Chennai Court November 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.
Dakshinamurthi Rajali and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-1917
Reported in: 43Ind.Cas.616
ORDERKumaraswami Sastri, J.1. The finding of both Courts is against the case for the accused that they were attacked while exercising their lawful right of removing the paddy. The charge, no doubt, is defective in that it does not set out the common object, but both Courts find that the common object was to remove paddy stored in the threshing ground in spite of the objections of two of the lessors. I do not think the non-stating of the common object in the charge has really prejudiced the accused.2. It has been argued that the judgment of the Appellate Magistrate does not discuss the evidence as against each of the twenty accused and that as different pleas were put forward, the Court was bound to apply its mind as to the evidence against each of the accused. It appears from the judgment of the Sub-Magistrate that accused Nos. 3, 4, 7 to 15, 17, 18 and 19 denied all knowledge of the occurrence and their presence at the scene of offence. The other accused say they were first beaten and...
Thiraviyam Pillai and anr. Vs. Lakshmana Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-1917
Reported in: 47Ind.Cas.538; (1918)35MLJ150
1. Plaintiff and first defendant obtained decrees against one Thoppiah Pillai. Plaintiff applied for execution and an order was made for the attachment of the judgment-debtor's property. The first defendant also applied for execution and the same property was again attached at his instance. When the property was about to be sold, the judgment-debtor applied under Order XXI Rule 83 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for permission to raise money by private alienation. The District Munsif gave him permission. Why he granted it when there was an attachment at the instance of the first defendant, and why he accepted the payment by the judgment-debtor of monies which could only have covered the amount due to the plaintiff have not been explained. It seems to us that the permission should not have been accorded, but as the judgment-debtor is not before us, we shall not deal with that question any further. In accordance with the permission, the judgment-debtor executed a mortgage on the property...
Sree Raja Manyam Mahalakshmamma Garu Vs. Muchika Appalaraju
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1917
Reported in: 47Ind.Cas.713; (1918)34MLJ473
ORDERSadasiva Aiyar, J.1. This is a petition to the Government under Rule XVI of the Godavery Agency Rules, which has been preferred to the High Court for disposal. The petition prays to set aside the order of the: Agency Munsif of Polavara a dated 4-10-1916 passed in Execution Petition No. 93 of 1910 on his file.2. The appellant was the decree-holder on O.S. No. 1 of 1897 on the file of the Government Agent's Court, the decree of the High Court in Appeal in that suit being dated January 1902.3. As regards execution of decrees of the Agency Courts, the relevant rules are as follows :--Rule 10(1) ' With the exception of the Court of the Government Agent, who shall be at liberty, in the execution of decrees, to employ an Assistant or Munsif; all decrees of other Courts within his jurisdiction shall be carried into effect by the Court by which the suit may have been decided. ' 'If the person against whom, or the property against which, it is sought to execute any decree resides, or is sit...
Amir Bi Bi Vs. Arokiam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1917
Reported in: 45Ind.Cas.813; (1918)34MLJ184
Seshagiri Aiyar, J.1. This is a suit on a hypothecation bond. The plaintiff alleges that in a family settlement between herself, her mother-in-law and brothers-in-law, the arbitrators chosen by them are alleged to have given an oral award under which this bond and some other bonds were allotted for her share. The hypothecation bond was originally executed to her father-in-law. She now sues on it.2. The only plea of the defendant with which we are concerned, relates to the unsustainability of the suit on the ground that even if the award was true, as it was not followed by the execution of a conveyance, plaintiff is not entitled to maintain a suit to recover the money due under the bond. The learned District Judge has accepted this plea and has dismissed the suit. I am unable to agree with him.3. There are two aspects of the question; one is that the award itself operates to vest the property in the plaintiff, and the other, an a ward not being one of the instruments specially dealt wit...
K.A. Subbarayalu Nayudu Vs. Sundararaja Nayudu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1917
Reported in: (1918)35MLJ507
1. The question involved in this appeal is one of limitation. The appellant's assignor obtained a preliminary decree on a mortgage which allowed six months for payment of the mortgage amount, and in default of payment, the property was to be sold. The decree was passed on the 4th August, 1910 and the six months' time would expire on the 4th February 1911. In the meantime, an appeal had been preferred against the preliminary decree, and the appellate court in the result upheld the decree of the first court on the 11th April 1913. The present application for a final decree under Order 34, Rule 5, Civil Procedure Code was made on the 26th January 1916, that is within 3 years from the date of the appellate decree but more than 3 years after the expiration of the six months from the date of the decree of the first court. The Subordinate Judge has held that the application is barred reckoning time from the 4th February 1911, the date on which the six months allowed by the original decree exp...
Madepalli Venkataswami and ors. Vs. Madepalli Suranna and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1917
Reported in: 45Ind.Cas.644; (1918)34MLJ323
1. Plaintiff sues for a share in the family properties. The defence is that he was born blind and that consequently he is not entitled to any share under the Hindu law. A number of issues were raised including the one on the question whether the plaintiff was congenitally blind. After the settlement of the issues, the parties agreed to refer the disputes to certain arbitrators The agreement to refer is very general in its terms and apparently all questions of fact and of law were referred to arbitrators. Upon the reference, the arbitrators decided that the plaintiff was entitled to a life interest in a fourth share in the properties, subject to its becoming an absolute interest in case the plaintiff married.2. On the submission of this award objections were taken by the plaintiff on the ground that it was illegal on the face of it and the court should not accept it. Both the courts below have upheld this contention and have set aside the award.3. In Second Appeal the learned Vakils hav...
Vysravanath Manakal Raman Somayajipad Vs. Marampure Thalakkodi Madhath ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1917
Reported in: (1918)34MLJ344
Seshagiri Aiyar, J.1. S.A. No. 924 of 1916. The plaintiff styling himself as the Uralan and Udama of the Kottaseri Devaswom sues to redeem a kanom of the year 1898 granted by him to the tarwad of defendants 1 to 11. Defendants 12 to 18 are now in possession of the properties. The 19th defendant obtained a surrender of the properties from defendants 1 to 11 and claimed to be the real Uralan of the Devaswom. The defendants denied that the plaintiff was the Uralan and disputed his title to recover the demised properties. Both the Courts below, though not for the same reasons, dismissed the plaintiff's suit, Hence this Second Appeal.2. Before dealing with the merits of the case, it is desirable to draw attention to a feature of Malabar litigation which amounts almost to an abuse of the machinery of Civil administration. I do not in the least feel influenced by considerations of the quantum of Court-fees paid. If the legislature has framed its provisions in such a way that a right can be li...
Baradwaja Mudaliar Vs. Arunachala Gurukkal and Four ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1917
Reported in: (1918)ILR41Mad528
Sadasiva Ayyar, J.1. The first defendant is the appellant. The appeal is against the order of remand passed by the appellate Court which held that the plaintiffs' suit was not wholly barred by limitation, the Court of first instance, having held otherwise and dismissed the suit.2. The material allegations in the plaint are as follows:(a) The two plaintiffs (father and son) are the hereditary archakas of the famous temple at Tiruvannamalai. The first defendant, appellant before us, is the trustee of the temple. The third defendant is the temple peishkar. The first defendant in June 1912 suspended the plaintiffs from office. The third defendant intimated this fact to the plaintiffs on 19th June 1912 and the suspension of the plaintiffs lasted till 3rd July 1912;(b) The plaintiffs contend that the suspension order was illegal and unjust and that the third defendant maliciously made misrepresentations to the first defendant and made the first defendant pass such an unjust order; and:(c) Th...
A. Bharadwaja Mudaliar Vs. Arunachalla Gurukkal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad366; 45Ind.Cas.414
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The 1st defendant is the appellant. The appeal is against the order of remand passed by the Appellate Court which held that the plaintiff's suit was not wholly barred by limitation, the Court of first instance having held otherwise and dismissed the suit.2. The material allegations in the plaint are as follows:3. (a) The two plaintiffs (father and son) are the hereditary Archakas of the famous temple at Tiruvannamalai. The 1st defendant-appellant before us is the trustee of the temple. The 3rd defendant is the temple Peishkar, The 1st defendant in June 1912 suspended the plaintiffs from office. The 3rd defendant intimated this fact to the plaintiffs on 19th June 1912 and the suspension of the plaintiffs lasted till 3rd July 1912.4. (b) The plaintiffs contend that the suspension order was illegal and unjust and that the 3rd defendant maliciously made misrepresentations to the 1st defendant and made the 1st defendant pass such an unjust order.5. (c) The 4th defendant...
Karnam Chowdappa and anr. Vs. Karnam Narasamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1917
Reported in: 44Ind.Cas.299
1. The suit is by a reversioner for a declaration that the alienation made by the 1st defendant is invalid beyond her lifetime. The 1st defendant's husband, Ramachandrappa, died 30 years ago. His widow, the 1st defendant, married a Muhammadan in 1884. There is evidence to support the conclusion of the lower Courts that she was a convert to Muhammadanism before she married her present husband and we must accept that finding. On this finding the question is whether the 1st defendant has been in possession of the property for 30 years since her husband's death, and whether the plaintiff's suit is barred by limitation. The Courts below have come to the conclusion that it is so barred because, from the moment of her marriage, her possession was adverse to the plaintiff, but we are unable to agree with them.2. There are two Acts to be considered in this connection. The first is Act XXI of 1850, known as the Caste Disabilities Removal Act. By that Act a person who is a convert to another reli...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »