Chennai Court April 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.
G. Akkamma Vs. Nune Venkatapathi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1923
Reported in: AIR1925Mad59; 75Ind.Cas.623
1. The lower Appellate Court has found that items Nos. 6 to 11 of plaint A schedule were the stridhanam properties of plaintiff's mother-in-law and did not belong to her father-in-law's estate. On this finding no charge should have been given on those items for any part of the maintenance allowed. The learned District Judge apparently thinks that because the mother-in-law was made a party to the second appeal as the legal representative of her deceased husband, and in that suit a charge was declared for Rs. 72 a year on properties including those properties, the same is binding on her and her estate. We are unable to concur with this view. She was only added as a legal representative in the previous litigation and it was not open to her as such to raise any defences personal to herself. It was, therefore, open to her and is now open to her representative, the 2nd defendant, to plead that the charge was not a proper charge on their properties and, as on the finding of the lower Appellat...
Kumaram Uni Achan Vs. P. Kunhikrishnan Nair and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad602(1); 75Ind.Cas.814
1. We think the Subordinate Judge is right in the view he has taken in the case. That view is supported by the ruling of this Court in Peela Yarakayya v. Kanumuri Venkata Krishnamraju 41 Ind. Cas. 684 : 6 L.W. 281 : 22 M.L.T. 232 : (1917) M.W.N. 721. The order under Order XXI, Rule 101, Civil Procedure Code, having been against the defendant and he not having filed a suit in time to contest it, it has become conclusive against him. The fact that there was a pending suit regarding the title to the property and the defendant had filed a written statement in it claiming title did not absolve him from the obligation of filing a suit under Rule 103 if he intended to contest the order under Rule 101. That was what was held in the Law Weekly case. The fact that in the present case the suit was already pending when the order under Rule 101 was made, whereas in the Law Weekly case the suit was one subsequently instituted makes no difference.2. It was contended that the doctrine of lis pendens a...
Pakkiam Solomon Vs. Chelliah Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad18
Schwabe, C.J.1. This is a suit for nullity of a marriage under the following circumstances. The respondent when a Hindu was married to a Hindu. The respondent changed his religion being converted to Christianity. No steps were taken by him to dissolve his marriage, but he then went through a form of marriage with the petitioner also a Christian. The petitioner now brings this suit on the ground of bigamy of her husband, he having a wife alive at the time lie went through the form of marriage with her.2. The first defence raised is that the petitioner has no rights under the Indian Divorce Act because it is alleged that she does not profess the Christian religion. This is based on a resolution of the particular sect to which she belongs, in effect ex-communicating her. In my judgment although she may be ex-communicated by the sect or the church to which she belongs, she does not thereby1 cease to profess Christianity. The question of profession of Christianity is a question of her own a...
N. Kesava Mudaliar Vs. V.S. Govindachariar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad231
Schwabe, C.J.1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Privy Council. The suit was for an injunction and the question mainly turned on the interpretation of an agreement between two, if I may use the word 'rival', temples made many years ago. According to the contention of one temple, the other was, by reason of this agreement, permitted to hold certain processions in the streets of Madras on certain days only. According to the interpretation of the contract of the other side, they were entitled to hold their procession on those days taking a second place to the other temple but were free to hold other processions on any other day they pleased.2. As the amount involved is incapable of valuation, the question is whether we should certify, under the Civil Procedure Code, Section 109(c), that this is a fit case for appeal to His Majesty in Council. The meaning of that section has been much discussed in this Court and in the Privy Council, and in a recent case, Raja of Ramnad v....
Pakkiri Kanni Vs. Haji Mohammad Manjoor Saheb by Agent Habibulla Saheb
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad124; 75Ind.Cas.334; (1923)45MLJ321
ORDER1. It is pointed out to us that the additional Sub-Court of Tanjore, from which this appeal came has been abolished in consequence of the bifurcation of the district into Tanjore East and Tanjore West for judicial purposes and that therefore our order of remand to the lower appellate Court requires explanation. So far as we can ascertain, the District Court of Tanjore East now exercises appellate jurisdiction over Tiruthuraipundi District Munsif's Court to which this case belongs. The remand must therefore be to the District Court of Tanjore East, and our orders must be read accordingly....
Dattada Lakshmi Narasa Raju Vs. Yerrameetti Ganganna and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-1923
Reported in: 76Ind.Cas.769; (1923)45MLJ680
1. The question in this appeal is whether the appellant's application for execution presented on 5-9-1919 is in time. It is not disputed here that it can be in time, only if something happened on 15-9-15, which can be regarded as a step in aid of execution within the meaning of Article 182, Schedule I, Limitation Act. 15-9-15 was the day, on which the previous execution application of the appellant, No. 55 of 1915, came on for hearing after notice to the Judgment-debtors. All we know of what happened on that day is that the Judgment-debtors were absent and that attachment was ordered. So far there is nothing, which can be regarded as a step in aid. We, however, are asked to presume that the attachment was ordered in consequence of some oral application having on that day been made by the petitioner. We need not consider whether we are entitled or bound to make that presumption. We observe only that there is nothing whatever on the record to support it. It is sufficient for us to say th...
Morla Gangulu and anr. Vs. Thata Jagannatham and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad108; 76Ind.Cas.331; (1923)45MLJ724
Devadoss, J.1. The question in this second appeal is, is the plaintiff entitled to irrigate his fields A, B and C with water from the 1st defendant's field marked F and G in the plan through slits or openings at points H and J.2. It is contended before us that this is not a case of easement of necessity and the plaintiffs cannot claim the right to irrigate their fields with water from the 1st defendant's fields. The plots A, B, C, F and G which are Zemindari zeroyoti wet lands belonged to one Gurappiah who made a gift of plots, A, B and C to his step mother Veeramma for her maintenance. The plaintiffs claim under Veeramma. 1st defendant is the son of Gurappiah and the 2nd defendant is his lessee. It is proved that during the life time of Gurappiah and for at least 15 years from the date of the gift to Veeramma, the plots A, B and C were irrigated with water from F and G. The plaintiffs claim the right to irrigate their fields as was done till the defendants 1 and 2 obstructed them from...
Balaguru Naidu by His Authorized Agent Chidambaram Chetti Vs. Muthurat ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad118; (1924)46MLJ254
Krishnan, J.1. A pauper application is really a combination of a plaint and an application to excuse the payment of Court-fee on it. When the petition is dismissed whether on the ground that the petitioner is not a pauper or on the ground that a dismissal of a similar previous petition bars the present petition it is the application that fails but the plaint remains and may be validated by payment of Court-fees within a time to be fixed by Court if the Court in the exercise of its discretion is prepared to grant time. The District Munsif is not right in thinking that there should be a competent application to sue in forma pauperis on record before time can be given to pay Court-fees on the plaint filed at the same time. No case has laid that down. The case will therefore go back to the District Munsif to decide whether he considers there is proper ground to grant plaintiff time to pay the Court-fees till the date when he actually paid it and if he holds in favour of the plaintiff on th...
D. Lakshmi Narasu Raju Vs. Y. Ganganna and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad186
1. The question in this appeal is whether the appellant's application for execution presented on 5-9-1919 is in time. It is not disputed here that it can be in time, only if something happened on 15-9-15, which can be regarded as a step-in-aid of execution within the meaning of Article 182. Schedule 1. Limitation Act, 15-9-15 was the day, on which the previous execution application of the appellant, No. 55/15, came on for hearing after notice to the Judgment-debtors. All, we know of what happened on that day is that the Judgment-debtors were absent and the attachment was ordered. So far there is nothing, which can be regarded as a step in-aid. We, however, are asked to presume that the attachment was ordered in consequence of some oral application having on that day been made by the petitioner. We need not consider whethar we are entitled or bound to make that presumption. We observe only that there; is nothing whatever on the record to support it. It is sufficient for us to say that, ...
R.M.P. Perianan Chetty Vs. Mariappan Asari and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad310
Devadoss, J.1. This is an application to revise the decree in S.C.S. No. 1420 of 1921 on the file of the District Munsifs Court, Madura Town. The plaintiff brought the suit for Rs. 90 due on an instalment bond, dated 11-9-1917 executed by the 1st defendant and the father of the defendants 2 and 3 for Rs. 50 payable in ten monthly instalments of Rs. 5. The District Munsif dismissed the suit in respect of nine-tenths of the claim as being barred by the law of limitation and gave a decree only in respect of the last instalment.2. The respondents do not appear here. It is urged that time did not begin to run against the plaintiff till 11-7-18, the date on which the last instalment fell due by reason of the provision in the bond that the whole amount shall be payable on demand if any one of the instalments was not paid on the due date, and that article 75 of the Limitation Act is applicable to the case, and the suit filed on 4-7-21 is within time.3. Reliance is placed on two decisions repor...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »