Chennai Court January 1921 Judgments
Ratnathanni Vs. Somasundara Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Mad608; (1921)41MLJ76
Ramesam, J.1. It is admitted that the defendant paid Rs. 200 to the plaintiff before the marriage. It is clear from the evidence and from the pleadings that the payment of Rs. 200 for the expense of the marriage, was a term of the contract of marriage. That being so, it follows that the payment was made for the benefit of the plaintiff. In the absence of the payment, she would have had to find the amount in some other way, by borrowing or pledging her jewels or other properties. The cases relied on by the vakil for the respondent viz, Hira v. Haniaji Pema I.L.R.(1912) 37 Bom. 295 , Jaikisondas Gopaldas v. Harkison-das Hullochdnd Das, I.L.R(1876) . 2 Bom. 9, Authikcsavulu Chetty v. Rama-nujam Chetty (1909) I.L.R. 32 Mad. 512 at p. 516, Reverend Gabrielnathaswami v. Valliammai Ammal (1919) 10 L.W. 491 have no bearing on this case. In Hira v. Haniaji Pema I.L.R. (1912)37 Bom. 295 the payment was for the benefit of the third husband. In Jaikisondas Gopaldas v. Harkisandas Hullochandas I.L....
Tag this Judgment!Rathnathanni Vs. Somasundara Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1921
Reported in: 62Ind.Cas.931
Ramesam, J.1. It is admitted that the defendant paid Rs. 200 to the plaintiff before the marriage. It is clear from the evidence and from the pleadings that the payment of Rs. 200 for the expenses of the marriage was a term of the contrast of marriage. That being so, it follows that the payment was made for the benefit of the plaintiff. In the absence of the payment, she would have had to find the amount in some other way by borrowing or pledging her jewels or other properties. The cases relied on by the Vakil for the respondent, viz. Hira v. Hansji Pema 17 Ind. Cas. 949 ; Jaikisondas Gopaldas v. Harkisondas Hullochandas 2 B. 9 ; Authikesavulu Chetty v. Ramanujam Chetty 3 Ind. Cas. 541; Gabrielnathaswami v. Valliammal Ammal 53 Ind. Cas. 423 have no bearing on this case. In Hira v. Hansji Pema 17 Ind. Cas. 949 the payment was for the benefit of the third husband. In Jaikisondas Gopaldas v. Harkisondas Hullochandas 2 Ind. Jur. 19 it was for the benefit of the bride. In Authikesavavulu Ch...
Tag this Judgment!Vanchinatha Iyer Vs. Rajagopala Iyer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1921
Reported in: (1921)41MLJ372
1. The plaintiffs brought this suit to recover three items of property in Siruvakkam and Konericuppam Villages on the strength of their reversionary right as heirs to the late Samu Ayyar. This suit failed in the first court on a finding by the District Munsif on the question of plaintiff's father's adoption, but on appeal the Subordinate Judge found this point in their favour and gave them a decree for possession on payment of.the amount spent by 1st defendant in redeeming the property from the hands of mortgagees.2. In Second Appeal the 1st defendant has for the fisrt time raised the contention that the Civil Courts had no jurisdiction over the suit which was brought for the recovery of the emoluments of the office of purohit in a proprietary estate and we have allowed him to argue this point of law, seeing that if he is right in his contention the decree obtained by the plaintiff cannot stand.3. After the; Full Bench decision in Kandappa Achary v. Vengama Naidu 25 M.L.J. 42, which su...
Tag this Judgment!Vanchinatha Aiyar Vs. Rajagopala Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1921
Reported in: 65Ind.Cas.321
1. The plaintiffs brought this suit to recover three items of property in Siruvakkam and Konerikuppam villages on the strength of their reversionary right as heirs to the late Samu Aiyar. This suit failed in the First Court on a finding by the District Munsif on the question of the plaintiff's father's adoption, but on appeal the Subordinate Judge found this point in their favour and gave them a decree for possession on payment of the amount spent by first defendant in redeeming the property from the hands of the mortgagees.2. In second appeal the first defendant has, for the first time, raised the contention that the Civil Courts had no jurisdiction over the suit which was brought for the recovery of the emoluments of the office of purohit in a proprietary estate, and we have allowed him to argue this point of law, seeing that if he is right in his contention the decree obtained by the plaintiff cannot stand.3. After the Full Bench decision in Kandappa Achary v. Pathipati Vengama Naid...
Tag this Judgment!Parasurama Udayan and ors. Vs. A. Vedaji Baskar Thirumal Row and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Mad623; (1921)41MLJ17
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. These are two connected Second Appeals from the same judgment pronounced by the Subordinate Judge, Vellore as the Lower Appellate Court. In one of these second appeals, the appellant is the fifth defendant, and in the other, the appellants are the defendants Nos. 1 and 2. The facts of the case shortly stated are these. The plaintiff is the hereditary trustee of a temple called the Kasivis-vanatha Swami Temple situated in a village included in his Ami Jaghir. The 4th defendant is the hereditary archaka (temple priest) in the said temple and along with the hereditary office has inherited the right of enjoying the emoluments of certain manyam lands attached to the archaka service. In the year 1894 the elder brother of the 4th defendant who is the father of the 5th defendant and who was then the hereditary archaka granted a permanent lease of the plaint lands in favour of the father of defendants Nos. 1 to 3. The plaintiff executed a power of attorney, Exhibit D, in Ja...
Tag this Judgment!Ramalagu Servai Vs. Solai Servai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-1921
Reported in: (1921)41MLJ274
Spencer, J.1. The Lower Courts were clearly right in applying Article 62 of the Limitation Act to the facts of this case and Arunachala v. Ramasamy, I.L.R.(1883) Mad. 191 Vaidynatha Aiyar v. Aiyasami Aiyar (1908) I.L.R. 32 Mad. 191 Lakshmi Narasimha v. Lakshmamma (1912) 25 M.L.J. 531 Sankunni v. Govinda I.L.R(1912) . 37 Mad. 381 and Segu Chidambaramma v. Segu Balayya (1911) 2 M.W.N. 467 are authorities for holding that this Article, and not Article 95, applies where one member of a family which has become divided collects a debt due to the family and keeps the amount. The collection having been made on 2nd May 1909 this suit should have been brought before 2nd May 1912 under Article 62.2. Reliance is placed on 1st defendants' reply notice Ex C-2 as extending the period of limitation, because the fact of collection was suppressed therein on 11-6-1909.3. But the plaintiff's cause of action to sue arose by reason of the 1st defendant having kept back the plaintiff's share when he collecte...
Tag this Judgment!Parasurama Udayan and anr. Vs. Vedaji Baskar Thirumal Row Sahib by His ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-1921
Reported in: (1921)ILR44Mad636
Sadasiva Ayyar, J.1. These are two connected Second Appeals from a single judgment pronounced by the Subordinate Judge, Vellore, in the lower Appellate Court. In one of these Second Appeals, the appellant is the fifth defendant, and in the other the appellants are the defendants Nos. 1 and 2. The facts of the case shortly stated are these. The plaintiff is the hereditary trustee of a temple called the Kasi Viswanathaswami temple situated in a village included in his Ami Jaghir. The fourth defendant is the hereditary archaka (temple priest) in the said temple and along with the hereditary office has inherited the right of enjoyment of the emoluments of certain manyam lands attached to the archaka service. In the year 1894. the elder brother of the fourth defendant, who was the father of the fifth defendant and who was then the hereditary archaka, granted a permanent lease of the plaint lands in favour of the father of defendants Nos. 1 to 3. The plaintiff executed a power-of-attorney, E...
Tag this Judgment!Kothandarama Reddiar and anr. Vs. Chinnaswami Reddi and 21 ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Mad412; (1921)41MLJ455
1. In these suits there were two questions between the landlord and his tenants which arose for determination viz., (1) whether the tenants should be made to pay rent on dry lands wilfully left waste ; (2) whether the tenants should be made liable to pay wet rents at the highest neighbouring waram rent, when dr,y crops are raised on wet lands when there is a sufficiency of water in the irrigation source for raising wet crops.2. The District Judge has found both these points in favour of the tenants and has directed the proposed terms to be omitted from the pattas.3. We are unable to support his judgment.4. In cases where waste is due to the neglect of the ryots, this Court has held in Ramaswami Servaigaran v. Athivaraha-chariar 23 M.L.T. p. 183 and in Second Appeals Nos. 2052 to 2062 of 1917 that the landlord is entitled to claim rent for lands left uncultivated.5. The respondents rely on the decision of a former District Judge in prior suits of 1897 which they claim to have the force ...
Tag this Judgment!Seerangathuni Vs. Bava Vaithilinga Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Mad528; (1921)40MLJ532
John Wallis, C.J.1. This is an appeal from the revised judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Negapatam after the remand order of this court in appeal No. 114 of 1916 the finding that the 6th defendant had not renounced his executorship under the testator's will has not been seriously questioned before us, and it is accordingly necessary to deal with the question of limitation in the light of that finding. The property sued for is partly in the hands of a Receiver appointed in this suit. He had previously been appointed Receiver in a former suit filed by the present 4th defendant the 2nd daughter of the testator in which the will which is the subject of this suit was ignored and the testator's widow the present 1st defendant was impleaded as representing the estate of her deceased husband. It was the Receiver's duty in both suits to get in the estate of the deceased and he must now be taken to hold the assets collected by him subject to the orders of the court for the benefit of the pers...
Tag this Judgment!T.V. Kothandarama Reddiar and ors. Vs. Chinnaswami Reddy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1921
Reported in: 64Ind.Cas.740
1. In these suits there were two questions between the landlord and his tenants, which arose for determination, viz.,1. Whether the tenants should be made liable to pay rent on dry lands wilfully left waste?2. Whether the tenants should be made liable to pay wet rents at the highest neighbouring Waram rent, when dry crops are raised on wet lands when there is a sufficiency of water in the irrigation source for raising wet crops?2. The District Judge has found both these points in favour of the tenants and has directed the proposed terms to be omitted from the pattas.3. We are unable to support his judgment.4. In sates where waste is due to the neglect of the raiyats, this Court has held in Ramasami Servaigaran v. Athivaraha Chariar 44 Ind. Cas. 663 and in Second Appeals Nos. 2052 to 2062 of 1917 that the landlord is entitled to claim rent for lands left uncultivated.5. The respondents rely on the decision of a former District Judge in prior suits of 1897, which they claim to have the f...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »