Chennai Court March 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.
Muniswami Goudu Vs. Junjadu Alias Muni Ellugudu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-1916
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.65
Coutts Trotter, J.1. In this case the plaintiff failed to appear in the District Munsif's Court on the day which had been fixed for the hearing of the suit, but the District Mansif found that the defendant was there. The defendant had, by his pleadings admitted *he execution of the bond on which the suit was brought and had admitted receipt of the principal sum made payable under it, but pleaded that by an arrangement he was allowed to work for a long period of years without wages under the plaintiff and in that way he had extinguished the, whole debt except Rs. 10. In those circumstances the District Munsif acted under Order IX, Rule 8, of the Code of Civil Procedure. He gave a determination to the effect that the plaintiff should have a decree for Rs. 10 and that his suit as to the remainder should stand dismissed.2. It is contended before us for the respondent that the latter part of the determination was not a decree, although the former portion of it admittedly was, but was an ord...
Goppammal Vs. V. Srinivasa Aiyangar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-1916
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.432
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The first respondent in the lower Court is the appellant before us. She is the widowed mother of a minor boy. On the application of the minor's father's 1st cousin, one V. Srimvasa Aiyaugar has been appointed as guardian of the minor's property, superseding her in the interests of the minor, so far as the guardianship of his properties is concerned.2. The order appointing Srimvasa Aiyangar as guardian was passed on the 19th day of January 1914, under Section 7 of the Guardians and Wards Act. Section 34 of the Act provides that ' where a guardian of the property of a ward has been appointed..., he shall, (a) if to required by the Court, give a bond...to the Judge of the Court...engaging duly to account for what he may receive in respect of the property of the ward.' It seems to me clear that it is only after the appointment that the person appointed can be required under the Act to give security under Section 34 (a). If he contumaciously fails to give security, Sect...
P. Viswanathan and ors. Vs. P. Brahmanadhan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-1916
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.900
1. We agree with the learned Judge that, as stated at the beginning of his judgment, the appellants may be guilty of a breach of trust and are bound to replace the minor's money and to account for any profits made therewith.2. He is, however, liable under Section 23 (6) of the Indian Trusts Act at the option of the beneficiary either to account with compound interest at six per cent. with half-yearly rests or to account for the net profits made by the employment of the minor's money. The respondent in this case does not want the net profits and, therefore, he is only entitled to compound interest at this rate, and not at twelve per cent. as awarded by the learned Judge. It is said, however, for the respondent that the defendants have, admitted their liability for interest at 7 1/2 per cent., but that was merely as debtors all conjointly with the other members of the firm, and affords no sufficient ground for not applying the statutory provision as to the rate of interest payable in res...
Rahima Bibi Vs. Hamida Bibi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-1916
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.857
1. Following Lachminia Kuar v. Ruder Deo Naram Singh 9 Ind Cas. 207 we hold that the Court has got a discretion to stop the proceedings in the inquisition for proper grounds, there being no provision in the Act which entitles the petitioner to have the inquiry conducted so long as he is able to tender witnesses for examination.2. We think that in this case (to use the language of the judgment in the above quoted Allahabad case) 'the medical evidence militates against the idea of any further inquiry being necessary' and 'the Court exercised a wise discretion in refusing to proceed further into the case.'3. The appeal is dismissed with costs....
Govindasawmi Pillai Vs. Ramasawmi Aiyar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1916
Reported in: (1916)30MLJ492
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal is against the judgment of a learned Judge of this Court who dismissed the Civil Revision Petition tiled by the defendant (petitioner and appellant) against the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Kumbakonam in S.C.S. No. 14S0 of 1913.2. The defendant was lessee of a garden for live years under a registered lease-deed, Ex. B. The lease term expired in 1908. Then he executed an unregistered lease-deed, Ex. A in June 1909. But that lease-deed is inadmissible in evidence for want of registration. The rent reserved for the whole garden under Ex. B seems to have been Rs. 280 per annum. The plaintiffs originally owned one-fourth share in the garden and he purchased the other one-fourth share on 23rd October 1912 from the then owner thereof.3. The suit was brought for rent due from the 1st September 1911 till 14th November 1912 at Rs. 210 per annum with interest and costs and also Rs. 50 damages for the alleged injury caused to the land by the de...
Unde Rajaha Raje Sir Rajah Velugoti Sri Rajagopala Krishna Yachendra B ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1916
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.607; (1916)31MLJ211
1. This is a suit in ejectment brought by the Rajah of Venkatagiri against the villagers of Velikallu and others to recover possession of certain lands which he had leased to them. The defendants pleaded that they were sole owners of these lands subject to the payment of an annual rent to the plaintiff and that the annual auctions held by the plaintiff were merely auctions of the right to collect the fees which they paid for the grazing of their cattle ; and later on in the written statement they alleged that they were either owners or entitled to rights of occupancy in the plaint land.2. We think that the Subordinate Judge's finding on the fact is to a certain extent vitiated by his belief that the estate records were deliberately manufactured in anticipation of the passing of the Estates Land Act. The Respondent's vakil is unable to sup-port this belief and we think that the facts of the case must be taken to be as follows: The suit land called the Kancha of the village had been leas...
Mahomed Hanif Sahib and ors. Vs. Anagappa Mudali and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1916
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.106
1. The appellants in this second appeal, representing1 the Muhammadan residents of Lalgudi, appeal against a decree of the Snbordinate Judge of Trichinopoly granted in favour of the respondents, who sued as representatives of the Hindu residents of the same village. The decree in question declares the rights of the plaintiffs (respondents) in connection with the celebration of the annual Mariamman festival at the 'Mariamman Medai' and gives an injunction forbidding interference by the defendants (appellants).2. The dispute arises out of the proximity of the Medai to a Muhammadan mosque, and the alleged interference with worship of the latter incidental to the use of music by respondents in connection with their festival.3. The first objection taken by appellants is that the decree of the Subordinate Judge is illegal, inasmuch as it goes beyond the general nature of the deoree granted in a somewhat similar case by this Court vide Muthialu Chetty v. Bapun Sahib 2 M.L 140. No doubt the de...
Govindaswamy Pillai Vs. Ramaswami Aiyar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1916
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.6
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. This Latters Patent Appeal is against the judgment of a learned Judge of this Court, who dismissed the civil revision petition filed by the defendant (petitioner and appellant) against the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Kumbakonam in Small Cause Suit No. 1480 of 1913.2. The defendant was lessee of a garden for five years under a registered lease-deed, Exhibit B. The lease term expired in 1908. Then he executed an unregistered lease-deed, Exhibit A, in June 1909. But that lease deed is inadmissible in evidence for want of registration. The rent reserved for the whole garden under Exhibit B seems to have been Rs. 260 per annum. The plaintiffs originally owned one-fourth share in the garden and they purchased the other three-fourths share on 2 3rd October 1912 from the then owner thereof.3. The suit was brought for rent due from the 1st September 1911 till the 14th November 1912 at Rs. 210 per annum with interest and costs and also Rs. 50 damages for the alleged i...
Sundara Reddi and anr. Vs. Varadharaja Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1916
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.407
1. One Velayudam Pillai was arrested in execution of a decree and produced before the District Munsif of Cuddalore. The judgment-debtor was released under-section 55 (4), Civil Procedure Code, on his undertaking to file an insolvency petition and upon the appellants executing a security bond on 23rd January 1914. The judgment-debtor did not appear within 30 days, nor did he file an insolvency petition. The decree was transferred to the Villupuram Munsif's Court, and on the application of the decree-holder the sureties' moveables were attached. The appellants applied for the release of the properties from attachment, and this was ordered on 29th July 1914, the District Munsif being of opinion that the sureties had not undertaken to see that the judgment-debtor would present an insolvency petition within a month of the date of his release but merely to produce him in Court whenever the Court may direct. On 3rd August 1914, a notice was issued to the sureties to produce the judgment-debto...
Maddali Venkataswamy Vs. Velampalli Subbarayudu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1916
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.435
1. The District Judge's order cannot be supported. The District Judge seems to have thought that if the inventory submitted by the executors was untrue in a material respect he had no option but to revoke the Probate. Section 50 (5) of the Probate and Administration Act says that the grant 'may' be revoked on account of a material falsehood in the inventory submitted by the executor. The value of large assets (about a lac of rupees) left by a trader-testator ' is almost a matter of conjecture and perfect accuracy can hardly be expected.2. We do not think that it was a proper exercise by the Court of its discretion under sectien 50 (5) of the Probate and Administration Act to revoke in 1914 a Probate granted in 1907, merely on the ground that the inventory submitted in 1907 estimated the testator's assets as worth about 70,000 instead of about 95,000 rupees.3. We, therefore, set aside the order of the lower Court and direct that the petition for revocation of Probate be dismissed. The p...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »