Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1921Mad467; 64Ind.Cas.816
1. The appeal arises out of a gait brought under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code with respect to a temple and the properties alleged to have been dedicated to the temple. Defendants NOS. 1 to 4 are the hereditary archakas of the temple. The District Judge. has passed a preliminary decree directing the removal of the defendants from the trusteeship and found that the properties in suit were, With the exception of two items, in fact the endowments of the plaint temple, which was a public one.2. As regards the question whether the properties formed the endowment of the plaint temple or were personal inans of the defendants family, as contended by defendants, we have sanads as well as Inam Registers and title-deeds and takeeds in connection with these properties. Items Nos. 5 and 12 are the properties which are found by the Subordinate Judge to be service inans, that is to say, grants to the defendants ancestors for the performance of archaka service. As regards the other items the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 62Ind.Cas.602
Seshagiri Aiyar, J.1. The plaintiff consigned a log of timber weighing 81 maunds from the Qailon Railway Station to Negapatam to a constituent. At the former station the Goods clerk charged him according to the weight of the timber and the said charge was paid. On arrival at Negapatam the authorities at this station demanded that the charge should be according to the wagon rate, and not according to the weight, and refused to deliver the goods. The wagon charge was paid under protest. The authorities also demanded from the plaintiff demurrage or wharfage for the days during which the goods were lying in the Railway Yard. The plaintiff paid that charge also under protest. This is a suit to recover from the Railway Company these charges.2. On the first question, as to whether the charge should be according to weight or according to the wagon schedule rate, it is not open to the authorities at the terminus station to vary the contract entered into at Qailon. The rule, which empowers the c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1920)39MLJ174
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The defendant is the appellant. The suit was brought for the recovery of Rs. 1500, and interest due thereon, on loans of money advanced to the head of the Shirur Muttam, one of the 8 Udipi Muttams. The Swami to whom the loans were made is dead and the suit was brought against his successor, the allegation in the plaint being that the debts were incurred for the benefit and necessities of the Mutt. The plaint prayed that a decree should be passed directing the defendant to pay the sum due to the plaintiff out of the estate of the God Vittalar of the defendant's Muttam. The District Munsif found that, of the 76 items making up Ks. 1500 the third item was clearly proved to have been borrowed for the necessities of the Muttam. As regards the other items making up of Rs. 1000 they were borrowed from him for the ordinary expenses of the Muttam, but the creditor has not shown that the means then in the hands of the Matathipathi were not sufficient to meet those expenses. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1920)39MLJ341
1. The Plaintiff who is the respondent in this appeal purchased the right to publish and sell 90 songs in tamil composed by the first defendant, and paid Rs. 50 as the price. The second defendant, a few months afterwards, bought from the 1st defendant 47 songs, 40 of which, as found by the District Judge, are the same as those sold by 1st defendant to plaintiff and paid Rs. 40. He published those 40 songs and some others, two of which are found to be of an obscene character and sold copies of them to the public. The plaintiff has instituted this suit in order to restrain the 2nd defendant from publising and selling all or any of the 90 songs which he had purchased and for damages. He got a decree from the learned District Judge.2. The first question argued by Mr. Venkatarama Sastriar who appears for the 2nd defendant, is that as a matter of fact there was no completed sale of the 40 songs in question to the plaintiff. The basis of that argument is that according to the case of the plai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1920)ILR43Mad795
Sadasiva Ayyar, J.1. The defendant is the appellant. The suit was brought for the recovery of Rs. 1,500, and interest due thereon, being loans of money advanced to the head of the Shirur muttam, one of the eight Udipi muttams. The swami to whom the loans were made is dead and the suit was brought against his successor, the allegation in the plaint being that the debts were incurred for the benefit and necessities of the mutt. The plaint prayed that a decree should be passed directing the defendant to pay the sum due to the plaintiff out of the estate of the God Vittalar of the defendant's muttam. The District Munsif found that, of the 76 items making up Rs. 1,500, the third item was clearly proved to have been borrowed for the necessities of the muttam. As regards the other items making up Rs. 1,000, they were borrowed from him for the ordinary expenses of the muttam, but the creditor had not shown that the means then in the hands of the madhathipatbi were not sufficient to meet those ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 59Ind.Cas.214
1. There is really only one point open to the appellant on this second appeal. The learned Judge below found as a fact that there had been an adoption of the two women through whom the plaintiffs claim, and that such adoption had been made for the purposes of prostitution. The defendants claim under those who took the girls in adoption for that rupees and they plead that such an adoption is against public policy and, therefore wholly nugatory and void. That is conceded, but it is said that the defendants are estopped from setting up this against the plaintiffs whose ancestors were not in pari delicto. It is clear law that an estoppel cannot be relied upon to defeat a statutory prohibition [see per Parke, B., in Hill v. Manchester and Salford Water Works Co., (1831) 2 B & Ad. 544 ]. 'It was for the Company, if they disputed their liability, to open the estoppel arising from their own admission, by showing that the consideration of the bonds was illegal or inconsistent with the Statutes ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1920)39MLJ382
John Wallis, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a decree of the District Judge of Tinnevelly in a partition Suit brought by the 1st plaintiff now deceased against the defendant the son of his deceased brother. When the case came on after repeated adjournments the defendant's vakil stated that he had no instructions and, after the plaintiff's evidence had been recorded and his pleader heard, the case was closed and judgment reserved. The defendant afterwards applied to the Court to hear arguments on his side before disposing of the case and to pass such other orders as were just and proper in the circumstances of the case. The District Judge rejected his application and we are not prepared to interfere with his order. The defendant had been grossly remiss. It is stated in the plaintiff's counter affidavit and not denied that the defendant's vakil had sent him two registered notices to which the defendants paid no attention. All that he did was on the day before the hearing to send a telegram...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1920)ILR43Mad793
Sadasiva Ayyar, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. Her suit for specific performance of an alleged contract of 20th March 1910 (under which the plaintiff was entitled to obtain a deed of renewal of a kanom mortgage which had been enjoyed by her deceased sister from 1897) was dismissed by the District Court on two grounds: (1) the present suit having been commenced in June 1914 against the Receivers (defendants Nos. 3 to 5) appointed by the Sub-Court of Calicut in Suit No. 13 of 1913 (brought for removal of the first defendant, the promisor under the plaint contract, from his position of karnavan by some members of his tavazhi), without previously obtaining the sanction of the Sub-Court, it could not be sustained even though in July 1914 (before even the Receivers filed their written statements) the plaintiff obtained the Sub-Court's sanction to proceed with the present suit against the Receivers, (2) though 'there was a general understanding' between the plaintiff and the first defen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 57Ind.Cas.18
John Wallis, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a decree of the District Judge of Tinnevelly in a partition suit brought by the 1st plaintiff, now deceased, against the defendant, the son of his deceased brother. When the case came on after repeated adjournments, the defendant's Vakil stated that he had no instructions and, after the plaintiff's evidence had been recorded and his Pleader heard, the case was closed and judgment reserved. The defendant afterwards applied to the Court to hear arguments on his side before disposing of the case and to pass such other orders as were just and proper in the circumstances of the case. The District Judge rejected his application and we are not prepared to interfere with his order. The defendant had been grossly remiss. It is stated in the plaintiff's counter-affidavit and not denied that the defendant's Vakil had sent him two registered notices to which the defendant paid no attention. All that he did was on the day before the hearing to send a teleg...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 59Ind.Cas.568
1. The plaintiff is the appellant. Her suit for specific performance of an alleged contract of 20th March 1910 (under which the plaintiff was entitled to obtain a deed of renewal of a kanom mortgage which had been enjoyed by her deceased sister from 1897) was dismissed by the District Court on two grounds: (1) The present suit having been commenced in June 1914 against the Receivers (defendants Nos. 3 to 5) appointed by the Sub-Court of Calicut in a Suit No. 13 of 1913 (brought for removal of the 1st defendant, the promisor under the plaint contract, from his position of karnavan by some members of his tavazhi) without previously obtaining the sanction of the Sub Court, it could not be sustained even though in July 1914 (before even the Receivers filed their written statements), the plaintiff obtained the Sub Court's sanction to proceed with the present suit against the Receiver, (2) Though 'there was a general understanding' between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant that the 1st def...
Tag this Judgment!