Chennai Court February 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.
Kadirvelu Chetty Alias Manappa Chetty and anr. Vs. Nanjundaiyar and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-1916
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.88
Seshagiri Aiyar, J.1. This is a suit by the plaintiffs against the petitioners, who are the trustees of a Vishnu temple, for a declaration that the plaintiffs are entitled to perform a festival which they had been doing for a long time, without hindrance on the part of the trustees.2. A preliminary issue was taken at the suggestion of the trustees as to whether this suit falls under the Religious Endowments Act, and as such, is not maintainable without: the sanction of the District Court, or of the Advocate-General. The Munsif earner to the conclusion that the suit was maintainable. Against his decision on the preliminary issue Mr. Seshachariar has preferred this Civil Revision Petition. The first question that suggests itself is whether Section 115 warrants interference by this Court with a ruling on a preliminary issue, although it goes to the maintainability of the suit. I do not think it necessary to express any opinion on that question because on the merits I am of opinion that th...
Abdul HussaIn Rowthan Vs. Mahomad Ibrahim Rowthar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-1916
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.243
John Wallis, C.J.1. This is in some respects an unsatisfactory case. The plaintiff on the 10th January 1910 instituted the present suit for a share of immoveable properties left by his deceased father in this Presidency, on the ground that be was not bound by a deed of release, Exhibit Ia, dated 6th July 1904, executed by his mother as his de facto guardian during his minority in favour of his elder half-brother, by which certain property of the alleged value of Rs. 3,000 was assigned to them both in satisfaction of their 28 and 11 or 39 shares out of 176 shares in the property left by his deceased father, in addition to which it was also admitted in the oral evidence for the plaintiff that they had collected Rs. 400. According to a statement made by the plaintiff's mother, the 2nd defendant, in July 1901, Exhibit 32, the plaintiff was then 13, and according to her statement in Exhibit Ia, the release in dispute, he was 16 in July 1904. There is no reason to doubt these statements whic...
Kandukuri Kotiah Vs. Devineni Reddamma and ors. and
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-1916
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.658
Seshagiri Aiyar, J.1. The suit (in Civil Revision Petition No. 924 of 1913) was brought on the allegation that the defendants are in unlawful possession of the property which the plaintiff is entitled to as carpenter. He sues to recover possession with mesne profits from the trespassers. The suit has been dismissed on the ground that only the Revenue Courts have jurisdiction to entertain it.2. In disposing of the question of jurisdiction the Court is confined to the allegations contained in the plaint, and reading the plaint, I find this to be distinctly a suit by the plaintiff against persons whom he calls trespassers and from whom he seeks to recover possession and also mesne profits, I do not think that this is covered by Section 13 of Act III of 1895. This is not a suit for emolument or for the recovery of a village office specified in Section 3. As pointed out by the learned Judges in Mavoulu Seetharam Naidu v. Doddi Rami Naidu 5 Ind Cas. 137, if a suit is brought to eject a tresp...
Godavarti Mangamma Vs. Godavarti Sundaramma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-1916
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.683
Coutts Trotter, J.1. This case raises the question of the construction of a section of the Court Fees Act, VII of 1870, and the way that the matter arises is this. A suit was brought for the recovery of land which was a definite plot forming part of Survey No. 304 and was in fact 3 acres 59 cents in extent. That survey number as a whole consists, of 4 acres 42 cents, out of Which 83 cents had been sold away before, leaving a residue of 3 acres 59 cents which was what the plaintiff was suing for. The point is this, that according to the construction of the Court Fees Act the question to be determined is as to what Court has jurisdiction because it is not contested that, on the method of valuation of the land, the jurisdiction of the Court to try will depend. According to the plaintiff, the proper sub-section to apply is sub-section V (b) of Section 7 of the Act, which would be to apply a system of multiplying the revenue payable in order to arrive at the calculation provided by the Act ...
Palikandy Mammad Vs. Chingoron Keloth Valia Appa Alias Krishnan Nair
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1916
Reported in: (1917)ILR40Mad302
Moore, J.1. Under a family karar (Exhibit A) the respondent, the deposed karnavan of the tarwad, was allotted properties yielding an annual income of 1,120 1/2 edangalis of paddy and Rs. 92-4-0. The karar farther provided that the respondent should be paid Rs. 276 every year in monthly instalments of Rs. 23 before the 5th of each month for the purpose of meeting extra expenses such as entertaining guests. The appellant who holds a money-decree against the respondent applied for the appointment of a receiver to realize the monthly allowances, as they fell due in satisfaction of his decree-debt. Both the lower Courts held that the right to receive future maintenance could not be attached, and that a receiver could not be appointed to collect the allowance due to the respondent. Mr. Subrahmanya Sastri for the appellant contends that the lower Courts have misconstrued the karar and erred in holding that the allowance in question is maintenance, that the monthly allowance is property which ...
Amanchi Seshamma Vs. Amanchi Padmanabha Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1916
Reported in: (1917)ILR40Mad660; 33Ind.Cas.578
1. The question in this case is whether the deceased Krishna Rao was capable of making an adoption. He had been found a lunatic under the Lunatic Act XXXV of 1858 in 1903 and the effect of that finding is to raise a presumption that he continued to be of unsound mind until the contrary is shown. We are altogether unable to accept the arguments presented by Mr. Venkatarama Ayyar for the appellant that the effect of an Order under that Act appointing a manager of the properties of the lunatic is to incapacitate the lunatic from making an adoption till the Order is set aside. No authority has been cited in support of that proposition. On the other hand, as pointed out by the District Judge, in the Courts of Wards. Act I of 1902 in this Presidency, where it was desired to control the power of an incapacitated person under that Act to make an adoption, express provisions to that effect were inserted and a perusal of those provisions shows how very careful the legislature was and that all th...
Palikandy Mammad Vs. Chingoran Keloth Valia Appa Alias Krishnan Nair
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1916
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.381; (1916)30MLJ361
Moore, J.1. Under a family karar, Exhibit A, the respondent, the deposed karnavan of the tarwad, was allotted properties yielding an annual income of 1,1201/2 edangalis of paddy and Rs. 92-4. The karar further provided that the respondent should be paid Rs. 276 every year in monthly instalments of Rs. 23 before the 5th of each month for the purpose of meeting extra expenses, such as entertaining guests. The appellant who holds a money-decree against the respondent, applied for the appointment of a Receiver to realise the monthly allowances as they fell due in satisfaction of his decree-debt. Both the lower Courts held that right to receive future maintenance could not be attached, and that a Receiver could not be appointed to collect the allowance due to the respondent. Mr. Subramania Sastri for the appellant contends that the lower Courts have misconstrued the karar and erred in holding that the allowance in question is maintenance, that the monthly allowance is property which can be ...
Bikkina Ramayya Vs. Adabala Seshayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1916
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.475; (1916)30MLJ338
1. The first point for consideration in this case is whether Exhibit A is a mortgage by conditional sale or a simple mortgage. If we are to apply the tests contained in Section 58, Clause (c), of the Transfer of Property Act, the document cannot be treated as evidencing a mortgage by conditional sale, because it does not purport to sell the mortgaged property. The only condition which provides for passing an absolute right is in these terms: Therefore in default of payment of any instalment in the aforesaid manner, the said entire mortgaged property shall be relinquished as if I had sold it to you.' It is clear that there was no ostensible sale to the mortgagee which was intended to convey an absolute estate after the expiration of the prescribed period. See Srinivasa Aiyangar v. Radhakrishna Pillai 22 Ind. Cas. 54 : 26 M.L.J. 47 and Hakeem Patte Muhammad v. Sheikh Davood 30 Ind. Cas. 569 : 29 M.L.J. 525. But it was contended for the respondents and we think rightly, that this document...
Palaniappa Udayar Vs. Arumuga Pandaram and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-1916
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.692
1. This is an appeal by the auction-purchaser against an order setting aside a sale. The material facts may be shortly stated. The decree in the suit directed the sale of the A and B schedule properties first; and then, if there was any deficit, the sale of the C and D schedule properties. The C and D schedule properties belonged to defendants Nos. 5 to 8, and the decree provided that the items claimed by each of the defendants Nos. 5 to 8 should be exonerated on their paying the amount specified against each. The A and B schedule properties (lots Nos. 1 and 2 in the sale proclamation) were sold for Rs. 1,200. On the date of the sale 5th defendant paid the portion of the decree amount due by him, and consequently items Nos. 53 to 75 in lot No. 3 (Cand D schedule properties) were exonerated. Items Nos. 1 to 52 in the 3rd lot were sold and realized Rs. 4,350. Defendants Nos. 6 and 7 applied under Order XXI, Rule 90, Civil Procedure Code, to the Court to have the sale of the 3rd lot set a...
Gamarti Venkatachellam Vs. Gamarti Sithayamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-1916
Reported in: (1916)31MLJ22
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The decree-holder is the appellant. He brought O.S. No. 4 of 1910 on the file of the District Court of Kistna at Masulipatam. The District Court trans-ferred it to the Temporary Subordinate Judge's Court established in that place for disposal. The suit was for partition of immoveable properties, for recovery of a half share therein and for mesne profits. The Temporary Subordinate Judge's Court was established in 1910 at Masulipatam but no local limits were fixed for its jurisdiction, the notification leaving it to the District Judge to fix such local jurisdiction as he thinks fit to do under Section 10 of the Madras Civil Court's Act III of 1873. When the suit was transferred by the District Court, the District Judge had not fixed any such local limits for the Temporary Subordinate Judge's jurisdiction. The Subordinate Judge decreed the suit including the relief of mesne profits on the 16th August 1912 and that decree was confirmed on appeal by the High Court.2. Th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »