Chennai Court April 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.
Damodaran Namboodri Vs. Govindan Nair, Pattukottai Devastanom Uralan a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-1919
Reported in: (1919)37MLJ307
1. The plaintiffs, Uralans, sued 1st defendant alleging that they had admitted him to the management of their devasvom as Samudayi and given him a samudayam deed. The prayer was for an injunction prohibiting him from interfering with the Devaswom in future, for an account, and for possession of various properties belonging to the Devaswom and for the setting aside, meaning presumably a declaration, in respect of the Samudayam deed.2. In the plaint there was no reference to any dismissal of 1st defendant, except a statement that on 1-4-1916 plaintiffs required him to vacate the office of Samudayi. 1st defendant therefore pleaded inter alia, 'the statement in the plaint that plaintiffs wanted this defendant to vacate the Samudayeeship on 1st April 1916 is false. They have not so requested nor sent any registered letter. Therefore defendant is still Samudayee.' Unfortunately the significance of this plea was not appreciated at the trial. It was not noticed that an injunction could not be ...
Yellavajhula Surayya Vs. Yellavajhula Subbamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-1919
Reported in: (1919)37MLJ405
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The material facts found are: The 1st defendant's husband Chinna Sambayya had two undivided brothers, namely P. Sambayya and G. Sambayya. P. Sambayya was the eldest, G. Sambayya was the second brother, and the 1st defendant's husband C. Sambayya was the yougest. P. Sambayya died issueless about the year 1877. G. Sambayya who was born blind about 1847 had, however, been invested with the sacred thread (the parties being Brahmins by birth) as if he had no such disability and lived in commensality with his younger brother C. Sambayya in undivided family communion after the death of the eldest brother P. Sambayya. G. Sambayya died in December 1911 when he was about 65 years old. His younger brother C. Sambayya, the 1st defendant's husband had predeceased him in November 1906 leaving his widow the 1st defendant as his heir. Soon after the 1st defendant's husband's death on the 19th January 1907, the blind Brahman G. Sambayya, executed the...
Yellavajhalu Surayya Vs. Yellavajhalu Subbamma and Two ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-1919
Reported in: (1920)ILR43Mad4
1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The material facts found are: The first defendant's husband, Chinna Sambayya, had two undivided brothers, namely, P. Sambayya and G. Sambayya. P. Sambayya was the eldest, G. Sambayya was the second brother, and the first defendant's husband, C. Sambayya, was the youngest. P. Sambayya died issueless about the year 1877. G. Sambayya who was born blind about 1847 had, however, been invested with the sacred thread (the parties being Brahmans by birth) as if he had no such disability and lived in commensality with his younger brother, C. Sambayya, in undivided family communion after the death of the eldest brother, P. Sambayya. G. Sambayya died in December 1911 when he was about 65 years old. His younger brother, C. Sambayya, the first defendant's husband, had predeceased him in November 1906, leaving his widow, the first defendant, as his heir Soon after the first defendant's husband's death on the 19th January 1907, the blind Brahman G. Sambayya executed...
indoji Jithaji Vs. Kothapalli Rama Charlu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-1919
Reported in: 54Ind.Cas.146
Abdur Rahim, J.1. The plaintiff, appellant, sued on several promissory notes executed by one Ranga Charlu, who died about six months before the institution of the suit, asking for a decree for Rs. 3,237.80 on account of principal and interest due on the notes and seeking to recover the amount out of his assets consisting of the share which, it is alleged, Rangacharlu bad in the properties in the possession of the 1st defendant, his father, defendants Nos. 2 to 4, his brothers, and the 5th defendant, his widow. The main questions are, firstly, are the properties in dispute the ancestral properties of the family in the hands of the 1st defendant or his self-acquired and separate property, secondly, if ancestral, was there a division of status between Rangacharlu on the one hand and his father and brothers on the other, and, thirdly, is the instrument, Exhibit II, which is described as a release executed by Rangacharlu in favour of the 1st defendant, valid and operative as being made in b...
Annammal, Minor by Guardian Venkatarama Vathiar Vs. M.V. Sambasiva Aiy ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-10-1919
Reported in: (1919)37MLJ349
1. The defendant in this case obtained a decree of the High Court, made in the exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction, against the plaintiff for the return of certain jewels or payment of their value, and the present plaintiff has brought a suit in the court of the Subordinate Judge of Tanjore for a declaration that the decree is null and void and of no effect on the grounds of fraud and want of jurisdiction. The lower appellate Court has found that there was no fraud on the part of the defendant and the question to be decided in this appeal is whether the decree is void for want of jurisdiction.2. The plaint filed in the High Court by the defendant alleged that the present plaintiff resided with his wife at No. 25 Venkataramier Street, George Town, Madras, that is within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court; that the (present) defendant's mother entrusted some jewels to her mother, the defendant's (present plaintiff's sie) wife, and subsequently died at Viza...
M.R. Ry. Vellanki Srinivasa Jagannatha Rao Bahadur Garu Vs. M.R. Ry. G ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-10-1919
Reported in: (1919)37MLJ589
ORDERAyling, J.1. In this case the Sub-Divisional Magistrate passed a preliminary order under Section 145(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. He then passed a proceeding directing the Sub-Magistrate of Tiruvuru to hold a local enquiry, record evidence on both sides as to possession and submit his report with the records. The Sub-Magistrate examined 24 witnesses, exhibited a number of documents and submitted his report with the records. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate examined 8 more witnesses himself and then passed orders on all the evidence thus recorded by himself and the Sub-Magistrate, declaring one party to be in possession.2. It is argued (1) that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate's action in directing the Sub-Magistrate to take evidence was not authorised by Section 148, and that he was not entitled to consider the evidence so recorded and (2) that his action rendered the final order passed by him void, as being without jurisdiction.3. For both propositions reliance is placed on the j...
Arumugham Chetty Vs. Muthu Koundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-10-1919
Reported in: 52Ind.Cas.525
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit was brought to obtain a mortgage decree for sale on the mortgage document Exhibit H, dated 11th May 1903, executed by the 1st defendant to the plaintiff for Rs. 1,150. The defendants Nos. 2 and 3 are the undivided sons of the 1st defendant. The 3rd defendant is still a minor, while the 2nd defendant was a minor on the date of the mortgage-bond Exhibit H.2. According to the recital in Exhibit H the sum of Rs. 1,150 mentioned in it as consideration is made up as follows: (a) Rs. 833-8 0 being the sum due on the registered mortgage-bond Exhibit G of 1899; (6) Rs. 130-1-0 due on the simple debt bond of 1902 Exhibit K; (c) Rs. 42 received by the 1st defendant for excavating a well in the family garden; (d) Rs. 100 for discharging the debt of Nattukottai Karuppan Chettyar; (e) Rs. 43-7-0 received for excavating the well already mentioned and for family expenses; Total Rs. 1,150.3. The 1st defendant (the father) as usual remained e...
Amrutam Venkatappa and ors. Vs. Vavilala Jalayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-1919
Reported in: 51Ind.Cas.111; (1919)37MLJ98
1. We do not think that this is a suit against the auction purchaser on the ground that the purchase was made on behalf of the plaintiff within the meaning of Section 66, Civil Procedure Code. The finding is that the defendant agreed that the property should be purchased in the name of the defendant and that one half of it should be conveyed by the defendant to the plaintiff after the sale certificate had been obtained. This in our opinion is not a benami transaction at all. The mere fact that the plaintiff alleges in the plaint that the auction-purchaser was a benamidar for him has not in our opinion the effect of debarring the plaintiff under Section 66, Civil Procedure Code from maintaining his suit for specific performance of an agreement by the auction purchaser subsequent to the purchase to convey the property to the plaintiff. Such an agreement is not inconsistent with auction-purchaser's own title, but rather the reverse. We answer the question in the negative....
In Re: Palani Goundan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-1919
Reported in: (1919)37MLJ17
1. The accused was convicted of murder by the Sessions Judge of Coimbatore. He appealed to this Court, which took a different view of the facts from that taken by the learned Sessions Judge and has referred to us the question whether on the facts as found by the learned Judges who composed it, the accused has in law committed the offence of murder. Napier, J., inclined to the view that he had: Sadasiva Aiyar, J., thought he had not. The facts as found are these; the accused struck his wife a blow on the head with a plough-share, which knocked her senseless. He believed her to be dead and in order to lay the foundation for a false defence of suicide by hanging, which he afterwards set up, proceeded to hang her on a beam by a rope. In fact the first blow was not a fatal one and the cause of death was asphyxiation by hanging which was the act of the accused.2. When the case came before us, Mr. Osborne, the Public Prosecutor, at once intimated that he did not propose to contend that the fa...
Ravunni Achan Vs. Kizhaka Naduvath Karnavan and Manager, Thankunni Ali ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-1919
Reported in: (1919)37MLJ157
1. Appellant's counsel contends, that an anandravan of a Malabar tarwad is entitled to Menchilavu not only for himself but also for his wife, who belongs to another tarwad Prima facie a junior member of a Malabar tarwad whether male or female must look to the karnavan of his or her own tarwad for maintenance. If therefore a woman, who can claim maintenance from her own karnavan, is entitled also to claim maintenance from her husband's tarwad, it gives her a right apparently opposed to the principles of marumakkathayam law, and we have not been referred to any authority which recognizes such a right, except Parvathi v. Kamaran I.L.R. (1883) Mad. 341 That case is, however, no authority for any such proposition of law. This court merely accepted a finding that such a custom existed in North Malabar, and this finding, based on the evidence of two witnesses, was not objected to. We are not therefore prepared to accept without authority this new proposition of law that a wife is entitled to ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »