Chennai Court July 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.
In Re: Samba Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-1916
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.823
ORDERSeshagiri Aiyar, J.1. In this case, the facts found are that in the early part of the year the accused had sown the crops and harvested them. Subsequently, after the harvest, the complainant's party entered upon the land and began to plough it. The accused party thereupon went to the field armed, as it is said by the Magistrate, with deadly weapons for the purpose of getting possession from the opposite party. The Magistrate says that the complainant's party was lawfully in possession. I am unable to follow him in this. The learned Public Prosecutor says that, if a party during the absence of the person who was previously in possession has possession of the property, he must be deemed to have been lawfully in possession. That would mean that unless the party who was entitled to the property and who was in possession also is always on the land, anybody can enter upon it and say that he is in peaceful possession, A person who has been found to have reaped the crops and to have been ...
Palaniappa Mudali and anr. Vs. the Official Receiver of Trichinopoly a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-11-1916
Reported in: AIR1915Mad82; 35Ind.Cas.610; (1917)32MLJ84
1. We think the learned Judge rightly construed the finding of the District Judge in saying that there was a finding that the appellants were not bona fide purchasers.2. The cancellation of the sale deeds in so far as they conveyed the share of the Insolvent was therefore right, but the Order of the District judge as it stands may be construed as implying that the appellants acquired no interest at all in the properties comprised in the sale deeds. The shares of the grand-father and of the father of the Insolvent could not vest in the Official Receiver, as they never applied to be declared insolvents. Sections 16, 18 and 36 of the Provincial Insolvency Act are clear on the point. Moreover the application of the Official Receiver was to cancel the sales only so far as the share of the Insolvent was concerned and the District Judge had no jurisdiction under the sections referred to, to deal with the other shares. We must therefore modify the Order of the District Judge by declaring that ...
Rallabandi Venkataratnam and anr. Vs. Rallabandi Raja Ram Mohana Rao, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-11-1916
Reported in: (1916)31MLJ277
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for partition. The first question argued before us relates to the genuineness and validity of the will of one Appa Raw. He died on the 5th July 1908 and a will was executed by him on the same date, then an application for probate was made, but as no executor was designated in the will, letters of administration with the will annexed were granted on the 15th April 1909. The citations were properly served as required by law and evidence was taken as to the due and proper execution of the will. An application was after-wards made by some of the parties for revocation of the letters of administration. That application was refused and the order was confirmed in appeal. It also appears that a suit was instituted by the second defendant in 1909 (O.S. No. 79 of 1909) seeking for a declaration that the adoption of the plaintiff by the 6th defendant, the validity of which depended on the authority granted by the will, was invalid. That suit was dismissed by th...
Rallabhandi Venkata Ratnam and anr. Vs. Rallabhandi Raja Ram Mohana Ra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-11-1916
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.854
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for partition. The first question argued before us relates to the genuineness and validity of the Will of one Appa Rao. He died on the 5th July 1908 and a Will was executed by him on the same date. Then an application for Probate was made, but as no executor was designated in the Will, Letters of Administration with the Will annexed were granted on the 15th April 1909. The citations were properly served as required by law and evidence was taken as to the due and proper execution of the Will. An application was afterwards made by some of the parties for revocation of the Letters of Administration. That application was refused and the order was confirmed in appeal. It also appears that a suit was instituted by the second defendant in 1909 (Original Suit 79 of 1909), seeking a declaration that the adoption of the plaintiff by the 6th defendant, the validity of which depended on the authority granted by the Will, was invalid. That suit was dismissed by t...
Perala Krishnayyan Chettiv Vs. G. Padmanathan Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-11-1916
Reported in: 37Ind.Cas.792
1. The defendant wrote to the plaintiff on the 17th of October 1909 to Palghat where the latter was permanently residing, to send 15 or 20 bags of areca nuts 'at once'. The letter also stated that the plaintiff should attend to other business, only after sending this consignment. The plaintiff, who had left Palghat owing to plague, wrote on the 28th October that he would send the goods within 15 or 20 days. No reply was admittedly received from the defendant in answer to this suggestion, 25 bags of nuts were finally sent by the plainiiff on the 1st of December. The defendant refused to take delivery of them. Hence this suit for damages for breach of contract. The Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit. In revision, the learned Judge of this Court awarded damages to the plaintiff. We agree with the learned Judge that the Subordinate Judge was wrong in holding that because 25 bags were sent instead of 15 or 20 bags, the defendant was justified in refusing to take delivery Under Section 119...
Audimula Mudali Minor by His Next Friend Doraiswamy Mudali Vs. Alamala ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-10-1916
Reported in: 36Ind.Cas.365
1. The suit was brought for a declaration that the sale by the plaintiff's father was not binding on the plaintiff's interest. The defence was two-fold: (1) that the property was the self-acquired property of the father, and (2) that the sale was binding on the plaintiff as the money was borrowed for family purposes. Issues were raised on these alternative pleas and the case went to trial without any objection. The finding of the lower Appellate Court is that the property is ancestral, but that the sale was effected by the father to meet the demand on the family. Mr. Gr. S. Ramachandra Aiyar's contention in this Court is that the alternative plea is not open to the defendants, as the defendants took the sale-deed on the allegation contained therein that the property was the self-acquired property of the vendor. He relies upon Raja Balwant Singh v. Rev. Rockwell Clancy 14 Ind. Cas 629 : 9 A.L.J. 509 : (1912) M.W.N. 462 : 16 C.W.N. 577 : 15 C.L.J. 475: 23 M.L.J. 18. In that case the suit...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›