the Krishna temple at Udipi, which is the office held by the 2nd defendant, has no right to appoint a Swami to the Bhandarikere Mutt in case of such vacancy. The next important prayer in the plaint is that the 2nd plaintiff may be declared to have been lawfully appointed to the Bhandarikere Mutt and that he m...
Tag this Judgment!V.G. Anantharama Iyer Vs. Vettath Kuttimalu Kovilamma Alias Nangachi K ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-1916
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.829; (1916)30MLJ611
1. One Abdul Kadir was adjudged an insolvent on the 17th August 1911. In execution of a decree obtained against Abdul Kadir on the 21st January 1911, certain properties were attached. The Receiver of the Insolvent's estate applied to the Subordinate Judge of Calicut on the 2nd March 1912 to stay the sale on the ground that Abdul Kadir had been declared an insolvent. A fresh sale proclamation was issued and the sale was adjourned to the 15th April 1912 on which date the property was sold subject to a mortgage of Rs. 6,119-3-0 in favour of one Ummar Sahib and purchased by the 2nd respondent. On the 19th April 1912 the Receiver applied to the Court under Order 21 Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the sale. The Subordinate Judge dismissed the application on the ground, inter alia, that the insolvency proceedings in the District Court related to the insolvency of a firm of which the judgment-debtor was a member and that the property sold was not the property of the firm bu...
Tag this Judgment!Subbanna Achariar and anr. Vs. Gopalakrishna Achariar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1916
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.354
Sadasiva Aiyer, J.1. The plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 4 are the appellants. The suit was brought for the following reliefs: (a) a declaration that the plaintiffs are entitled to the melvaram of certain lands and (b) recovery of arrears of rent due on those lands for Faslis 1319, 1320 and 1321. The suit was brought in the District Munsif's Court of Mannargudi, South Arcot District. The District Munsif and the District Judge (on appeal) held that the suit was substantially one for recovery of arrears of rent, that the adding of a prayer for declaration cannot alter the substantial character of the suit and that Section 189 of the Madras Estates Land Act, which gives exclusive jurisdiction to Revenue Courts in respect of suits for arrears of rent, cannot be evaded by adding a prayer for declaration. The suit was, therefore, dismissed as brought in a wrong Court. The District Munsif dismissed the suit on another ground also, namely, that the Revenue Court had, in Suits Nos. 5 and 8 of 1909, found...
Tag this Judgment!C.S. Sesha Iyer Vs. Arimuthu Vathyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1916
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.362
Seshagiri Aiyar, J.1. In this case as the counter-petitioner was not represented before me I requested Mr. Rangaswami Iyengar to assist me as amicuscurix, and I must express my indebtedness to him for the assistance he has rendered in the decision of this case. The matter which has to be decided has been fully argued before me and I think there is no object to be gained by reserving judgment. The facts are these: A suit was brought by the 1st mortgagee impleading the mortgagor and the 2nd mortgagee for sale of the property. A decree was passed directing the property to be sold. The sale-proceeds were brought into Court and the plaintiff, the 1st mortgagee, was paid out. The direction as regards the other defendants is simply ' that the balance, if any, be paid to the defendants.' The puisne mortgagee, who is the petitioner before me, was ex parte. He did not prove the amount due to him under the mortgage. He now seeks to prove the amount due to him under the mortgage in the Court execu...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »