Chennai Court February 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.
Appan Patra Chariar Vs. V.S. Srinivasa Chariar and Four ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-1917
Reported in: (1917)ILR40Mad1122
Sadasiva Ayyar, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. He purchased the plaint lands in December 1909 from the first defendant. The first defendant has a minor step-brother who is the second defendant and also an uterine sister, the third defendant. The first and the third defendants' mother was the pre-deceased first wife of one Srinivasa Chariyar who died on the 14th November 1908. Within a fortnight before his death and on the 1st November 1908 (when he was on his death-bed and with the knowledge that his dissolution was not far off), he executed the will, Exhibit V (a), by which he gave the properties mentioned in the Schedule A attached to the will to his eldest son, the first defendant, gave the properties mentioned in the Schedule B to his minor son, the second defendant, and the land mentioned in the Schedule C to his daughter, the third defendant, besides making some other provisions. It is not denied that relatively to the A and the B schedule properties bequeathed to the two s...
Pumulli Manakal Narayanan Nambudripad Vs. Venkitajela Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad705; 40Ind.Cas.414
1. The Privy Council has, no doubt, held in Radha Kunwar v. Reoti Singh 35 Ind. Cas. 939 : 38 A. 488: 14 A.L.J. 1002 : 20 C.W.N. 1279 : 20 M.L.T. 211 : (1916) 2 M.W.N. 200 : 31 M.L.J. 571 : 18 Bom. L.R. 850 : 24 Cri.L.J. 303 : 5 L.W. 456 (P.C.) that in a suit by a mortgagee for sale, it was irregular to have joined as defendants parties who claimed portions of the mortgaged properties adversely to the mortgagors.2. But whether in a suit for redemption, it would be irregular to add persons claiming title to the mortgaged property or portions thereof was not directly decided in that case. In In re Krishnaswami Pathan 8 Ind. Cas. 885 : 9 M.L.T. 173. Mr. Justice Krishnaswami Aiyar held that such a course was not obnoxious to the rules of joinder. The present case seems analogous to the case of In re Krishnaswami Pathan 8 Ind. Cas. 885 : 9 M.L.T. 173.3. Even if In re Krishnaswami Pathan 8 Ind. Cas. 885 : 9 M.L.T. 173 was wrongly decided and it was, therefore, the duty of the Court of First ...
Kizhakke Meladathi Vidvan Kombi Achan Styled Sekhari Varma Valia Raja ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1917
Reported in: (1917)33MLJ26
Wallis, C.J.1. In 1842 the Government of Madras by Exhibit A put the Rajah of Palghat in possession and management of the suit devaswom which is stated to have belonged to two persons whose family had become extinct. This is the grant relied on by the plaintiff and its validity had not been called in question. The Palghat Raj is a Malabar stanom, the succession to which is in the senior male member for the time being of a large number of families who are presumably descended from a common ancestress. The grant of this and the other devaswoms included in Ex. A was made in pursuance of the policy adopted by the East India Company about this time of divesting itself of the direct management of religious institutions, and was intended in our opinion to confer the office of trustee of these various endowments on the Rajah and his successors in the stanom as a hereditary office descendible in the same manner as the stanom. This is not now contested for the respondents, and the only question ...
In Re: Mantripragada Venkatarama Rao and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad574(1); 41Ind.Cas.137
ORDERSadasiva Aiyar, J.1. It appears from the documentary evidence that the first accused obtained a mortgage with possession from one of two undivided brothers in May 1915 (Exhibit J), first accused having been already a mortgagee without possession from both the brothers. The other brother gave a cowle to the complainant more than a year afterwards in June 1916 (Exhibit A). Prima facie, the complainant was the aggressor in trying to take possession of a land which had been mortgaged with possession to 1st accused a year before the complainant's cowle.2. The Appellate Magistrate refused to go into the question, 'who was in possession of the land in the year preceding the date of offence and up to and on the date of offence.' See Veerappa Naick, In re 40 Ind. Cas. 752 : 8 Cr. Law Rev. 314 : 18 Cri. L. J. 752.3. I set aside the decision of the Appellate Magistrate and direct that the appeal be re-heard and a fresh decision pronounced after considering the question of possession and if t...
Ansur Subba Naidu and ors. Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Cou ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad373; 41Ind.Cas.770
John Wallis, C.J.1. This is an appeal from so, much of the decree of the District Judge of Nellore in Original Suit No, 7 of 1912 as declared that the right of the defendants in, the lands conveyed in the mining leases of the Tellabodu, D. F., and Palamani mines had determined and gave the plaintiffs a, decree for mesne profits and possession. The District Judge found against the plaintiff on the 6th issue that the defendants had not incurred forfeiture under their leases by failing to work their mines continuously and without voluntary intermission and in a workmanlike manner, but that they ha& done so by executing the mortgage, Exhibit 04 of 16th August 1909, which was an assignment of the premises demised without the lessor's consent. For the appellants it is contended, firstly, that this ground of forfeiture was not pleaded or made the subject of an issue, and secondly, that the mortgage in question did not amount to an assignment within the meaning of the clause against assignment...
Kizhakke Meladathil Vidvan Kombi Achan Sekhari Varma Valia Raja Averga ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1917
Reported in: 42Ind.Cas.22
John Wallis, C.J.1. In 1842 the Government of Madras by Exhibit A put the Rajah of Palghat in possession and management of the suit devaswom, which is stated to have belonged to two persons whose family had become extinct. This is the grant relied on by the plaintiff and its validity has not been called in question. The Palghat Raj is a Malabar Stanom, the succession to which is in the senior male member for the time being of a large number of families who are presumably descended from a common ancestress. The grant of this and the other devasvoms included in Exhibit A was made in pursuance of the policy adopted by the East India Company about this time of divesting itself of the direct management of religious institutions, and was intended, in our opinion, to confer the office of trustee of these various endowments on the Rajah and his successors in the Stanom as a hereditary office descendible in the same manner as the Stanom. This is not now contested for the respondents, and the on...
In Re: Pullabhotla Chinniah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1917
Reported in: 39Ind.Cas.309a
ORDERSadasiva Aiyar, J.1. I think that there are no sufficient reasons for not accepting the facts as found by the Magistrate.2. The cattle shed which was broken open was used for custody of agricultural implements and I think that the conviction under Section 457 of the Indian Penal Code was, therefore, not illegal.3. Section 562 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not apply to a case of a person convicted of house-breaking. [The age of the accused is probably immaterial on the question whether the Court is entitled to act under Section 562. Vide Queen-Empress v. Tukaram 2 Bom L.R. 817.4. I shall, therefore, set aside the direction for release on security passed by the Magistrate under Section 562 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and I shall sentence the accused to one week's simple imprisonment....
In Re: Vemireddy Babu Reddy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad591(1); 39Ind.Cas.309
ORDERSadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The Sub-Magistrate probably acted under a wrong Section (523 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) instead of under the proper section which seems to be applicable, namely, Section 517. But I do not think that that is a sufficient ground for interference in revision if the order can be supported under the latter section.2. The Magistrate had before him the evidence given for the prosecution in the inquiry and there is nothing in the Code which requires that the passing of the summary order under Section 517 [which order ought to be made at the time of the passing of the judgment in the criminal case itself: Rash Mohun Goshamy v. Kali Nath Raha 19 W.R. 3 should follow a fresh inquiry after giving opportunity to the party to produce new or further evidence.3. I, therefore, decline to interfere....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›