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.
Rajagopala Naidu Vs. Ramasubramania Aiyar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-10-1923
Reported in: (1923)45MLJ274
Walter Salis Schwabe, K.C., C.J.1. This is a reference to a Full Bench on the question of the court-fee payable on a suit by the Plaintiff claming to be a trustee of a temple against the Defendant who is in possession of the temple, also claiming to be a trustee. The property in question has been valued by the Plaintiff for purposes of court-fee at a certain amount, but the Commissioner has reported that the amount is too small solely on the ground that the temple buildings ought to be-valued at their cost of construction less, presumably, something for depreciation. It is contended by the Plaintiff that the temple buildings as such are not assessable at all for purposes of court-fee. The section of the Court-Fees Act alleged to be applicable is Section 7(V)(e) which provides that, where the subject-matter is a house or garden, it has to be valued 'according to the market value of the house or garden.' It is first argued, and with considerable force, that the temple is not a house at a...
Venkatachellam Pillai Vs. P.V. Srinivasa Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-10-1923
Reported in: 75Ind.Cas.115
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The question to be determined in this civil revision petition is whether the District Munsif's Court had jurisdiction to decide the suit. The first defendant pleaded that the Court had no jurisdiction. The District Munsif overruled the plea.2. The suit was instituted for the setting aside of an award passed by defendants Nos. 2 to 6 to whom the plaintiff and the first defendant referred certain matters in dispute between them. By the award, the plaintiff was directed to pay to the first defendant the sum of Rs. 11,070 with interest thereupon. The contention of the first defendant is that the value of the subject-matter of the suit is the amount mentioned in the award and that the District Munsif had consequently no jurisdiction to try the suit.3. For the purpose of the Court-fee payable, it is conceded by the plaintiff that the suit is governed by the Court-Fees Act, Schedule II, Article 17, Clause (4). Under that provision a fixed fee of Rs. 15 is payable on a p...
Venkatarama Iyer Vs. Subramania Sastry and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad741
1. This appeal is by the 117th defendant and it is opposed mainly by the 22nd defendant. The hearing has taken a considerable time, but the issues, now that the facts are ascertained, are clear.2. The suit was brought for the partition of the Samudayam land of a village in the Tanjore District, the Samudayam tenure, as explained in the District Manual, being a holding in common by the village community known as the mirasidars. It is not disputed that the land, of which partition is claimed, was and is Samudayam land; nor has any ' serious attempt been made to dispute here that it has never been divided and that it is now partible. On this point, it may be observed that the 22nd defendant no doubt set up a previous partition in his written statement; but it is clear that the matter is res judicata, against him, in consequence of Exs. T. A and R. the judgments in O.S. No. 367 of 1900. The lower appellate Court held that the parties before it had established their right to a certain numbe...
V.C.T.N. Chidambaram Chetti Vs. Kandasami Goundan (Dead) and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-1923
Reported in: (1923)45MLJ346
Walter Salis Schwabe, K.C., C.J.1. The present Appellant is the decree-holder. The Respondent is the legal personal representative of a brother of the decree-holder who had been brought upon the record for the purpose of execution. An application had been made for attachment of the moveable property of the original Defendant, the judgment-debtor. Those proceedings had come to nothing by reason of the fact that the present Appellant failed to find the necessary expenses. Within a year of those proceedings, application was made for attachment of the immoveable property. By reason of the operation of Order 21, Rule 22, no notice of those proceedings was required to be given to the representative of the judgment-debtor and no notice was given. An application was then made for the sale of the property and in due course a notice for settling the sale proclamation, in form No. 21 of Appendix E of the Code of Civil Procedure, was issued. That notice stated that the decree-holder had applied fo...
Rajagopala Aiyangar Vs. Soundararaja Aiyangar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-1923
Reported in: (1923)45MLJ476
1. The plaintiff and the first defendant in this case are the surviving members of a joint family which became divided in 1904. The suit is for partition and delivery to the plaintiff of a half share in a plot of nanja land which according to the plaintiff, was kept undivided at the time of the partition. The defendants denied that the suit property was family property at all, but this plea has been decided against them by both the lower Courts. The defendants other plea was that they had acquired a prescriptive title to the plaint property by exclusive and hostile enjoyment since the time of the partition. On this point also the District Munsif was against them and gave a decree for the plaintiff. The Subordinate Judge on appeal has decided that the first defendant was in open adverse enjoyment of the suit land for over twelve years and the plaintiff's claim was therefore barred.2. The learned Vakil for the appellants has argued that there is no evidence on record which could possibly...
Pakkim Solomon Vs. Chelliah Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-1923
Reported in: 75Ind.Cas.17
Walter 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 busband, he having a wife alive at the time 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 excommunicating her. In my judgment, although she may be excommunicated by the section the Church to which she belongs, she does not thereby cease to profess Christianity. The question of profession of Christianity is a question of her o...
Putrevu Kamaraju Vs. Chunduri Gunnayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad322; (1923)45MLJ240
Ramesam, J.1. This second appeal relates only to item I out of the properties which are the subject of the original suit and it is necessary only to state the facts so far as this item is concerned. The item originally belonged to the 1st defendant's father who mortgaged it in 1907. After his death, the mother of the 1st defendant during his minority as his guardian sold the property by a sale deed dated 4-5-1913. After the 1st defendant attained majority, ignoring the sale deed by his mother and on the footing that no valid title was conveyed by it to the vendee, he sold it to the plaintiff by a sale deed dated 8th November, 1919, and the plaintiff now sues to recover the property. The District Munsif dismissed the suit on the ground that the right of the 1st defendant to avoid die sale by the mother within three years after attaining majority was not assignable. Incidentally he also states in paragraph 9 of his judgment that the suit is not maintainable on the ground that the intenti...
Putievu Kamraju Vs. Chunduri Gunnayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-1923
Reported in: 74Ind.Cas.1003
Ramesam, J.1. This second appeal relates only to Item ho- I out of the properties which are the subject of the original suit and it is necessary only to state the facts so far as this item is concerned. The item originally belonged to the first defendant's father who mortgaged it in 1907. After his death the mother of the first defendant during his minority as his guardian for the property by a sale-deed dated 4th May 1913. After the first defendant attained majority, ignoring the sale-deed by his mother and on the footing that no valid title was conveyed by it to the vendee, he sold it to the plaintiff by a sale-deed dated 8th November 1919, and the plaintiff now sues to recover the property. The District Munsif dismissed tit suit en the ground that the right of the first defendant to avoid the sale by the mother within three years after attaining majority was not assignable. Incidentally he also states in Paragraph 9 of his judgment that the suit is not maintainable en the ground tha...
Deenabandu Rajaguru Vs. Visvasarayi Lachanna Dora and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad176
ORDERKrishnan, J.1. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate purports to follow the ruling in 4 H.C.R.P. 15 (Appeal). But the view expressed in that ruling has been departed from; see the ruling in Ramakrishna Chetti v. Palaniyandi Kadambar F.B. [1876] 1 Mad. 262, which expressly over-ruled the case in 7 M.H.C.R. 9 (appeal) which followed the view in the 4 M.H.C.R. Case. See also the rulings reported in Weir Vol, 1 P. 503 and 504. The case in 4 M.H.C.R. can no longer be considered to be good law. It seems manifest that if a supply channel is filled up or is obstructed by a dam put up or by raising a dam already existing, there is a change made in the Channel which diminishes its value or utility and which if it was done with intention to cause or with knowledge that it was likely to cause wrongful loss to any person would constitute the offence of mischief. If the act so done causes a diminution of supply of water as mentioned in Section 430 I.P.C. an offence under that Section is committed.2. In...
In Re: Ayarvali Pokker and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-1923
Reported in: (1923)45MLJ305
Ayling, J.1. The four accused in this case have been con victed of offences under Sections 302 and 149 I.P.C. murder committed in the course of rioting, and have been sentenced, three of them to death, and the fourth to transportation for life. The earned Counsel who argued the case for the three accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4, who have been sentenced to death, draws our attention at the inception of the hearing to the fact that the Sessions Judge has illegally declined to summon three defence witnesses cited by the first accused and has issued a commission for their examination purporting to act under the provisions of Section 503 of the Criminal Procedure Code. He argues that this procedure is illegal that the accused have been materially prejudiced and that for this reason the convictions cannot stand.2. The trial was held under the provisions of Malabar (Restoration of Order) Ordinance I of 1922, Section 10 which provides that 'in the trial of cases under this Ordinance the Court shall fo...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »