Chennai Court April 1918 Judgments
Ammani Amma and Five ors. Vs. Padmanabha Menon and Fifteen ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-1918
Reported in: (1918)ILR41Mad1075
Seshagiri Ayyar, J.1. The suit is by a female member of a tarwad and her children for maintenance against the tarwad; the defence is that, as the first plaintiff's marriage has been registered under Act IV of 1896, she and her children should entirely look to the husband of the first plaintiff for maintenance and not to the tarwad. The question is said to be one of first impression; the learned vakils on both sides have advanced to us very full arguments on the question. In our opinion, the view of the lower Appellate Court is wrong.2. At the outset, it might be mentioned that the expression 'maintenance' is loosely applied to this class of cases. The allowance claimed by an anandravan of a Malabar tarwad or by a junior member of a joint Hindu family is not as a dependant upon the owner of the property but as one who in his own right is entitled to participate in the income. The common law in both cases having vested the management in the senior member, the claim for separate allowance...
Tag this Judgment!The Goripalayam Durga by Its Manager Syed Muhayadees Alli Sahib and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-1918
Reported in: 49Ind.Cas.369
Oldfield, J.1. The dispute is between the plaintiffs in each suit, who claim their shares in 6/16ths of 1/5th of the income of a Darga, and the appellants (defendants), its manager and trustee and committee members, who allege that the 1/5th in question became payable to the Durga, when the branch of the family, to which plaintiffs belong and which had previously received it, became extinct.2. In Second Appeal No. 1635 of 1917 it has undoubtedly been contended throughout that this matter is res judicata in the plaintiff's favour by the decision of this Court in Second Appeal No. 1957 of J908. There is no doubt that it was a decision as to plaintiff's right generally, not as to a particular year only; and the objection to its application has accordingly been that the manager, who represented the Durga in that litigation did not rely on certain documentary evidence, which the present manager defendant has discovered and which will entail a different conclusion. It has not been shown how ...
Tag this Judgment!A.L.A. Alagappa Chettiar Vs. Chockalingam Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1918
Reported in: (1918)35MLJ236
1. Section 47(1) of the Provincial Insolvency Act provides that, subject to the provisions of the Act, the Provincial Insolvency Court in regard to proceedings under the Act shall have the same powers and follow the same procedure as it has and follows in the exercise of Original Civil jurisdiction, thus making the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code clearly applicable as far as may be to original proceedings under the Act. This Sub-section applies to District Courts in the exercise of original jurisdiction in insolvency. Sub-section (2) then applies exactly the same provisions in the same language to the High Courts and District Courts ' in regard to proceedings under this Act in Courts subordinate to them ' and the first question is, what is the effect of these words. Though not very happily expressed they are in my opinion wide enough to cover cases in the Subordinate Courts which come before the High Court or District Court on appeal or revision as well as on applications for tr...
Tag this Judgment!Kozhipurath Kunhikrsihna Menon Kurnavan and ors. Vs. Kozhipurath Kunhi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1918
Reported in: (1918)35MLJ565
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The karnavan and the senior Anandravan of the defendants' tarwad are the appellants before us. The plaintiffs are a Nair lady and her children who are members of the defendants' tarwad. The plaintiffs sued for arrears of maintenance. The defence was that as the plaintiffs were living away from the tarwad house, though under the protection of the 1st plaintiffs husband, they are not under the Marumakkathayam law entitled to claim separate maintenance. The lower Appellate Court overruled this plea and hence the second appeal.2. The learned District Judge has thus summarised the law : 'A junior member is entitled to maintenance in the tarwad house, or, if he or she show good reason for living away from it, outside the tarwad house. That is the substantive rule, and various adjective reasons have been grouped round it, such as insufficient accommodation or family quarrels. No special sanctity attaches to these reasons apart from, the rule, and as obsetved in Maradevi v...
Tag this Judgment!Muthukrishna Naicken Vs. Ramachandra Naicken and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1918
Reported in: 47Ind.Cas.611; (1919)37MLJ489
Abdur Rahim, J.1. I agree in the conclusions arrived at by my learned brother in his learned and exhaustive judgment which I had the advantage of reading. On the question of the interpretation of the will of Alavandar there can be little doubt that he intended to devote all his properties to charity and did not desire to make a gift of them to the appellant. It will be superfluous on my part to add anything to the reasons given in my learned brother's judgment on this point. Nor can I usefully add anything to what he has said on the question whether the provisions of the will constitute such a definite and certain gift to religious and charitable objects as the Courts could give effect to. The testator was a religious-minded and charitable person and was particularly attached to certain temples at Mahabalipuram and Tirupathi; and, reading the will in connection with the other relevant evidence in the case and in the light of the history of Alavandar's life, it seems to me that his inte...
Tag this Judgment!Thangathammal and anr. Vs. V.A.A.R. Arunachalam Chettiar and Seven ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1918
Reported in: (1918)ILR41Mad1071
Spencer, J.1. In Appeal No. 80 of 1917 at the hearing of this appeal, two contentions were raised:(1) that the varthamanam or guarantee (Exhibit M) alleged to have been written by fifth defendant's husband Audinarayana Pillai was not genuine:(2) that owing to the nature of the transaction which Exhibit M evidenced, the heirs of the guarantor are not liable under Hindu Law.2. On the first point, we do not find the least reason to doubt the correctness of the learned Subordinate Judge's finding of fact. The circumstance that, during Audinarayana's lifetime a notice of demand setting out his liability under the varthamanam was sent to him and he did not repudiate his liability, tells strongly against the present theory that it is a forgery. It was again mentioned in the subsequent promissory note (Exhibit Q) in a sentence which may have been written after the stamp was affixed but not necessarily after Audinarayana had signed across the stamp.3. The attempts made to prove an alibi for the...
Tag this Judgment!Thangathamma and anr. Vs. V.A.A.R. Arunachallam Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1918
Reported in: 48Ind.Cas.76; (1918)35MLJ229
A.S. No. 80 of 1917.1. At the hearing of this appeal, two con-tentions were raised:1. that the Varthamanam or guarantee (Exhibit M) alleged to have been written by 5th defendant's husband Audinarayana Pillai was not genuine;2. that owing to the nature of the transaction which Exhibit M evidences, the heirs of the guarantor are not liable under Hindu Law.2. On the first point, we do not find the least reason to doubt the correctness of the learned Subordinate Judge's finding' of fact. The circumstance that during Audinarayana's lifetime a notice of demand setting out his liability under the Vartha-manam was sent to him and. he did not repudiate his liability, tells strongly against (be present theory that it is a forgery. It was again mentioned in the subsequent promissory note (Exhibit Q), in a sentence which may have been written after the stamp was affixed but not necessarily after Audinarayana had signed across the stamp.3. The attempts made to prove an alibi for the 1st defendant o...
Tag this Judgment!Venkata Reddi and ors. Vs. Kuppa Reddi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1918
Reported in: 47Ind.Cas.716
Seshagiri Aiyar, J.1. One Kuppa Reddi had four sons. The eldest was Ramasami Reddi the father of defendants Nos. 1 to 3. He died in 1914. The last was one Muthu Reddi, who died fifteen years ago, and the plaintiffs are his sons. There were two other sons. In July 1906 there was a partition among the brothers evidenced by Exhibit IT. The family properties were divided into two schedules. Schedule B, was allotted to the second and to third brothers and schedule A was given to the first and the sons of the fourth brother. | These latter were represented by their mother as guardian. The document also says that ' as No. 1 out of us has been managing the affairs as the head of the family, one share in addition is included.'2. The present suit is for a half share in the properties which were taken by the first and the fourth brothers. The defendants' case is that the plaintiffs are entitled only to a third share, and that the plaintiff can have no right to the eldest brother's extra share. Th...
Tag this Judgment!The Public Prosecutor Vs. Maddila Mutyalu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1918
Reported in: 47Ind.Cas.865; (1918)35MLJ157
1. This is an appeal against the acquittal of two persons, the first of whom was charged with an offence under Section 372, I.P.C. and the other under Section 373, I.P.C. The first accused is the mcther of a Hindu girl under 16 years of age and the second accused is a Kornati. The latter kept the elder sister of the girl until she died; and on her death, the evidence is that a ceremony, called kanyarikam was performed between the 2nd accused and the girl with the help of the 1st accused. The kanyarikam ceremony, according to the witnesses, has the effect of an arrangement by which a person has intercourse with a girl who has just attained puberty for three days. P.W. 1 says ' The 2nd accused Krishnamurthi performed the kanyarikam ceremony which means her nuptials. The man that performed the ceremony enjoys the girl's bed for three days successively. They may afterwards continue their friendship or may separate.' The evidence however shows that the minor girl continued to live with her ...
Tag this Judgment!Poyyali Naicker Vs. Subba Naicker
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1918
Reported in: 48Ind.Cas.905
1. The suit is brought by the Karaswan against the defendant whom he alleges to be a subscriber to the chit. The defendant denied he was a subscriber. The District Munsif earns to the conclusion that the defendant's plea is barred byres judicata by virtue of the decision in Small Cause Suit No. 1400 of 1915 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Tuticorin. In that suit, a third party who claimed to be a subscriber to the chit fund brought a suit against the present plaintiff and the defendant, who were arrayed as 1st and 2nd defendants respectively, for recovering the amount of the subscription which he had paid. The 1st defendant pleaded that he had asked the 2nd defendant who was also a subscriber to pay the amount and consequently, he was not liable. The 2nd defendant pleaded that he was not a subscriber at all and that he never undertook to pay the plaintiff. After the pleas were recorded, the plaintiff in the previous suit exonerated the -1st defendant and was content to take...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »