Chennai Court March 1918 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.
Balasundara Pandiam Pillai Vs. Authimulam Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1918
Reported in: 47Ind.Cas.505
1. The right to bring a suit to have a document adjudged void and to have it cancelled is governed by Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act. One of the provisions in this section is that the person suing must have reasonable apprehension that the instrument if left outstanding, may cause him serious injury. Under 'Article 91 of the Limitation Act time begins to run when the facts 'entitling' the plaintiff to have toe instrument cancelled or set aside be come known to him. We think that the ward 'entitled' must be interpreted as moaning 'entitled by law,' i.e., under Section 39; Specific Relief Act, for we can find no other provision of law which gives a right to bring such a suit to avoid an injury before if is suffered. This is the view taken in Singarappa v. Talari Sanjivappa 15 M.L.J. 228 and according to it the period of limitation in the present case began to run, 'not when the facts which would render the document invalid became known to plaintiff, but when he became aware of fac...
The Rajah of Bobbili Vs. Akkella Suryanarayana Rao Garu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1918
Reported in: 51Ind.Cas.805
Oldfield, J.1. This petition and appeal relate to the circumstances in which a Court Bale was concluded by the Temporary Subordinate Judge of Vizagapatam. The decree under execution was for over Rs. 2,50,000 and eight villages of a Zsmindari belonging to the judgment-debtors, here respondents, were put up for sale in one lot on 27th September 1918. The sale was continued from that date until 22nd October 1918, when other bidders having dropped out, competition was confined to the Rajah of Bobbili, the petitioner and appellant here, and one Perla Ramamurthi Chetty. On that date the former by his Muktyar or agent bid Rs. 3,25,000. On 28th October 1918, however, the Chetty bid Rs. 3,25,000. The sale was then continued until 3th November 1918, although no further bids were received, apparently in compliance with the requests of the Rajah and the Chetty contained in two of the telegrams marked as Exhibit III Meanwhile news was received of the Chetty's death and on the date last mentioned an...
Pazhavathil Mavilaputhia Veetil Chindan Nambiar Vs. Kunhi Raman Nambia ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1918
Reported in: 45Ind.Cas.26; (1918)34MLJ400
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. It is clear to my mind that the Karar Exhibit B dated in 1892 deprived the 2nd defendant of his Karnavastanam though with his consent and vested the office in the 1st defendant. The fact that the tarwad (including the new Karnavan) gave the management of a temple and its income to the removed Karnavan did not affect the other results of the Karar, namely, the putting an end to the tenure of the second defendant's office as Karnavan and the appointment of the first defendant to the said office. The supercession of second defendant's rights by the family Karar cannot, of course, be affected by any subsequent unilateral act or expression of intention on his part.2. The 1st defendant became not only the de facto Karnavan but also the de jure Karnavan under the Karar and he can therefore be removed by suit for gross misconduct.3. As soon as a Karnavan ceases to be such by death or removal, the next in order of seniority becomes the Karnavan, and any family Karar binding...
Lingappaya and anr. Vs. Shankaranarayana Bhatta and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-1918
Reported in: (1918)35MLJ625
Abdur Rahim, J.1. This was a suit to set aside an alienation. There were two brothers Gopala Aiya and Govinda Aiya. The plaintiffs are sons of a daughter of Gopala Aiya. They were also assignees of the property in dispute from the legal representatives of Ramachandra Aiya, the son of the other daughter of Gopala Aiya. Both the plaintiffs and Ramachandra Aiya were entitled to the reversion. The present plaintiffs instituted O.S. No. 58 of 1910 to recover 2/3 of their share from an alienee of the widow of the last male-holder who was in possession. To that suit, Ramachandra Aiya was made a party defendant. The suit was one for partition but the person in possession and claiming an independent right was also made a party. The 11th defendant in that suit, that is, Ramachandra Aiya supported the plaintiffs' case and said that he was also entitled to 1/3 share in the property and expressed his willingness to pay the necessary court-fee and asked that a decree might be passed in his favour. T...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›