Chennai Court January 1917 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.
T. Rangayya Reddy Vs. V.R. Subrahmanya Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-16-1917
Reported in: (1917)32MLJ575
John Wallis, C.J.1. As regards the second question my answer is that, in a suit for specific performance of a contract by a member of an undivided Hindu family to sell his share, it is not permissible to join the other members of the family as defendants merely with a view to obtaining partition and possession of the alleged vendor's share as against them. It may I think be taken as the settled and salutary practice of this and other Courts in India where parties properly sued for specific performance of a contract for sale of land are in possession of the land to allow a prayer for possession to be added to the prayer for specific performance, thereby obviating the necessity for filing a fresh suit for possession to which there could be no defence. Bugata Appala Naidu v. Chengalvala Jogiraju (1916) 1 M.W.N. 77. It is however in my opinion quite a different thing to allow a stranger to make the members of a joint Hindu family defendants in a suit for a partition until he has establishe...
Boidyo Gauranga Sahu Vs. Sudevi Mata
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-16-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad1278; 41Ind.Cas.589; (1917)32MLJ597
John Wallis, C.J.1. The institution of the hereditary office of trustee of religious and charitable endowments is in accordance with the custom of the country recognized in Madras Reg. VII of 1817 and Act XX of 1863 and is too firmly established to be altered without legislation. It affords however no guarantee of fitness for the exercise of the office and may be held largely responsible for the numerous cases of waste and misappropriation of these endowments which come before the Court, and, it is to be feared, for a still larger number which are never brought before it. The exercise and enjoyment of the office in the event of the successive partitions to which families in India are liable also present difficulties which are illustrated by Ramanathan Chetty v. Murugappa Ghetty I.L.R. (1903) M. 192 which was affirmed by the Privy Council in Ramanathan Chetti v. Murugappa Chetti. (1906) I.L.R. 29 M. 283 (P.C.). In these circumstances it would perhaps be better if it had never been held ...
The Firm of Ramakrishna Aiyar Represented by Its Two Partners S. Rama ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-16-1917
Reported in: (1917)32MLJ520
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. This is a petition for review of the judgment pronounced by myself and Moore, J. on the 4th February 1916 in A.A.O. No. 407 of 1914.2. That appeal was preferred by one Mr. Gopaliah (then Official Receiver of Tinnevelly) against the order passed by the District Judge of Tinnevelly refusing the receiver's application made under Section 37 of the Provincial Insolvency Act III of 1907 to annul certain alienations made by an adjudicated insolvent in favour of one of his creditors, (namely, the firm represented by the respondents 1 and 2) within three months before the adjudication).3. Pending A.A.O. No. 407 of 1914 in this Court, Mr. Gopalaiah, the Official Receiver resigned his post and a new Receiver was appointed by the Local Government for the Tinnevelly Division. The appeal came on for hearing before myself and Moore, J. on the 4th February 1916. Mr. Deva Doss had filed the appeal for Mr. Gopalaiah, the then Official Receiver. I accept Mr. Deva Doss's statement tha...
Vaithilinga Odayar and anr. Vs. Atyathorai Odayar and Three ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-16-1917
Reported in: (1917)ILR40Mad1118
Oldfield, J.1. The plaintiffs, Christians, sued to recover the estate of a deceased Hindu, as his reversioners, that is, they claimed in virtue of their own relationship to him, not through any earlier reversioner such as Swaminatha Odayar, the member of their branch of the family, who first embraced Christianity. The lower Appellate Court following the ruling in Bhagwant Singh v. Kallu I.L.R. (1889) All. 100 held that they were relieved from all religious disability by Act XXI of 1850 and remanded the suit for decision on its merits. The question is whether this decision is right.2. The persons relieved by the Act are those, who (1) renounce, (2) have been excluded from the communion of, a religion and (3) deprived of caste. Renunciation and deprivation are applicable only to rights which have accrued, and therefore are irrelevant in the case of plaintiffs, who were born Christians, before the succession opened. They therefore are not covered by descriptions (1) and (3). As regards (2...
T. Rangayya Reddy Vs. V.S. Subramanya Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-16-1917
Reported in: 40Ind.Cas.429
Wallis, C.J.1. As regards the second question my answer is that, in a suit for specific performance of a contract by a member of an undivided Hindu family to sell his share, it is not permissible to join the other members of the family as defendants merely with a view to obtaining partition and possession of the alleged vendor's share as against them. It may, I think, be taken as the settled and salutary practice of this and other Courts in India, where parties properly sued for specific performance of a contract for sale of land are in possession of the land, to allow a prayer for possession to be added to the prayer for specific performance, thereby obviating the necessity for filing s fresh suit for possession to which there could be no defence. Bugata Appala Naidu v. Ghengalvala Jogiraju 32 Ind. Cas. 237 : (1916) 1 M.W.N. 77. It is, however, in my opinion quite a different thing to allow a stranger to make the members of a joint Hindu family defendants in a suit for a partition, un...
Vaithilinga Odayar and anr. Vs. Ayyathorai Odayar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-16-1917
Reported in: 37Ind.Cas.753
Oldfield, J.1. The plaintiffs, Christians, sued to recover the estate of a deceased Hindu, as his reversioners. That is, they claimed in virtue of their own relationship to him, not through any earlier reversioner, such as Saminada Odayar, the member of their branch of the family, who first embraced Christianity. The lower Appellate Court following Bhagwant Singh v. Kallu 11 A. 100 : 6 Ind. Dec. 492 held that they were relieved from all religious disability by Act XXI of 1850 and remanded the suit for decision on its merits. The question is whether this decision is right.2. The persons relieved by the Act are those, who 11 A.p 100 renounce (2), have been excluded from the communion of a religion, (3) are deprived of caste. Renunciation and deprivation are applicable only to rights, which have accrued, and, therefore, are irrelevant in the case of plaintiffs, who were born Christians, before the succession opened. They, therefore, are not covered by descriptions 11 A.p 100 : 6 Ind. Dec....
Vadlamudi Gopalakrishnayya and anr. and Vadlamudi Subba Rao Minor, by ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-15-1917
Reported in: 52Ind.Cas.749
Appeal No. 373 of 1915.1. The object of the suit in which these appeals arise was to obtain a declaration that the 1st defendant was not the adopted son of one Gopalakrishnayya and that the plaintiff was entitled to 1/15th share of the property in Schedule A to the plaint, to recover the same from the defendants, to obtain an apportionment of the property with reference to bad and good soil and for other reliefs. The 84th and 85th defendants, unless the 93rd defendant was validly adopted by Manikyam, the 92nd defendant, would be the nearest reversioners of Gopalakrishnayya and the plaintiff, who is the remoter reversioner, claims 1, 15th share of the estate under a deed of arrangement entered into between the 84th and 85th defendants, who had obtained a surrender of the properties from Gopalakrishnayya's mother Rangammah on 23rd November 191-1, and the rest of the presumptive reversioners living at the time. Gropalakrishnayya had died on 30th July 1-895 leaving a widow Ammama, who died...
The Secretary of State for India in Council, Through the Collector Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad608; 41Ind.Cas.24
Abdur Rahim, J.1. The respondents (plaintiffs) are the proprietors of Kunnakudi Mitta. The southern boundary of it is a small river called Harihara Nadhi. A channel called Kunnakudi Kal takes off from a point in the river, goes a little distance towards the north and then to the east (or rather south-east), feeds a tank called Kunnakudi Periakulam which discharges its water at the other end through a weir; from here the channel continues and feeds a smaller tank called Kunnakudi Periakulam; and thereafter it goes on till it discharges itself in Sivalaperikulam. The villages on the north and north-east of the channel are ryotwari villages held of the Government and named Kuthukkalvalasai and Tenkasi. Sivalaperikulam derives its name from the village of Sivalaperi, also a ryotwari village in Tenkasi Taluk. At the source of the channel, a short distance from the river, there is a head sluice situate in the mitta. Further on also within the boundaries of the mitta is one of the points in d...
In Re: Piranu Nadathi and Two ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad439; (1917)ILR40Mad880
Ayling, J.1. This is a reference by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Tinnevelly, recommending that the commitment of certain accused for offences falling under Section 82 of the Indian Registration Act should be quashed under Section 215, Criminal Procedure Code, as bad in law. No permission was obtained for the prosecution in this case from any of the officers mentioned in Section 83 of the Registration Act, and in the view of the Assistant Sessions Judge this fact is fatal to the institution of the case.2. It has been held by a Full Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Gopinath v. Kuldip Singh I.L.R. (1885) Cal 566 that no sanction is necessary before the institution by a private person of a charge under Section 82 of the Registration Act, and it may be inferred from the judgment of this Court in Queen-Empress v. Vythilinga I.L.R. (1888) Mad. 500 that the learned Judges were inclined to take the same view. The wording of Section 83 is far from clear, but on a consideration of the section...
Challa Balayya Vs. Kanuparthi Subbayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1917
Reported in: (1917)ILR40Mad1171
Oldfield, J.1. The suit promissory note purports to be executed by defendant-appellant; in virtue of the words on it:Nishani mark of Challa Subbayya.2. There is in fact no separate mark. The plaintiff contends that the absence of one is immaterial and that he is at liberty to prove that the words referred to were written with defendant's authority and therefore constituted a valid execution of the instrument.3. As regards the first point, we cannot see and have not been shown authority for holding that any separate mark is essential, if the writing relied on is in fact written with authority.4. As regards the second, no case has been cited to the effect that the ordinary law of agency stated in Section 226 of the Indian Contract Act is inapplicable to negotiable instruments; and Section 27, Negotiable Instruments Act, is to the contrary effect, its restrictive portion being irrelevant in the present connection. Radhakrishna v. Subrayo I.L.R. (1917) Mad. 650 relied on by appellant, was ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »