Chennai Court September 1924 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.
Dhanamathi Ammal and anr. Vs. Jayakeerthi Nairan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad973; 85Ind.Cas.958
Devadoss, J.1. The point raised in this second appeal is that the Subordinate Judge has misdirected himself as regards the points to be determined in the appeal. The plaintiff sues for partition of the family properties. The first defendant is his brother, and the second defendant is another brother, this 7th defendant is the father's sister of the plaintiff and defendants Nos. 1 and 2, the 8th defendant is her daughter. It is admitted that the 7th defendant's husband was possessed of some property which was inherited by her after his death. Some properties were acquired with the funds or with the income of the properties of defendants Nos. 7 and 8. The plaintiff claimed a share of all the properties on the ground that they were all family properties. The first defendant pleaded that the properties of defendants Nos. 7 and 8 were made over to him under some arrangements. The Subordinate Judge in discussing the evidence as regards that has fallen into a very grave error in thinking that...
Valluvanatkara Vallabha Valia Raja Avergal Vs. Valluvanatkara Manakata ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1133
Devadoss, J.1. This second appeal is by the 36th defendant in the suit. His contention is that Items Nos. 1 and 2 had been in his possession and the plaintiff is not entitled to any remedy in respect of them. The plaintiff Kovilagam was a party to the suit, O.S. No. 12 of 1895 and it was found in that suit that these two items did not belong to the 36th defendant, but in the execution proceedings, the 36th defendant evidently without the knowledge of the plaintiff Kovilagam got delivery of these two items and has continued in possession of them till now. There is a distinct finding by the District Munsif that this delivery was evidently effected by fraud. The first objection raised by the appellant to the decree of the Subordinate Judge is that a separate suit does not lie for the recovery of the possession of these two items. The Subordinate-Judge has decreed these items in favour of the plaintiff. Mr. Krishna Menon contends that Section 47 of the Civil P.C. is a bar to a suit in resp...
Vattakka Koolakathu Veetil Gopala Nair and ors. Vs. Vattake Koolakath ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-1924
Reported in: 86Ind.Cas.620
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The plaintiffs are the appellants. This second appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiffs for a partition of the plaint mentioned properties and for delivery of plaintiffs' share to them together with future mesne profits. The plaintiffs and the defendants, together with Paru Amma and her sons separated from their main tarwad and formed a branch in 1901. In that year, it was proposed to divide this branch into eight sub-tavazhis the plaintiffs forming the first two sub-tavazhis, Paru Amma and her sons the third sub-tavazhi and the defendants forming the sub-tavazhis Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8. But before the document was fair copied (see para. 24 of Ex. A.), the sub-tavazhi No. 3 (composed of Paru Amma and her sons), six and seven agreed to remain joint; so also sub- tavazhis Nos. 4 and 8; and provision was made in the karar that, if these tavazhis found it inconvenient to remain joint they might also separate in accordance with the provision of the karar. ...
Javvadi Chinna Venkatramayya and anr. Vs. Bandi Veerasami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-1924
Reported in: 88Ind.Cas.665
Jackson, J.1. The petitioners seek to set aside the order of the Subordinate Judge of Narasapur, in O.S. No. 26 of 1922, dated the 20th February 1923.2. The petitioners and counter-petitloner both claimed to be alienees from reversioners to the suit estate. The counter-petitipner filed with his plaint in O.S. No. 26 of 1922 a genealogy showing that Subbarayudu the grandfather of his alienors was son of Rajayya under whom the petitioners claim through another branch. A year and more after filing his plaint, the counter-petitioner put in an affidavit to the effect that Venkiah should be inserted between Rajayya and Subbarayudu. 'The word was omitted by mistake.' It was not a clerical error for the plaint merely copied the recital in plaintiff's document (judging, from the affidavit of petitioners). But the petitioners (who are also suing on the strength of their conveyance by other reversioners) had made it plain that the grandfather of plaintiff's alienors was not Rajayya but Venkayya. ...
N. Srinivasachariar Vs. Bhagavathapuram S. Venkatarama Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad376; 85Ind.Cas.218
Jackson, J.1. The facts are fully set out in the order petitioned against. The petitioner was a candidate for election as Councillor in Kumbakonam Municipality when the Chairman received a letter purporting to be from him but which he repudiates as forged, withdrawing his candidature. Accordingly the counter-petitioner was deemed to be elected, and the petitioner moved the Subordinate Judge under the Rules for the decision of disputes as to the validity of an election. The Subordinate. Judge has held that he has no jurisdiction under these Rules; and hence this Civil Revision Petition. The question for determination is whether under the Rules framed by Government for the decision of disputes as to the validity of an election held under the Madras District Municipalities. Act, 1920, the District or Subordinate Judge has jurisdiction to decide a dispute when the number of candidates being less than the number of vacancies, a. candidate has been deemed to be duly elected under Rule 7(1) o...
Kuppachi Ragavaiya Vs. Machavolu Lakshmiah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-1924
Reported in: (1925)48MLJ179
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. This appeal raises questions regarding the interpretation of Sections 19 and 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act (VIII of 1890).2. An application was made under the Guardians and Wards Act to obtain a declaration that the father of the infant in question was its legal guardian. The applicant's wife died in the house of her parents leaving a female child of 15 days old. Within six months of her death the father of the infant requested his father-in-law to hand over to him his child, but his request was refused, and thereupon the father applied to the Court that he might be declared the guardian of his minor child. The learned District Judge made an order in his favour and also directed the custody of the minor to be given to the father.3. The first contention of the appellant is that the Court had no jurisdiction to make the order in question under Section 19 of the Guardians and Wards Act. The material part of the section runs thus:Nothing in this Chapter shall aut...
(Kuppachi) Raghavaiya Vs. Machavolu Lakshmiah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad398
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The appeal raises questions regarding the interpretation of Sections 19 and 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act (VIII of 1890).2. An application was made under the Guardians and Wards Act to obtain a declaration that the father of the infant in question was its legal guardian. The applicant's wife died in the house of her parents leaving a female child of 15 days old. Within six months of her death the father of the infant requested his father-in-law to hand over to him his child, but his request was refused, and thereupon the father applied to the Court that he might be declared the guardian of his minor child. The learned District Judge made an order in his favour and also directed the custody of the minor to be given to the father.3. The first contention of the appellant is that the Court bad no jurisdiction to make the order in question under Section 19 of the Guardians and Wards Act. The material part of the section runs thus:- 'Nothing in this Chapter shall a...
Puliankalath Bavanthil Tavazhi Vs. Puliankalath Makkissa Mannadiar and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1129
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The 1st defendant is the appellant. The parties to the suit belong to Ammalu Animal's branch, which is one of the branches of the Puliankalath Tavazhi. The 1st defendant is the karnavan. The suit is brought to remove him from the karnavanship, on account of his mismanagement. He has been removed by both the lower Courts. The only argument, addressed on his behalf, by Mr. K.P.M. Menon. the learned Counsel, is that he is a karar karnavan, appointed as such, under the karar, Exhibit A, and that according to the decisions of this Court, the proper remedy for the plaintiffs is to approach the karnavan of the entire tarwad, for the redress of their grievances and not to file a suit, for removing him from the karnavanship. The question depends upon the construction of Exhibit A, the karar. If ha has been appointed a karnavan under the karar, then it seems that according to the decisions of this Court the plaintiffs' suit cannot be maintained.2. The plaintiffs' suit is with...
Sundarappier Vs. Sri La Sri Kasi Vasi Chokkalinga Thambiran Avergal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1059
Devadoss, J.1. The point argued in this second appeal is that the debt was incurred for a purpose which could bind the mutt and that, therefore, the 1st defendant is liable to pay the plaint debt. The Subordinate Judge held that the debt was incurred by the predecessor-in-office of the 1st defendant and the debt was incurred for a purpose which could not bind the mutt properties in the hands of the 1st defendant. The contention of Mr. Seshagiri Sastri is that there was no granary in the village where the mutt has about sixteen velies of land, that a granary was necessary for the purpose of storing paddy and that, therefore, the purchase of a house in the village by the Thambiran who was then the head of the mutt wag an act of a prudent manager. It is in evidence that there was some manikats in sudra and Paraya quarters; but it is suggested that a granary in that locality would not be a suitable residence for a Brahmin agent. But the question is not what is suitable to the agent, but wh...
The M. and S.M. Railway Co. Ltd. Vs. Jayammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-1924
Reported in: 85Ind.Cas.969; (1924)47MLJ887
Charles Gordon Spencer, C.J.1. The plaintiff-respondent is a little girl of seven years of age who was run over by a locomotive engine at Wallajah Road Railway Station and lost her right arm and her right leg. She has been awarded Rs. 3,500 damages and costs in the Court of First Instance by Coutts-Trotter, J. The Railway Company has appealed.2. The facts are clear that the plaintiff, who lived with her father in the village of Ammur adjoining Wallajah Road Station, crossed the line in order to go to her grandmother's house and that she was returning with a basket full of grass when she was knocked down by the Engine of the Ranipet train which had left its carriages standing by the platform after uncoupling and had gone up the line eastwards, tender foremost to the points, then reversed, and was running down, head foremost, along the loop line towards the engine shed where it had to water, when the accident happened. The plaintiff herself states that on her way home she crossed by the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »