Chennai Court August 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.
Veeraraghava Aiyangar Vs. Souri Aiyangar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1918
Reported in: (1918)35MLJ608
1. This case turns solely on the meaning to be given to the word 'purports' in Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act. Different views have been taken by Jenkins, C.J., in Barindra Kumar Ghose v. Emperor I.L.R. (1910) Cal. 467 : 14 C.W.N. 1114 and by Chandavarkar and Batchelor, JJ., in Emperor v. Ganpat Balakrishna Bode : (1912)14BOMLR310 . We are inclined to agree with the latter. We do not discern any object in limiting the scope of the section to documents which are signed or contain some intrinsic statement of the identity of the writer: and apparently in English Law all that is necessary to render proof by comparison admissible is a dispute as to the writing (Vide Stephen's Digest of the Law of Evidence, Article 52, Taylor, Law of Evidence 10th Edition, page 1340, and Phipson, 5th Edition, pages 93 and 94). In the second portion of the section under construction the word used is 'alleged' and as from the context it is clear that no contradiction between the two words could have bee...
Komandur Krishnamacharlu Vs. B. Danoji and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-1918
Reported in: (1918)35MLJ604
Abdur Rahim, J.1. This petition raises a somewhat difficult question of law on the interpretation of Rules 92 and 93 of Order XXI, Civil Procedure Code. The petitioner before the High Court bought certain properties at an auction sale and afterwards applied to have the sale set aside under Rule 91 of Order 21, Civil Procedure Code on the ground that the judgment-debtor had no saleable interest in the properties sold. He succeeded in his application but he did not make parties to the proceeding the respondents before me who had obtained orders for rateable distribution of the sale proceeds of the property of the judgment-debtor before the application was made by the petitioner to set aside the sale under Rule 91 of Order XXI, Civil Procedure Code. The District Munsif held that under Rule 92 of Order XXI persons having an order in their favour for rateable distribution were entitled to notice as 'persons affected' by the application to set aside the sale and that therefore the respondent...
Venkataramier Vs. Gopalan Minor, by His Guardian and Adoptive Mother S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-1918
Reported in: (1918)35MLJ698
Oldfield, J.1. One Ramasami Sastri died, leaving joint and separate property. Subsequently his widow under an authority given by him adopted two boys in succession, the second, now plaintiff-respondent, after the death of the first at the age of four. The question is whether plaintiff is entitled against 1st defendant, here appellant, the undivided brother of Eamasami Sastri, to a share in the joint property by partition and to the latter's separate property by inheritance. It is conceded that the widow would not be debarred merely by the failure of the first adoption from making a second; and it is not disputed that authority would be in plaintiff's favour, if there were only separate property. The question is whether he is entitled to a share in the joint property. Considerations of ' convenience and symmetry are on his side, since it would be anomalous that his adoption should be recognized to enable him to inherit one description of property and not to entitle him to partition of t...
Audi Raju Pyrappa and anr. Vs. Audi Raju Syma Rao and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-1918
Reported in: 46Ind.Cas.250
Spencer, J.1. The question that has arisen for determination in this second appeal is whether a person, who belongs to a family having an hereditary interest in a Karnam's Inam and becomes divided in status from the holder of the office for the time being, can, when that Inam is subsequently enfranchised by the Government, claim a share in the lands that formed the emoluments of the office of Karnam.2. In other words, when an Inam is enfranchised from the condition of service, does it become partible among all persons having an hereditary interest in the office through descent from the original grantee or only among those who belong to the joint family of the holder of the office at the time of enfranchisement?3. The respondent's Pleader relies upon an observation of Bashyam Aiyangar, J., at page 354 in Gunnaiyan v. Kamakchi Ayyar 26 M.A 339 'that in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that the family of the parties were the holders of the hereditary office...
The Public Prosecutor Vs. Settigiri Narayana Reddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1918
Reported in: (1918)35MLJ442
1. The notices so far as they require, persons having no backyards to their houses to provide latrines in their non-existing backyards are clearly bad and we dismiss the appeals in which the respondents are owners of houses having no backyards, Crl. Appeal No. 176 of 1918 is also dismissed, the respondent being dead. It appears that the respondents in the 12 appeals Nos. 158, 164 to 167, 171, 174, 175,177, 181, 182 and 184 of 1918, do own backyards to their houses and could have complied with the notice issued under Section 207 of the District Municipalities Act (Act IV of 1884) to provide latrines in their several backyards.2. We are unable to follow the reasoning of the majority of the Bench that the Municipal Council ought to have called upon the accused to provide moveable receptacles under Section 217 of the Act before proceeding to take action under Section 264 A. We are also unable to accept the arguments of the respondent's learned Vakil that the Municipal Council ought to have...
Subbalakshmi Ammal Vs. Ramanujam Chetty and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1918
Reported in: (1918)35MLJ552
1. The two questions raised for our decision in this case are (1) whether an appeal lay to the lower appellate court and (2) whether M.P. No. 178 of 1912 contains a sufficient acknowledgment under Section 19 of the Limitation Act to give a fresh starting point for 1st respondent's application.2. The 1st plaintiff sued to recover the amount due to him under a simple mortgage bond by sale of the property mortgaged. On 27th October 1910 a preliminary mortgage decree was passed in his favour giving defendants time till 27th April 1911 to pay the amount found due. Money was not so paid and the present application from which the C.M.S.A. before us arises was filed by the 1st respondent on 16th September 1914 under Order 34 It. 5, Clause 2 for a final decree for sale. The first court dismissed the application as barred by limitation under Article 181 of the Limitation Act. On appeal the lower appellate court reversed that order and has passed a final decree. The 1st defendant has appealed to ...
V. Subramania Aiyar Vs. Mulla Veettil Assan Koya by Next Friend Mulla ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1918
Reported in: (1918)35MLJ541
Spencer, J.1. This is a case of a gift of property by a Mahomedan grand-father in favour of his grandson. Two oases of gifts by Mahomedan grand-parents in favour of their grandsons have come before this Court in recent years. They are reported in Fakir Nynar Muhamed Rowther v. Kandaswami Kalathu Vandan I.L.R. (1911) Mad. 120 and Alamanaya Kunigiri Nabi Sab v. Murkuli Papiah (1915) 29 M.L.J. 733. The latter was a case similar to the present of a gift made to a grandson during the life-time of his father at a time when all the three lived together in the same house. One of these cases had the advantage of being heard by Ablur Rahim, J, and the other had the advantage of being heard by Tyabji, J. The whole question of gifts to minor sons has again been elaborately and learnedly discussed by Tyabji, J., in Rahiman Bi v. Fatima Bibi (1915) M.W.N. 430. From these rulings and from what the text books say on the subject it appears to be sound law that although delivery of seisin is necessary i...
Kasi Viswanatham Chettiar and anr. Vs. Ramaswami Athitha Nadar and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-1918
Reported in: (1918)35MLJ441
1. Though the appellants' attachment was before the date of the award which allotted the properties to the plaintiffs, their purchase was long after. Unless they are entitled to rely on their attachment as invalidating the award they must fail as an attachment creates no title and their purchase must be taken to be subject to the rights created by the award. Section 64 Civil Procedure Code avoids only private transfers and not awards such as the one we have here: such an award cannot be treated as a private transfer as it really only recognised plaintiff's prior title. Furthermore before the appellant's purchase, application had been made to the court for passing a decree in terms of the award and a decree was so passed. The purchase was therefore subject to that decree.2. The decree of the lower court is right and the second appeal is dismissed with costs....
A.T.S. Rajam Bhattar Vs. Singarammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-1918
Reported in: 51Ind.Cas.979; (1919)36MLJ355
1. The question for decision is whether the purchase by plaintiff of the office of Paricharaka is valid. From the finding as to the duties of Paricharaka it is clear, that it is a religious office. It also appears that plaintiff is not connected with the family that held the office.2. In Rajah Varmah Vallia v. Ravi Varmah Kunhi Kutti I.L.R. (1876) Mad. 285, the Judicial Committee expressed their opinion that a custom which allowed the sale of a trusteeship for the pecuniary advantage of the trustee would be bad in law. The trusteeship referred to in that case was the Uraima of a Malabar temple. In a prior portion of the judgment we find the following: 'The first question is whether independently of custom persons holding such a trust are capable of transferring it at their own will. No authority has been laid before their Lordships for this proposition; principle and reason seem to be strongly opposed to such a power and particularly to such an exercise of it as has taken place in this...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›