Chennai Court November 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.C.P.T. Kelu Karup Vs. K.P.P. Raman Nair and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1922
Reported in: AIR1924Mad247
Ayling and Odgers, JJ.1. The District Judge has held that the Marupat, Exhibit A, executed by the mother of defendants Nos. 1 to 6 on the strength of which the present suit is brought is not binding on the Tavazhi of the executant because it purports to supersede a saswatham demise, Exhibit I, executed in favour of first to sixth defendants' father by the jenmi. It is clearly in the interests of the Tavazhi to hold the property on a saswatham demise rather than on an ordinary kanom for a term of years and if the saswatham demise, Exhibit I, is genuine and binding on the successors of the stani who granted it, the District Judge is, in our opinion, right, in holding that the action of the defendants' father in executing Exhibit A. was contrary to the interests of the Tavazhi and does not bind the Tavazhi. The learned Vakil for the appellant points out, however, that the District Judge, while holding, contrary to the decision of the District Munsif that Exhibit I is a genuine document, h...
Latifa Bi and anr. Vs. Mottai Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad320; (1923)44MLJ271
Spencer J.1. The City Civil Judge's order so far as he referred the petitioners to separate proceedings for a declaration that they were entitled to whatever rights their mother possessed at the time of her death from her status as tenant cannot be supported. They were entitled to have the question whether the interest of their mother had devolved on them decided by the Court to which they made their application. Another obstacle to appellants' success however exists. The application was one under Section 9 by persons claiming to be tenants under Madras Act III of 1922. Section 9 speaks only of tenants 'against whom a suit in ejectment has been instituted.2. In this case a decree was passed against petitioners' mother in the City Civil Court on 13th August, 1920 and was confirmed on appeal in this Court on 7th February, 1922, that is, before the Act came into force.3. The general frame of the Act, including Section 10, makes it clear that Section 9 was not intended to enable tenants to...
M. Koru Kutty and ors. Vs. Valikathodiyil Ahammad
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1922
Reported in: AIR1925Mad169
Schwabe, C.J.1. This is a second appeal from the judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Ottapalam, reversing the judgment of District Munsif of Tirur. The plaintiff is suing for the redemption of a mortgage. He and the defendant were at one time joint mortgagees. He puts his right to redeem the mortgage mainly on the ground that he was a purchaser or assignee of the rights of certain legatees under the Will of the mortgagor. It was alleged by the defendant that the Will was not valid, and so in effect he said : 'you have no title under the Will. Whoever is in a position to redeem it, you are not.'2. The District Munsif found as a fact that the Will was duly executed and was genuine. The Subordinate Judge found as a fact that the Will was not duly executed. Sitting in Second Appeal, it is not open to us, I regret to say, in this case, to review the judgment of the Subordinate Judge on a question of fact. The plaintiff however, said : 'I have got another ground on which I am entitled to re...
Manamal Koru Kutty (Dead) and His Legal Representatives, and ors. Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1922
Reported in: 78Ind.Cas.1
Walter Salis Schwabe, C.J.1. This is a second appeal from the judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Cttapalam, reversing the judgment of District Munsif of Tirur. The plaintiff is suing for the redemption of a mortgage. He and the defendant were at one time joint mortgagees, He puts his right to redeem the mortgage mainly on the ground that he was a purchaser or assignee of the rights of certain legatees under the Will of the mortgagor. It was alleged by the defendant that the Will was not valid, and so in effect he said: 'you have no title under the Will. Whoever is in a position to redeem it, you are not.' The District Munsif found as a fact that the Will was duly executed and was genuine. The Subordinate Judge found as a fact that the Will was not duly executed. Sitting in Second Appeal, it is Hot open to us, I regret to say, in this case, to review the judgment of the Subordinate Judge on a question of fact. The plaintiff, however, said: 'I have got another ground on which I am enti...
Rangaswamy Naidu and anr. Vs. B. Krishnaswami Aiyar (Dead) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1922
Reported in: (1923)44MLJ116
1. This is an appeal from a decision of the Acting District Judge, South Arcot by certain persons entitled in reversion to the property of the husband of one Tailammal. That lady left some property to a religious charity. It has been found as a fact and is not now disputed that this lady owned that property herself and was entitled to leave it by will. The defendants therefore admittedly have no right to the possession of the property at all. They are sued by the plaintiffs in alternative capacities, either on behalf of themselves and all other worshippers or frequenters of the charitable institution in question or as managers of the charity. The learned District Judge has found as a fact that they are managers of the charity. There was ample evidence which entitled him to come to that conclusion as they had in fact been acting since the death of the brother of one and father of the other plaintiff, who admittedly was a properly constituted trustee or manager of this property and the l...
Mohanavelu Mudaliar Vs. Annamalai Mudaliar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad337; (1923)44MLJ249
Walter Schwabe, K.C., C.J.1. The Chief Justice This is an action by two executors under a will which appointed twelve executors. The will has been admitted to probate. Three executors have been removed and there are at present nine. Seven have given a power of attorney to the other two, which in effect authorises the two to execute all the duties of the executors in collecting and managing the estate: but, in my view, that does not authorise those two executors to sue on behalf of the estate in their own names. It might have been sufficient authority to these two to take proceedings in the name of the nine. But that is a point which must turn on the construction of the power of attorney and it is unnecessary to decide it here, because it is not what has been done. Therefore, in my view, this action is wrongfully conceived and must fail for non-joinder of necessary parties.2. Under Section 99 of the Code of Civil Procedure no decree is to be reversed on account of any misjoinder of part...
Venkatrama Aiyar Vs. Sundaram Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad439; (1923)44MLJ119
ORDERWallace, J.1. The first point for decision in this' case is whether the lower Court had any jurisdiction to acquit the accuser under Section 247 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Perusal of the lower Court's proceeding shows clearly that the accused was charged under Section 430, I.P.C. a warrant case offence, that the lower Court tried the accused under the procedure laid down for the trial of warrant cases, but eventually framed a charge under Section 426, I.P.C. a summons case offence, but still proceeded with the trial under warrant case procedure, recalling the prosecution witness for examination, for further cross-examination and then eventually acquitted accused under Section 247 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the ground that the Complainant (Petitioner) was absent on the adjourned date of hearing. Petitioner's case is that the lower Court having elected to try the case by warrant case procedure, had no power to act under Section 247 of the Code of Criminal Procedure...
V. Parthasarathy Aiyangar and ors. Vs. Doraiswami Naicker and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad308; (1923)44MLJ91
Spencer, J.1. The question referred to us is whether a tenant in occupation of trust lands belonging to a temple or. mosque can enforce a compulsory sale under Section 9 of the Madras City Tenant's Protection Act and require the temple or mosque to deliver the land to him on a valuation to be made by the court.2. There is no difficulty to my mind in including the trustees of temples mosques and other religious endowments within the definition of 'landlord' in Section 2 of Madras Act No. 111 of 1922 as they certainly are persons entitled to collect the rent of the' land on behalf of another person. A greater difficulty arises when we come to consider Section 9. This section pr vides for the compulsory sale by a landlord of land in the possession of atenant in the City of Madras from which the tenant 'sough to be ejected in a suit instituted under the Presidency Small land as the interest of the landlord in the land and all other-interests which he can convey under any power What are the...
Kottal Kunhalikutty Haji Karnavan and Manager of His Putravakasa Tavaz ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad280; (1923)44MLJ212
Walter Salis Schwabe K.C., C.J.1. In this case the District Munsif and the lower appellate Court have awarded to the plaintiffs maintenance, the lower appellate Court at rather a higher rate than the District Munsif. The plaintiffs are the S.A. No. 1653 of 1920. 15th November, 1922, junior members of a tarwad. The 1st defendant is the Karnavan of the tarwad: The 2nd defendant is the next to him for that position. The decree has been made for arrears of maintenance, at the rate which has been found by the Subordinate Judge to be the proper rate, personally against the Karnavan in the following terms: 'that the 1st defendant personally and as Karnavan of his tarwad do pay.....' This form of decree does not seem to me to be right. 1 see no reason for a personal decree against the Karnavan which would involve the right of the junior members of this tarwad to arrest him if he did not pay forthwith, although it may be he may have none of the property in his hands available for immediate paym...
Thurutheelakath Thottinakkara Puthia-purayil Kunhi Kuttiali, Karnavan ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad278; 73Ind.Cas.139; (1923)44MLJ179
Walter Salis Schwabe K.C., C.J.1. This case raises a rather difficult point under the Limitation Act. The facts are these: The Plaintiff was the Manager of a mosque. The Defendants are the Trustees of that mosque. Some years ago, disputes arose among the trustees inter se and between some at any rate of the trustees and the plaintiff. Those disputes culminated in a suit, O.S. No. 579 of 1910, before the District Munsif of Cannanore. The suit was by some of the trustees for the appointment of a receiver to the property of the mosque and for the removal of the present plaintiff, who, they alleged, was indebted in a sum of Rs. 1,000 to them. The present plaintiff, then the 1st defendant in that Suit, put in a written statement in which he disputed the right of the then plaintiffs to bring the action, objected strongly to a receiver being appointed and incidentally alleged that, so far from his being indebted to the mosque, the mosque was heavily indebted to him. Issues were framed and one...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »