Chennai Court April 1926 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.
Arunachala Udayan Vs. Pachayammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-1926
Reported in: (1927)52MLJ94
Devadoss, J.1. The main question in this appeal is as to the construction of a clause in a settlement deed, Ex. A, dated 6th August, 1914. The literal translation of the clause is: My second daughter's son, Swaminathan, on his attaining majority shall enjoy with absolute rights enabling him to make gifts, sell, etc., the house, house site, etc., nanja, punja lands mentioned in Schedule B.2. Swaminathan died before attaining majority and his father had brought this suit for the recovery of the property settled on him inasmuch as he had a vested interest in the property and that he being the heir of his son is entitled to it. The Subordinate Judge held that Swaminathan had acquired a vested interest in the property and decreed the plaintiff's suit. On appeal the learned District Judge held that Swaminathan had only a contingent interest and as he died before he came of age the settlement in his favour did not take effect and dismissed the plaintiff's suit.3. In construing this clause the...
Erath Unikkat Tarwad Karnavan and Manager Eressa Menon Vs. Abdul Rahim ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad1061; 97Ind.Cas.941; (1926)51MLJ378
1. Mr. Menon for the respondent had this case posted again as he contended that the judgment had gone wrong. We have directed him to file a review petition if he is aggrieved by anything in the judgment....
In Re: Raja Rao Alias Vidiachar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-1926
Reported in: 97Ind.Cas.669; (1926)51MLJ331
ORDERWaller, J.1. The petitioners seek to have revised the order of the District Magistrate,Coimbatore,dismiss-ing their appeals under Section 476-B, Criminal Procedure Code. They were witnesses for the Crown in C.C. No. 134 of 1925 on the file of the Sub-Magistrate, Dharapuram. That case ended in the discharge of the accused. The Sub-Magistrate held a preliminary enquiry under Section 476, Criminal Procedure Code and ordered complaints to be filed against the petitioners before the 1st class Magistrate at Erode.2. Mr. Jayarama Aiyar's main ground of complaint is that his clients were not allowed to cross-examine the witnesses who gave evidence against them at the preliminary enquiry. He conceded that, a Magistrate is under no necessity to hold any enquiry at all, but contends that, if he does decide to enquire, the enquiry must be what some of the decisions on the point describe as a 'real enquiry'. By that expression is, I understand, meant an enquiry at which the future accused is e...
Varanasi Annapurnamma Vs. Kandikuppa Venkamma (Dead) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad1017; 97Ind.Cas.604; (1926)51MLJ387
1. This is an audacious attempt by a Brahmin Judge to invent a new rule of law, namely, that a daughter who is unchaste is under the same rule of exclusion as a widow and cannot inherit her father's or mother's estate. The only colour for such a contention which has throughout been rejected in Western India is to say that a portion of a text of Brihas-pathi is to be treated as a binding rule in Southern India. Now the Dayabhaga has adopted that portion of the text of Brihas-pathi and consequently this rule of exclusion has been applied against the daughter under the Dayabhaga Law in Bengal. The Mitakshara while incorporating a portion of the very passage of Brihaspathi in which this prohibition is contained deliberately omits the passage that insists upon the chastity of the daughter. The only possible conclusion by all rules of construction known to me is that it was deliberately omitted because it was not intended to be reproduced. We are governed by the Mitakshara and by nothing els...
The Union Board of Pattukottai Represented by Its President R.M. Kasi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-1926
Reported in: (1926)51MLJ474
Murray Coutts Trotter, Kt., C.J.1. This appeal must be dismissed with costs. The contention put forward is that this piece of property to which the plaintiff apparently cannot prove his paper title may be deemed to be a road by reason of the definition of ' road ' in the Madras Local Boards Act, Section 3(23)(a) which runs thus:'Road' includes; any road, street, square, couirt, alley or passage, whether a thoroughfare or not, over which the public has a right of way, together with the drains on either side and with the land, whether covered or not by any pavement, verandah or other erection, which lies on either side of the roadway up to the boundaries of the adjacent property, whether that property be private property or property reserved by Government for other purposes; and also includes the roadway over any public bridge or causeway.2. It is no doubt possible to argue that that means that, if a Local Board can find a paddy field running along the side of the road to which nobody is...
Arunchala Udayar Vs. Pachayammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad292
Devadoss, J.1. The main question in this appeal is as to the construction of a clause in a settlement deed, Ex. A, dated 6th August 1914. The literal translation of the clause is:My second daughter's son Swaminathan on his attaining majority shall enjoy with absolute rights enabling him to make gifts, sell, etc., the house, house-site etc., nanja, punja lands mentioned in Schedule B.2. Swaminathan died before attaining majority and his father has brought this suit for the recovery of the property settled on him inasmuch as he had a vested interest in the property and that he being the heir of his son is entitled to it. The Subordinate Judge held that Swaminathan had acquired a vested interest in the property and decreed the plaintiff's suit. On appeal the learned District Judge held that Swaminathan had only a contingent interest and as he died before he came of age the settlement in his favour did not take effect and dismissed the plaintiff's suit.3. In construing this clause the teno...
K.R.M.T.T.A.L. Alagappa Chettiar Vs. K.R.M.T.T.A.R. Arunachallam Chett ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad338; 97Ind.Cas.480
Wallace, J.1. This civil revision petition is a petition asking this Court to revise the finding of the lower Court on a preliminary issue in O. S. No. 27 of 1925 on its file. The point at issue is whether the suit is maintainable without the sanction of the Advocate-General under Section 92 of the Civil P. C. or without the order of the Board of Religious Endowments under Section 69 of Act I of 1925.2. The suit was primarily to remove the first defendant from his position as manager or managing trustee of the four plaint kattalais in the Sikkal temple, to direct the first defendant to render accounts of his management and to settle a scheme for the management of these kattalais. Only one plaintiff sued and he claims to be a co-trustee with the first defendant under the original conditions of the trust, and says that he was prevented by the first defendant from taking his proper share in the management, the first defendant setting up an exclusive right of management, as if the trust we...
Govinda Bhatta and ors. Vs. Maruvala Rama Bhatta
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad963; 103Ind.Cas.862
Odgers, J.1. In this case water rights in respect of a piece of land which will be referred to as 19/9 are in question. This plot, together with the adjoining plot at the north 132/1 were at one time in the ownership of one person called Shankara Bhattar. On the 6th October 1916, this person sold 132/1 to the defendants under Ex. I, and on the 17th March 1917, he sold 19/9 to the plaintiff by Ex. A. Now the plaintiff alleges that the mamul practice from time immemorial is to irrigate 19/9 by water originating on 132/1, that 19/9 is a bale and that the only source of supply of water to it is that just referred to. The case is complicated by the fact that the contract for sale to the plaintiffs, which preceded Ex. A, is earlier than the transfer deed to the defendant Ex. I. The first question argued is as to whether or not this is an easement of necessity as has been found by both the lower Courts. The Munsif says that 19/9 is a bale field as admitted by the defendants and was classified...
Vellachami Naicker and ors. Vs. Alagarasami Naicker and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad1163
Odgers, J.1. This was suit brought by the plaintiff to have it declared that certain properties are trust properties belonging to the Malaiperumal temple and that the defendants who claimed under certain documents executed by the plaintiff' s grandfather had no right to the same and for delivery of possession. The cause of action is said to have arisen in the year 1914, when the plaintiff's father died. The plaintiff alleges that he and his father and his grandfather had a hereditary poojari right in the suit temple. Various alienations are set out in para. 5 of the written statement. But I think it is only necessary to refer to two. The grandfather of the plaintiff in 1881 alienated a portion of the temple land by simple mortgage to a certain Chetty. A suit was brought on the mortgage, a decree obtained and the properties brought to sale and purchased by defendant 1's father in 1889. In 1887, another mortgage of another part of the property was effected to defendant 1's father. Decree...
K.A. Munisami Chetti Vs. Vaiyapuri Udayan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad945a
Madhavan Nair, J.1. I do not think that this is a case in which I should interfere under Section 115 Civil P.C. The execution application of the petitions was dismissed as he and his pleader were absent. Then he filed an application for review. That also was dismissed by the District Munsif and it is that order that is the subject-matter of this revision.2. The main argument of the petitioner has been directed to show that the District Munsif should not have considered the merits of an uncertified adjustment pleaded by the decree-holder in dealing with an execution application. In this case the finding of the District Munsif amounts to this, viz. : that the petitioner in suppressing the agreement and asking for execution has been acting fraudulently. I have no doubt that in such circumstances the Court can examine the merits of an uncertified adjustment when it is pleaded in bar to execution. Further the Full Bench of this High Court in Chidambara Chettiar v. Krishna Vathiar [1917] 40 ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »