Chennai Court March 1894 Judgments
Gopal Reddi Vs. Chinna Reddi, Arunachella Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1894
Reported in: (1894)4MLJ244
Shephard, J.1. The plaintiff and the defendants are riparian proprietors, the former occupying lands lower down the stream than those occupied by the defendants. The stream is a jungle stream, not used for irrigation purposes and apt at times to rise suddenly and flood the lands through which it flows. In order to protect their lands against flooding and to keep the water to its improper channel the defendants raised the bund along the (sic) the stream and fortified it with stone. This is the act complainted of by the plaintiff as wrongful, it being charged that the plaintiff's lands were in consequence inundated and sustained damage. The complaint is that the bunds have been raised above the height at which they stood before, for it is found or admitted that it has been long the practice to have some sort of bunds. It is not suggested that the act complained of was done otherwise than with the object of protecting the defendants' lands. On the contrary the District Judge finds as I un...
Tag this Judgment!Rangasami Naickan Vs. Varadappa Naickan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1894
Reported in: (1894)ILR17Mad462
Arthur J.H. Collins, C.J.1. The question referred to the Full Bench for decision is 'whether under Section 539 of the Civil Procedure Code a suit to remove a trustee will lie.'2. There has been a great diversity of opinion amongst the Judges of the Madras High Court on this point. In Narasimha v. Ayyan Chetti I.L.R. 12 Mad. 157 Mr. Justice Kernan and MR. Justice Wilkinson expressed doubts whether Section 539 empowered a Court to remove a trustee, whilst in Subbayya v. Krishna I.L.R. 14 Mad. 186 Mr. Justice Muttusami Ayyar in a most exhaustive judgment reviewed the statutes and cases both English and Indian relating to the subject in question, and came to the conclusion that Section 539 did not authorize the removal of a trustee. Best and Weir, JJ. took the opposite view and held that a trustee could be removed in a suit brought under this section. It appears to me that Section 539 of the Civil Procedure Code was drafted on the lines of 52 George III. cap. 101, commonly called Romilly's...
Tag this Judgment!Sir Rajah Venkata Swetachalapati Ranga Row Bahadur Garu, Rajah of Bobb ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1894
Reported in: (1894)4MLJ192
1. Appellant is the Zamindar of Bobbili, and respondent's late husband; Sitaramaswami, was the sister's son of appellant's paternal grandfather. The property in litigation is the proprietary estate called Chilikala Jagannathapuram and it has admittedly been in the possession first of Sitaramaswami and after his death in that of his widow, the respondent, from February 1862, In that year appellant's paternal grandfather transferred the estate for valuable consideration to respondent's husband under the patta VI. Appellant brought the present suit to eject the respondent from that estate and to recover possession of it with mesne profits for three years, 1887 to 1889. Appellant's mother, Challayammi, was the daughter of Gopayammi who was the sister of appellant's paternal grandfather and wife of one Rajagopala Row. The estate in dispute was first granted to Rajagopala Row in 1848 and on his death in 1856, his widow and the granter applied to the Collector for its being registered in the ...
Tag this Judgment!Srirangachariar and ors. Vs. Ramasami Aiyangar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1894
Reported in: (1894)4MLJ106
1. There can be no doubt that part of the consideration for the agreement A. was the withdrawal of a pending criminal charge of trespass and theft laid against the plaintiffs and others, (vide Exhibit B), on the 14th February 1886, that is, two days before the execution of A. The 1st plaintiff as plaintiff's 3rd witness has sworn that it was so, and his evidence stands uncontradicted, not even one of the defendants denying it. It is further proved that the very Magistrate who would have tried the charge laid if it had been proceeded with was present, taking part in the negotiations that led up to A. There is also no doubt of the law that a consideration that proceeds upon the withdrawal of criminal proceedings that have been instituted is illegal as being opposed to public policy, as it is held to be the stifling of a prosecution. And even if this illegal consideration is only part of the consideration it renders the whole agreement void; because there is not good and sufficient consid...
Tag this Judgment!Perumal Udayar and anr. Vs. Krishnama Chettyar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1894
Reported in: (1894)ILR17Mad251
1. The defendants were in possession of the mittah of Sundamangalam for the faslis 1293 to 1298 as purchasers in a sale made under the Revenue Recovery Act. It was ultimately held in a suit brought by the plaintiffs that the sale was irregular, and they were reinstated in the mittah as part-proprietors thereof. They now sue for their share of the mesne profits derived while the defendants were in possession.2. The Subordinate Judge found that they were entitled to recover the same, but, on taking accounts, it was found that defendants had realized no net profits, their expenses having exceeded their receipts, and plaintiffs' claim was therefore dismissed.3. Plaintiffs appeal on two main grounds. The first is a point of law, that defendants were in the position of trespassers and wrong-doers, and were, therefore, liable to account to plaintiffs for such loss as they sustained by being kept out of possession, and the question was not what amount of profits the defendants had actually rea...
Tag this Judgment!Rajah of Venkatagiri Vs. Narayana Reddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1894
Reported in: (1894)ILR17Mad456
1. In the course of the argument it was agreed that the only document as to which any question of registration arises is Exhibit VI, the kabuliat signed by the plaintiff and given to the defendant.2. The question is whether that document, although not registered, can be admitted in evidence in support of the plaintiffs claim. If the plaintiffs action was founded on an alleged title in virtue of a lease granted by the defendant, and his case were that as lessee he had been unlawfully ejected from the demised land, there can be no doubt that the document VI could not be admitted in evidence. The plaintiff would then be seeking to use it as evidence of a transaction affecting immoveable property. But it is clear that that is not the case made in the plaint. The plaint sets out the agreement for a lease of the village which was to run from fasli 1299 and last for five years: It is stated that certain things were done in pursuance of the agreement, among other things, that the plaintiff was...
Tag this Judgment!Srirangachariar and ors. Vs. Ramasami Ayyangar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1894
Reported in: (1895)ILR18Mad189
1. There can ho no doubt that part of the consideration for the agreement A was the withdrawal of a pending criminal charge of trespass and theft laid against the plaintiffs and others (vide Exhibit B) on the 14th February 1886, that is, two days before the execution of A. The first plaintiff as plaintiff's third witness has sworn that it was so and his evidence stands uncontradicted, not even one of the defendants denying it. It is further proved that the very Magistrate, who would have tried the charge laid if it had been proceeded with, was present taking part in the negotiations that led up to A. There is also no doubt of the law that a consideration that proceeds upon the withdrawal of criminal proceedings that have been instituted is illegal as being opposed to public policy, as it is hold to be the stifling of a prosecution. And oven if this illegal consideration is only part of the consideration, it 'renders the whole agreement void, because there is not good and sufficient con...
Tag this Judgment!Ramasami Kamaya Naik Vs. Sundaralingasami Kamaya Naik
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1894
Reported in: (1894)ILR17Mad422
1. This is a suit to establish the plaintiff's title to the zamindari of Saptur in the Madura district together with its appurtenances, and for the plaintiff's half share of such properties belonging to the late zamindar as are partible. The suit is valued at some five (5) lakhs of rupees, and the following facts are admitted, namely, that the zamindari and its appurtenances are impartible; that the plaintiff is the son of Nagayasami Kamaya Naik, who was the last zamindar but one of Saptur; that the defendant is another son of the same person; that, after),he death of their father in October 1885, his eldest son, also called Nagayasami, succeeded to the zamindari, that this Nagayasami died while a minor under the Court of Wards, unmarried, on the 31st of December 1887, the succession to whom is now the subject in dispute, and that the plaintiff is the eldest surviving son of the previous Nagayasami, being aged 9 years at the time of suit, while the defendant was aged only 7 years at th...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Reference Under Stamp Act, Section 46
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-1894
Reported in: (1894)4MLJ104
1. We are of opinion that the document is an agreement for a lease and that it must be stamped as such under Article 4, Schedule I of Act I of 1879, notwithstanding that another instrument was intended to be executed....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›