Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: rationale Court: chennai Year: 1916 Page 1 of about 4 results (0.037 seconds)

Oct 11 1916 (PC)

Raja Kumara Venkata Perumal, Raju Bahadur Varu and Vs. Uddagiri Papa N ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Oct-11-1916

Reported in : 41Ind.Cas.208

sadasiva aiyar, j.1. the question common to all these appeals is, whether the karvetnagar estate is inalienable by virtue of its tenure or by a custom under which the zemindar for the time being is prohibited from alienating any portion of the estate, except for purposes for which the manager of a joint hindu family (not the father) is entitled as such manager to make valid alienations of the joint family property. on this question, i might at once say that i agree with the judgment to be pronounced by my learned brother, as it was, however argued with great strenuousness and persistence by mr. govindaraghava aiyar for the appellant, i deem it appropriate to express my views on this point in my own words. as regards inalienability by virtue of the tenure, as soon as the military tenure under which the properties were held was put an end to, about 120 years ago, that is, when the british government granted the lands to the zemindar under a quite different tenure with express powers of alienation and after imposing a liability on the lands to be attached and sold in exection of decrees passed against the grantee, the restraint on alienation without the permission of the overlord came to an absolute end. the analogy of the incident of impartibility attaching to some estates is absolutely misleading. impartibility, according to the privy council decision in sartaj kuari v. deoraj kuari 15 i. a.p 51. leads logically to the existence of a power of alienability, and not to a rule of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 25 1916 (PC)

Kattalai Michael Pillai and ors. Vs. Right Reverend J.M. Barthe, S.J. ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jan-25-1916

Reported in : 34Ind.Cas.557; (1916)30MLJ423

napier, j.1. this an appeal from an appellate decree of the district court of tinnevelly dismissing a suit brought by five roman catholic vellalas as representatives of the pillais and mudalis of vaddakankulam against the roman catholic bishop of trichinopoly, the parish priest of vaddankankulam and certain shanan roman catholics the last being sued as representatives of the nadars, asking for certain reliefs in connection with the holy family church situate in the above village. the reliefs may be grouped as follows:1. a mandatory injunction to re-erect walls between what are called the two churches in the above church, the cause of action being the obstructing of the plaintiffs' right, the obtaining an order under section 144 of code of criminal procedure, and the demolition of the walls, all in november 1910.2. a declaration that the ownership of the alleged southern church is vested only in the so-called high caste christians of the plaintiffs' vagaira.3. a declaration of the right of the plaintiffs' vagaira alone to enter it and an order restraining other so-called low caste christians of the vagaira of the defendants 3 to 14 from entering it.4. an order restraining the latter from entering the altar and other peetams and restraining the bishop and the parish priest from allowing them to do so. (the phrase 'entering the altar' is meaningless. altar is probably used for chancel).5. a declaration of the sole right of the pillais, mudalis and so-called high caste christians .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 15 1916 (PC)

Chettiar Alias Vairavan Chettiar, Vs. Vaithilinga Mudaliar and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Nov-15-1916

Reported in : 41Ind.Cas.546

1. these are appeals from the decree of the subordinate judge of negapatam in a suit brought by the plaintiffs to recover the suit properties as next reversioners of the last male owner, whose widow died in 1902. the defendants relied on long possession under an adoption made by the widow in 1862 and pleaded that the suit was barred by limitation and res judicata. the subordinate judge overruled both pleas and gave the plaintiffs a decree against which several of the defendants have appealed. we propose to deal, in the first place, with appeals nos. 206 and 207 of 1908 filed by the 7th and 8th defendants, who are alienees from the heirs of the alleged adopted son. the main facts are not now in dispute, and may be briefly stated. arunachala, the last male owner, died in 1849 leaving a widow, chokkammal. in 1862, chokkammal adopted one alagasundara, a younger brother of her deceased husband. this adoption was afterwards impeached on the ground that alagasundara was not given in adoption by his father who was dead at the date of the adoption and that consequently it was bad. alagasundara was put in possession of the properties which had not been already alienated, with the exception of certain properties which were retained by chokkammal for her maintenance, and continued in possession till he died in 1864 leaving a widow, murugathal, the 4th defendant. murugathal adopted one thiyagaraja who enjoyed the properties until 1876, when he appears to have been dispossessed by .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 15 1916 (PC)

R.M.M.S.T. Somasundaram Chettiar Alias Vairavan Chettiar and ors. Vs. ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Nov-15-1916

Reported in : (1917)ILR40Mad846

1. these are appeals from the decree of the subordinate judge of negapatam in a suit brought by the plaintiffs to recover the suit properties as next reversioners of the last male owner whose widow died in 1902. the defendants relied on long possession under an adoption made by the widow in 1862 and pleaded that the suit was barred by limitation and res judicata. the subordinate judge overruled both pleas and gave the plaintiffs a decree against which several of the defendants have appealed. we propose to deal, in the first place, with appeals nos. 206 and 207 of 1908 filed by the defendants nos. 7 and 8 who are alienees from the heirs of the alleged adopted son. the main facts are not now in dispute, and may be briefly stated. arunachala, the last male owner, died in 1849 leaving a widow chokkamal. in 1862, chokkammal adopted one alagasundara, a younger brother of her deceased husband. this adoption was afterwards impeached on the ground that alagasundara was not given in adoption by his father who was dead at the date of the adoption and that consequently it was bad. alagasundara was put in possession of the properties which had not been already alienated, with the exception of certain properties which were retained by chokkammal for her maintenance, and continued in possession till he died in 1864 leaving a widow murugathal, the fourth defendant. murugathal adopted one thiyagaraja who enjoyed the properties until 1876 when he appears to have been dispossessed by arunachala .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //