Chennai Court March 1923 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.
Maddu Venkayya Vs. Maddu Paidamma Alias Kamireddi Paidamma and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1923
Reported in: AIR1923Mad707; 73Ind.Cas.944; (1923)45MLJ104
Ayling, J.1. The petitioner in this case was directed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Narasapatam under Section 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 3 a month for his illegitimate child. He subsequently brought a suit in the District Munsif's Court of Yellamanchilli and succeeded in securing final decision on appeal to the Subordinate Judge of Vizagapatam to the effect that the child was not his. On this he applied to the Sub Divisional Magistrate drawing his attention to the decision of the Subordinate Judge and making the following prayer : 'Your petitioner, therefore, prays your honourable Court to abstain from giving further effect to the order dated 21st May 1918, the order awarding maintenance, in view of the decree and judgment of the Additional Subordinate Judge declaring that the second counter petitioner was not born to the petitioner and that the petitioner is not bound to maintain her.' This petition has been returned with the followi...
Subraya Sampigethaya and ors. Vs. Krishna Baipadithaya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad22; 73Ind.Cas.584; (1923)45MLJ533
Oldfield, J.1. The question referred to the Full Bench is 'Whether the interest of a widow who has obtained by a registered deed a right to future maintenance during her life-time even if charged upon specified immoveable property is capable of being transferred when the transfer is attempted to be effected at a time before the maintenance has become due.' I do not think that it is possible to give a general answer to this question, and I will confine myself to considering whether the assignment in this case is valid. By a document called a general power-of-attorney, the widow surrendered all her interest in her late husband's property in favour of the nearest reversioner of her husband in consideration of his agreeing to pay some debts of the husband and to maintain her during her life-time. The document then continues (according to a corrected translation) 'Besides maintaining me by giving me food and clothing, etc., until my lifetime, you should also perform my obsequies, etc., afte...
William Brunton Vs. John E.C. Brunton
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1923
Reported in: AIR1925Mad360
Schwabe, C.J.1. I have had the opportunity of reading the judgment of Coutts-Trotter J., with which I so fully agree that I can say what I have to say shortly. This is an appeal from the judgment of Kumaraswami Sastri, J., in a suit brought by Mr. Jack Brunton against his step-brother Mr. William Brunton. William Brunton was a partner with his father in an engineering business at Cochin. His mother had died and his father married again. On the father's death, William Brunton entered into a partnership with his stepmother, Mrs. Rita Brunton, the mother of the plaintiff, Jack. By the terms of the partnership deed Mrs. Brunton wag entitled to 2/3 of the capital and William Brunton to 1/3: but they were each entitled to half of the profits and liable for half of the losses. There were provisions in the deed for the equalization of capital between the two. Time went on and the business prospered under the management of William Brunton. Throughout, he was on most friendly and affectionate te...
Krishna Reddy and ors. Vs. Thanikachala Mudali and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1923
Reported in: 73Ind.Cas.1054; (1923)45MLJ153
Walter Salis Schwabe, K.C., C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order of the Judge sitting on the Original Side transferring a suit from the District Court of Chingleput to the High Court under Clause 13 of the Letters Patent. As a preliminary point it is argued that no such appeal lies on the ground that the order is not a judgment within the meaning of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. In the recent case of Kanayalal Bhoya v. Paramasuk Doss (1922) 16 L.W. 608, I stated that 'I do not propose to attempt to add a further definition to those which have already been given in other cases.* Definition after definition has been attempted of that word. A very narrow meaning was given to it by Sir Richard Couch in Justices of the Peace for Calcutta v. The Oriental Gas Co. 8 Beng. L.R. 435. A much wider definition was given by a Full Bench of this Court in Tuljaram Rao v. Alagappa Chettiar I.L.R. (1910) M. 1 : 21 M.L.J. 1 , and it is enough for me to say that, in these matters, this Court is bound...
The Secretary of State for India in Council Represented by the Collect ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1923
Reported in: 76Ind.Cas.212; (1923)45MLJ156
Krishnan, J.1. Respondents have not appeared before me in person or by counsel and I have not the advantage of hearing an argument on their side.2. The judgment of the lower Court treating the rules framed by the Governor-in-Council and published as notification No. 1134 as ultra vires so far as they relate to the election of Chairman and Vice-Chairman of District Municipalities on the ground that they purported to have been made under Section 303(2)(b) of the Act clearly cannot be supported. Before a rule framed by a rule making authority is declared ultra vires the Court must be satisfied not only that it had no power to act under the power under which it purported to act, but also that it had no power at all under any law to so act. If power can be found elsewhere from the section quoted the rules will be referred to that power and held not to be ultra vires. This principle is recognised in Rajam Chetty v. Seshayya I.L.R. 18 M. 236 (F.B.) where the Full Beach of this Court in consid...
Minor Doraiswami and ors. Vs. Chidambaram Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1923
Reported in: 75Ind.Cas.46; (1923)45MLJ413
Spencer, J.1. This suit was brought by one of the reversioners to the estate of one Muruga Pillai for a declaration on behalf of himself and defendants 6and 7 that the private sale of items 1 to 8 in the plaint schedule and the Court sale of items 9 to 11 during the lifetime of Muruga Pillai's widow (1st defendant) are not binding beyond the life time of the widow, who died during the pendency of the appeal in the lower appellate Court. The District Munsif dismissed the suit in toto.2. In appeal the Additional Subordinate Judge held that the Court sale of items 9 to 11 was void and gave the plaintiff a decree accordingly. He held that the private sale of items 1 to 8 by the widow under Ex. B was binding on the reversioners to the extent of Rs. 1,000 only and made that amount a charge on these items excepting item 5 and half of item 8.3. The learned Subordinate Judge's reason for holding the Court sale to be void was that it took place on January 17th 1916 after Muruga Pillai had died o...
Doraswami and Three ors. Vs. Chidambaram Pillai and Four ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1923
Reported in: (1924)ILR47Mad63
Spencer, J.1. This suit was brought by one of the reversioners to the estate of one Muruga Pillai for a declaration on behalf of himself and defendants 6 and 7 that the private sale of items 1 to 8 in the plaint schedule and the Court, sale of items 9 to 11 during the lifetime of Muruga Pillai's widow (first defendant) are not binding beyond the lifetime of the widow, who died during the pendency of the appeal in the lower Appellate Court. The District Munsif dismissed the suit in toto.2. In appeal the Additional Subordinate Judge held that the Court sale of items 9 to 11 was void and gave the plaintiff a decree accordingly. He held that the private sale of items 1 to 8 by the widow under Exhibit B was binding on the reversioners to the extent of Rupees 1,000 only and made that amount a charge on these items excepting item 5 and half of item 8.3. The learned Subordinate Judge's reason for holding the court sale to be void was that it took place on January 17th, 1916, after Muruga Pilla...
Doraiswami (Minor) and ors. Vs. Chidambaram Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad130
Spencer, J.1. This suit was brought by one of the reversioners to the estate of one Muruga Pillai for a declaration on behalf of himself and defendants 6 and 7 that the private sale of items 1 to 8 in the plaint schedule and the Court sale of items 9 to 11 during the lifetime of Muruga Pillai's widow (1st defendant) are not binding beyond the life time of the widow, who died during the pendency of the appeal in the lower appellate Court. The District Munsif dismissed the suit in toto.2. In appeal the Additional Subordinate Judge held that the Court sale of items 9 to 11 was void and gave the plaintiff a decree accordingly. He held that the private sale of item 1 to 8 by the widow under Ex. B was binding on the reversioners to the extent of Rs. 1,000 only and made the amount a charge on these items excepting item 5 and half of item 8.3. The learned Subordinate Judge's reason for holding the Court sale to be void was that it took place on January 17th, 1916 after Muruga Pillai had died o...
Kandoth Sankaran Nair Vs. Karanji Kizhakkeproth Atchuthan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1923
Reported in: AIR1923Mad651; 73Ind.Cas.793; (1923)44MLJ643
1. The question referred to us is whether a District Munsif, receiving by transfer a decree of a village Court under Section 66 of the Madras Act I of 1889 or withdrawing execution of a decree to his own file under Section 67, has or has not jurisdiction to transfer it for execution to another District Munsifs Court under Section 39, Civil Procedure Code.2. The learned District Munsif in referring this question has pointed out the great practical inconvenience of a negative answer to it; and we fully appreciate the considerations he has referred to. It is however our duty to deal with the matter with reference to the law as it stands. Under Section 48 'the decrees shall be executed by the village Court, which passed it, or by a village Court or District Munsif, to whom it is sent for execution under the provisions hereinafter contained.3. Under Section 66 'any decree passed by a village Court may, on the application of the decree-holder, be transmitted for execution to the District Mun...
Sivasubramania Pillai Vs. theethiappa Pillai (Dead) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1923
Reported in: 75Ind.Cas.572; (1923)45MLJ166
Oldfield, J.1. This insolvency originated in the arrest by 1st respondent of the insolvent, here appellant. On the latter's adjudication however, only two creditors, now represented by other respondents, proved debts, the appellant refraining from proving his, until after a dividend of less than half an anna had been distributed and about nine years had elapsed. Evidently what has led him now to tender proof of his debt under Section 24(3) of the Provincial Insolvency Act III of 1907 is that on the 20th September, 1918, the lower Court granted the insolvent what is described as a conditional discharge, the condition being that he should, subject to his right to an allowance of Rs. 25 per month for maintenance of himself and his family, place at the disposal of the Court all property he might afterwards acquire. This discharge was granted on the application of the insolvent based on the expectation that in case of his discharge his mother would relinquish a life estate, to which he was ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »