Chennai Court October 1922 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.
M. Narasayya and ors. Vs. A. Venkatappa
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1922
Reported in: 71Ind.Cas.298; 71Ind.Cas.298; (1923)44MLJ62
1. The learned District Judge appears to have selected the petitioner to be guardian of the minor's person chiefly on the ground that, as he says, 'he would under Hindu Law be the preferable guardian.'2. But, in fact, first counter-petitioner, who is his mother's brother, is more nearly related to the minor, and when the claims of distant relations like petitioner and second and third and sixth counter-petitioners have to be compared, there is no question of preference other than what arises from a consideration of the minor's welfare, which is made the paramount consideration under Section 17(1) and (2) of the Guardians and Wards Act.3. It has been often laid down that the presumptive heir to the property of a minor is not a suitable person to be appointed guardian of his person, as such a person stands to gain by the minor's death See Sami Row v. Eliavatha Row 16 M.L.J. 357, Kristo Kissor Neoghy v. Kadermoye Dossee 2 C.L.R. 583, Krishnaswami Chetty v. Cottah Mangamma (1911) 1 M.W.N. ...
Narayanan Chetty Alias Renganathan Chetti and ors. Vs. Elayaperumal Al ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1922
Reported in: 73Ind.Cas.381
1. This is an appeal from the decree of the Temporary Subordinate Judge of Sivaganga in Original Suit No. 5 of 1917. The suit refers to the hukdarship or trusteeship of a temple in Ariyakudy in the District of Ramnad, called the Thiruvengadam Udayan temple. Plaintiffs claim that they and defendants Nos. 5 to 11 are the hereditary trustees and sue to recover the temple and its properties and for other subsidiary reliefs. The Subordinate Judge having substantially decreed the plaintiffs' claim, defendants Nos. 1 to 4. have appealed to us-and have contended that the suit should have been dismissed.2. The relationship of the parties is explained by the genealogical tree attached to the judgment which the Subordinate Judge says in paragraph 8 of his judgment he has prepared from the evidence of the 5th plaintiff. It has been accepted as substantially correct by both the parties; and we shall adopt it for the purposes of this appeal and refer to the various individuals in it in the same mann...
Narayanan Chetty Alias Ranganathan Chetty and ors. Vs. Elayaperumal Al ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1922
Reported in: AIR1924Mad400
1. This is an appeal from the decree of the Temporary Subordinate Judge of Sivaganga, in O.S. No. 5 of 1917. The suit refers to the hukdarship or trusteeship of a temple in Ariyakudy in the District of Ramnad called the Timvengadam TJdayan Temple. Plaintiffs claim that they and defendants 5 to 11 are the hereditary trustees and sue to recover the temple and its properties and for other subsidiary reliefs. The Subordinate Judge having substantially decreed the plaintiff's claim, defendants 1 to 4 have appealed to us and have contended that the suit should have been dismissed.2. The relationship of the parties is explained by the genealogical tree attached to the judgment, which the Subordinate Judge says in paragraph 8 of his judgment, he has prepared from the evidence of the 5th plaintiff. It has been accepted as substantially correct by both the parties I and we shall adopt it for the purposes of this appeal and refer to the various individuals in it in the same manner as the Subordin...
Jekkannu Sami Aiyar Vs. Muthukumara Ramaswami Chettiar Major and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1922
Reported in: (1923)44MLJ171
Spencer, J.1. This appeal raises a question as to the liability of a surety when his principal's debt has been extinguished by an act which causes the merger of the estates of the debtor and the creditor. As the facts have been set out in my learned brother's judgment, I will not recapitulate them. Ordinarily the liability of a surety is co-extensive with that of the principal debtor, unless it is otherwise provided for. There is no provision to the contrary in the security bond executed on January 16th, 1917 by the appellant and his mother. Therein they declared that they would stand as sureties and make themselves responsible for the amount of Rs. 225 that might be found due to the plaintiffs (from the defendants). An illustration of the effect of Section 128 of the Contract Act occurs in Sheik Suleman v. Shivzan Bhikaji I.L.R(1887) . 12 Bom. 71 where it was observed that if an amount recoverable by a plaintiff from a defendant debtor is diminished in appeal, the surety's engagement,...
Lakshmi Narasimham Vs. Veerabadra and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1922
Reported in: AIR1924Mad589
1. These appeals arise out of two suits filed by the plaintiff in the District Munsif's Court of Nuzvid to eject the defendants who are alleged to be his tenants.2. The land in dispute is situate in Arugolam Mokhasa within the ambit of the Nuzvid Zamindari. It is alleged to have been exchanged for patta lands held under Government pattahs. The defendants pleaded inter alia that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suits as the land forms part of the estate within the meaning of the Estates Land Act, The District Munsif found the fifth issue, namely, whether the suit village is an estate, in favour of the defendants and dismissed the plaintiff's suits on the ground that the land in question was part of an estate within the meaning of the Estates Land Act. On appeal the Subordinate Judge held that the village in which the suit land is situate forms part of the Nuzvid Zamindari and is an estate as defined in Section 3, Clause 2(e) of the Estates Land Act, that the characte...
Sri Rajah Inuganti Rajah Gopala Rao Bahadur Garu, Proprietor of Siripu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad368; (1923)44MLJ64
Krishnan, J.1. This is an appeal from a suit brought under Act 1 of 1876 for separate registration of a portion of a permanently settled estate by the Zamindar as against the defendants who according to him are the owners of that separate portion. The Zamindar applied to the Collector for separate registration, but as the parties did not agree before him, the Collector refused to act under Section 2, as the result of which the Zamindar brought this suit under Section 6 of the Act.2. The Lower Court has found in its judgment that defendants 1 to 4 are the owners of the suit lands, but it declined to pass a decree declaring that the suit land should be separately registered and assessed, because it thinks that by apportionment a new burden will be imposed upon the land which was not contemplated by the original grantor. That however is not a consideration for us, to refuse the prayer of the plaintiff. All that we have to decide is who the owner of the land now is. The way in which the la...
Sri Rajah Innganti Rajah Gopal Rao Bahadur Garu, Proprietor of Siripur ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-1922
Reported in: 71Ind.Cas.200
1. This is an appeal from a suit brought under Act 1 of 1876 for separate registration of a portion of a permanently settled estate by the Zemindar as against the defendants who, according to him, are the owners of that separate portion. The Zemindar applied to the Collector for separate registration, but as the parties did not agree before him, the Collector refused to act under Section 2, as the result of which the Zemindar brought this suit under Section 6 of the Act.2. The lower Court has found in its judgment that defendants Nos. 1 to 4 are the owners of the suit lands, but it declined to pass a decree declaring that the suit land should be separately registered and assessed because it thinks, that by apportionment a new burden will be imposed upon the land which was not contemplated by the original grantor. That, however, is not a consideration for us to refuse the prayer of the plaintiff. All that we have to decide is who the owner of the land is. The way in which the land was d...
Munusami Naicken Vs. Munusami Naicken
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad227; 76Ind.Cas.1041
1. The District Munsif in this suit decided all the issues in the suit and finally dismissed the suit on his finding on issue No. VIII that the suit was one in effect for partial partition The Subordinate Judge decided only the eighth issue which related to he question of maintainability of the suit as being one for partial partition, rightly taking the view that the suit was not bad on that account, and he remanded the suit to the lower Court for fresh diposal. This order of remand to the lower Court for a fresh disposal on the merits cannot be supported. It is inconsistent with the learned Subordinate Judge's view that 1he Suit was not one for partial partition, as he found in the first part of his judgment. It is clear that no amendment of the plaint was necessary. He should, therefore, have disposed of the appeal under Order XLI. Rule 24, Civil Procedure Code, as the evidence upon the record had been found sufficient by the District Munsif to find upon all the issues. Issue No. IV ...
Devasahayam Vs. Devamony and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad211; (1922)43MLJ763
Krishnan, J.1. This is an appeal from the decree of the District Judge, Madura, in a suit brought by the plaintiff for dissolution of his marriage with his wife, the first defendant on the ground of her adultery with the second defendant as the co-respondent. Both the first and second defendants deny the alleged adultery, the first defendant also pleading that she was beaten and driven out of her house by her husband on more than one occasion.2. The District Judge who tried the case after hearing the evidence came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had failed to prove the adultery alleged and dismissed the suit. Further he passed an order granting permanent maintenance to the first defendant at the rate of Rs. 10 a month.3. The learned Counsel for the appellant has placed the evidence in his client's favour before us and we have carefully considered that evidence. It consists of the oral-evidence of five witnesses and after hearing that evidence we agree with the District Judge that ...
Malayandi Goundan and anr. Vs. Bomman Poosari and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-1922
Reported in: 71Ind.Cas.204
1. The procedure of the Subordinate Judge in remanding the whole suit for a re-trial after framing 4 additional issues, is a procedure not provided by the Code of Civil Procedure and is furthermore one not conducive to the expeditious settlement of the disputes between the parties.2. In a case like the present where the first Court has framed a number of issues, arising out of the points on which the parties joined issue in their pleadings and has decided every one of them in its judgment, it is not open to an Appellate Court to remand the case under Rule 23 of Order. XLI as though the suit had been decided on a preliminary point vide Sultan Beg v. Chunilal Maturam 46 Ind. Cas. 922. Granting that the appeal ,could not well be disposed of in the manner provided by Order XLI Rule. 24, owing to the question of the 6th defendant's hereditary power's not having been considered at the trial, the proper course-for the Appellate Court was to frame the essential issues and to call upon the Dist...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »