Chennai Court November 1919 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.
Ottapurakkal Tazhatha Soopi Vs. Charichil Pallikkal Mariyoma and Seven ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1919
Reported in: (1920)ILR43Mad393
Spencer, J.1. This is a suit for redemption, brought by junior members of what is termed a strisothu tarwad, the manager of which is a woman called a karnavathi, and the members of which are governed by Marumakkattayam law. The suit has bean decreed, and the first question before us is whether the plaintiffs had a right to maintain it. As laid down in Vasudevan v. Sankaran I.L.R. (1897) Mad. 129 and numerous other decisions, a karnavan is at once the manager and the mouthpiece of the tarwad, or, in the words of Mr. Justice Holloway, 'a Malabar family speaks through its head, the karnavan, and in Courts of Justice, except in antagonism to that head, can speak in no other way.'2. So, although we might be prepared to hold that junior members of such a family were, generally speaking, persons having an interest in tarwad property within the meaning of Section 91, Transfer of Property Act, when the individual right of suit from the point of view of the personal law of the parties in in ques...
Ottaprakal Thazath Soopi Vs. Charichai Pallikal Marriyamma and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1919
Reported in: 55Ind.Cas.760
1. This is a suit for redemption brought by junior members of what is termed a Strisothu Tarwad, the manager of which is a woman called a Karnavathi and the members of which are governed by Maramakatayam Law. The suit has been decreed and the first question before us is whether the plaintiffs had a right to maintain it. As laid down in Vasudevan v. Sankaran 20 M.P 129 : 7 M.L.J. 102 and numerous other decisions, a Karnavan is at once the manager and the mouthpiece of the Tarwad, or in the words of Mr. Justice Holloway, 'a Malabar family speaks through its head, the Karnavan, and in Courts of Justice, except in antagonism to that head, can speak in no other way.'2. So, although we might be prepared to hold that junior members of such a family were, generally speaking, persons having an interest in Tarwad property within the meaning of Section 91, Transfer of Property Act, when the individual right of suit from the point of view of the personal law of the parties is in question, we are f...
Muthu Goundan and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-1919
Reported in: 54Ind.Cas.409
1. We regret we are obliged to quash the entire proceedings in this case because of the procedure adopted by the learned Sessions Judge in altering the charge at the end of the trial. The prosecution case was that the deceased was returning from the field, where he had gone to do work, that he was waylaid by the accused and beaten to death and also that injuries were inflicted by the accused upon the mother and the brother of the deceased. The Committing Magistrate framed a charge in these terms:-- 'That you (referring to 7 accused persons) on the 10th day of October 1918 at Kindra kola Maniokam village were members of an unlawful assembly and prosecuting the common object of such assembly, viz., in waylaying and beating to death one Muthu Goundan, son of Kolandai Goundan, and causing grievous hurt to P.W. No. 1, namely, Palani Goundan son of Kolandai Goundan and causing grievous hurt to Chinna Pillai and his brother P.W. No. 2, daughter of Sengodian and thereby committed offences puni...
Kullappa Naicker Vs. Palaniammall
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-1919
Reported in: 54Ind.Cas.617
ORDER1. The accused in this case hag been convicted of an offence under Section 430 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to pay a fine. P.W. No. 4 complained to the Magistrate that the accused but open the bank of a channel belonging to her and diverted the water, thereby causing a diminution of water supply to her fields. The Sub-Magistrate and Appellate Magistrate gave no opinion on the question of law whether the bund in question belonged to the complainant. They based the conviction upon the fact that the cutting of the bund resulted in the diminution of water supply to the complainant's fields. The question in these circumstances is whether the conviction is right. It appears from the evidence of P.W. No. 5 that in previous years the accused was in the habit of obtaining a permit to take water from this opening to his fields and that in this year also he applied to the Village Munsif for a permit and that anticipating the grant of the permit, he out open the bund. The first ques...
P.V.Ar.Kr. Arunachellam Chettiar Vs. Madaswami and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-1919
Reported in: 56Ind.Cas.146
1. The father of the defend-ants Nos. 1 to 3 mortgaged in 1806 to ore Sankaralingam certain immoveable proper-ties and his rights in a Chit transaction. Sankaralingam assigned the mortgage to the plaintiff. The suit is to enforce the mortgage. The 4th defendant is the manager of the Chit Fund. The Munsif gave a decree against defendants Nos. 1 to 3 for the Bale of the immoveable properties and against the 4th defendant for the amount of the Chit Fund. The Subordinate Judge has reversed the latter portion of the decree. We are unable to agree with him. He has proceeded on the assumption that the Chit transaction was a chose in-action. He seems to be right: however that may be, we shall also deal with the second appeal on that assumption without deciding the point.2. The first question for consideration is whether the mortgagee of a chose-in action is entitled to institute in his own name a suit to recover the amount due under it. So far as this Court is concerned, that question is cover...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›