Chennai Court August 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.
Suryanarayana Alias Lakshmi Narayana (Minor by His Mother and Guardian ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-1917
Reported in: (1918)ILR41Mad604
Seshagiri Ayyar, J.1. One Gurumurthi Subudhi belonging to the Vaisya caste had four sons, three of whom were married and the other was unmarried. All the four 30ns died during his lifetime, the three married sons leaving behind them their widows. In this state of circumstances Gurumurthi adopted a boy, the first defendant in this suit, and made a will on the 28th June 1909 by which he authorized his three daughters-in-law to adopt a son each. The second plaintiff in this case adopted a son under the authority given to her by Gurumurthi. That boy died. Thereupon she attempted to adopt the first plaintiff in this case in November 1911 but was temporarily prevented by injunction from doing so. She subsequently adopted him in 1913. The present suit is brought by the adopted son as first plaintiff and by the adoptive mother as second plaintiff to recover the share of the property bequeathed under the will. Their allegations are that the first defendant gave his consent for adopting the firs...
Aiyanar Raja Alias Shola Raja and anr. Vs. K.V. Alagar Raja and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-1917
Reported in: 52Ind.Cas.434
1. On the authority of the decisions in Jibunti Nath Khan v. Shib Nath Chuckerbutty 10 C.L.R. 537, Bandey Ali v. Gokul Misir 13 Ind. Cas. 154 and Siliman Sahib v. Buntala Raman 20 Ind. Cas. 418 : (1913) M.W.N. 554 we have no hesitation in holding that the lower Courts were right in thinking that the present suit for a declaration of the plaintiff's title occupied with a prayer for possession is not barred under Order If, Rule 2, by reason of the plaintiff's previous suit, which was for a declaration of title and for an injunction against disturbance, having been dismissed through his failure to prove possession.2. The case in Naganada Iyer v. Krishnamurli Aiyar 6 Ind. Cas. 233 is distinguishable on the ground that there the previous suit was dismissed for default which involved a finding of all the issues against the plaintiff. The question of res judicata upon which that case was decided does not arise for decision against the plaintiff in this case, as in both suits here the plaintif...
Chelimi Chetty and ors. Vs. Subbanna
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-1917
Reported in: 42Ind.Cas.860
1. This matter arises in connection with a suit instituted on behalf of a minor member of a joint Hindu family for partition. The minor plaintiff died after the institution of the suit but before the written statement was filed. The respondent before us, who is the mother of the plaintiff, applied to the First Court to be brought on record and for permission to continue the suit as legal representative of the deceased plaintiff. That Court held that no cause of action survived and refused the application of the respondent. On appeal, however, the District Judge set aside the order of the First Court, holding that the respondent was entitled to continue the suit as legal representative of the plaintiff. The contention before us on behalf of the defendants in the suit is that when the minor died, whatever rights he had in the family property survived-to the other members of the family as there was no partition. A rather interesting question was discussed before us as to whether an appeal...
Vinjanampati Peda Venkanna and anr. Vs. Vadlamannati Sreenivasa Deeksh ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1917
Reported in: 43Ind.Cas.225; (1917)33MLJ519
Wallis, C.J.1. The question in this Second Appeal is whether a son can be made liable, during his father's life-time, as held by the District Judge, on a promissory note executed by his father after partition in renewal of a note executed by the father before partition. One of the contentions raised by Mr. Parthasarathy for the appellant is that since the recent decision of the Judicial Committee in Sahu Ram Chandra v. Bhup Singh (1917) L.R. 441 IndAp 126 payment of the father's debts cannot be enforced by suit against the sons during the father's life-time. This is a most important question because, if the contention is right, the recent decision involves the overruling of what has long been treated in this and other High Courts as a settled rule of every day application, and it is therefore incumbent upon us to satisfy ourselves that this result is really involved in the recent decision.2. Now there are two distinct and closely connected things, one, the father's power to bind the so...
Vinjamampati Peda Vekanna and anr. Vs. Vadlamannati Sreenivasa Deeksha ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1917
Reported in: (1918)ILR41Mad136
John Wallis, Kt., C.J.1. The question in this Second Appeal is whether a son can be made liable, during his father's life-time, as held by the District Judge, on a promissory note executed by his father after partition in renewal of a note executed by the father before partition. One of the contentions raised by Mr. Parthasarathi for the appellant is that since the recent decision of the Judicial Committee in Sahu Ram Chandra v. Bhup Singh (1917) L.R. 44 L.A. 126 payment of the father's debts cannot be enforced by suit against the sons during the father's life-time. This is a most important question because, if the contention is right, the recent decision involves the overruling of what has long been treated in this and other High Courts as a settled rule of every day application, and it is therefore incumbent upon us to satisfy ourselves that this result is really involved in the recent decision.2. Now there are two distinct and closely connected things, one, the father's power to bin...
In Re: Koroth Mammad and Palacheruvatparkum Mullappalli Mammad
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1917
Reported in: 42Ind.Cas.977; (1917)33MLJ430
Ayling, J.1. The case has been so exhaustively dealt with by the learned Judges who heard the appeals (not to mention the very careful judgment of the Sessions Judge) that it is unnecessary for me to set forth the particulars or the arguments for and against the convictions. I shall therefore confine myself to stating briefly the conclusions to which I have arrived after the best consideration I could give to the matter.2. The difficulty of decision arises chiefly from the lack of definition' of the term ' slave' as used in Section 370 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the learned Judges have held, (and I entirely agree) that it includes something very far short of slavery in its most extreme forms wherein the master has absolute and unlimited power over the life, fortune and liberty of the slave. This is clearly the view of the Courts in the two reported cases in Which the question is discussed Empress of India v. Ram Kuar I.l.R. (1880) All. 725 and Amina v. Queen Empress I.L.R. (1884) M...
Rajagopalachar Vs. Sundaram Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-24-1917
Reported in: 45Ind.Cas.333; (1917)33MLJ696
Wallis, C.J.1. The plaintiff first sued as heir of his natural mother Namammal the nominal mortgagee under Exhibit A, the document sued on. The Subordinate Judge in appeal found that he was not entitled to sue as her heir and gave leave to amend the plaint. The plaintiff in his amended plant alleged that the document was taken in the name of his mother for his benefit by one Srirangammal, widow of Appanna Iyengar as there were then disputes going on as to whether the plaintiff had been lawfully adopted by Appanna Iyengar and it was desired to benefit him in any event. Both the District Munsif and the District Judge have found that the mortgage money was advanced by Srirangammal, Appanna Iyengar's widow, out of the sale proceeds of properties which had formed part of his estate and had been sold by her under Exhibit C as guardian of the plaintiff and on the footing that he was the adopted son of Appanna Iyengar. They have also found that this was done to defraud Eangasami Iyengar who wa...
Vellayappa Moothan Vs. Krishna Moothan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-24-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad258; (1918)34MLJ32
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant and the suit was a suit for partition. The genealogical tree is as follows: Ponnappa | _______________________________________________________ | | | | Plaintiff 1st defendant 4th defendant Navutti (died 1913) I Defendants 2 and 3.2. There was a prior suit (O.S. No. 27 of 1906) brought by the 4th defendant which was decreed, but that decree was not executed, as, by a private engagement, his claims were satisfied. Hence the plaintiff sues for 1/3 share in the properties left (after so satisfying the 4th defendant's claim), the 1st defendant being entitled to another 1/3 share and defendants 2 and 3 being entitled to the remaining 1/3 share. This litigation was, however, complicated by the plaintiff claiming (among others) one further relief which arises out of the following facts :-The plaintiff, the 1st defendant, and the 2nd and 3rd defendants alone carried on a partnership trade for their separate benefit. This trade was carried on e...
C. T. M. N. R. Vellayappa Chettiyar and ors. Vs. Unnamalai Achi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-1917
Reported in: 42Ind.Cas.573
1. We agree with the learned Subordinate Judge that the money in question in this suit was deposited with the defendants' firm on account of the plaintiff. According to Exhibit A, the terms upon which money was deposited were 'two months thavanai interest.'' This means that interest should be calculated at thavanai rates with two-monthly rests. It is not clear upon the evidence in the present case whether according to the custom of Nattukottai Chetties money deposited on those terms is repayable at once upon demand or whether it is repayable only at the expiration of the current thavanai period when the demand is made. Whichever it be, we agree with the Subordinate Judge that the present suit is not barred. It is perfectly clear that this money may be said to have been deposited with the Nattukottai Chetties within the meaning of Article 60 of the Limitation Act, 1908, if it is payable on demand. Nattukottai Chetties are really the Indian bankers of this part of the country, so that Ar...
Visvanatha Pandara Sannadhi Alias Sundara Pandara Sannadhi Vs. South I ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-1917
Reported in: 42Ind.Cas.609
1. The plaintiff obtained a decree against one Nataraja Aiyar in Original Suit No 30 of 1908 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Tinnevelly. Certain debts due to Nataraja Aiyar were attached and brought to sale. Plaintiff became the purchaser. One of the debts thus purchased was due on a bond executed by the 1st defendant. He was at the time of the bond (16th June 1904) the Srishta Adhinakarta of the Devastanam. In order to understand the position of the 1st defendant, it is necessary td state that a large number of families in Jaffna are the hereditary trustees of the Devastanam. They appoint one among themselves as the principal manager or 'the Srishta Adhinakarta'. Transactions connected with the temple are entered into by him. There can be no question that he acts as the representative of all the trustees and represents the temple as well.2. To go back to the claim in the suit, the suit was instituted in June 1910. A number of defences were raised. It was pleaded t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »