Chennai Court October 1901 Judgments
Sir Ramasami Mudaliar Vs. Annadorai Ayyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-1901
Reported in: (1902)ILR25Mad454
1. Under Section 316 of the Civil Procedure Code the title to the land in the occupancy of the former tenant vested in the purchaser at the Court sale on the date on which the sale was confirmed, that is, on the 31st March 1900. From that date he became the tenant of the landlord and bound to pay rent according to the customary instalments (Section 55, (5) (i) of the Transfer of Property Act). Two of those instalments for the then current fasli had previously fallen due and it is clear that for neither of these instalments was the defendant liable. Two instalments fell due after that date, viz., on the 1st April and on the 1st May, and for those instalments the defendant was liable and was therefore a tenant within the definition of that word in the Rent Recovery Act. Be was therefore bound to accept a patta for that fasli. The patta tendered to him made him liable for all four instalments. This he was not bound to accept. The patta, in order to be a proper one, should have limited his...
Tag this Judgment!Venkata Rao Vs. Vaithilinga Udayan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1901
Reported in: (1902)12MLJ22
1. In our judgment the proviso which appears as the last proviso but one to Section 11 of the Rent Recovery Act, has no application to the present case. The question in the present case, as the case of Thangammal v. Mutta in I.L.R. 10 M. 282 is whether the landlord has a right to charge water rate when a wet crop is cultivated on dry land by means of water taken from the landlord's land. We think the payment referred to in the patta in respect of the cultivation of wet crop with the landlord's water is rent and was properly included in the patta, and we agree with the observation of the judges in Sattappa Pillai v. Raman Ghetti I.L.R. 17 M. 1 that it is not improper to include in a patta the terms by which it is intended the parties shall be bound with reference to a possible contingency which may arise. We think the Deputy Collector was wrong in dismissing the suit. The proper course for him to have adopted would have been to decide in the mode prescribed in Section 11 of the Rent Rec...
Tag this Judgment!Venkata Papayya Rao Vs. Venkata Subbayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1901
Reported in: (1902)ILR25Mad453
1. We are prepared to follow the decision of this Court in Narasimhaswami v. Lakshmamma I.L.R. 22 Mad. 436 and we think no valid distinction can be drawn between a case where an order for ejectment is made on an application under Section 10 of the Rent Recovery Act, and a case where the Collector dismisses an application for ejectment made under that section. In substance, the order of the Head Assistant Collector in the present case amounts to an adjudication that the plaintiff failed to prove default on the part of the defendant. This, in our opinion, is a 'judgment' within the meaning of Section 69 of the Act.2. The decree of the District Judge must be set aside and the case remanded to him to be dealt with according to law.3. Costs of the appeal will abide the result....
Tag this Judgment!Kelappan Vs. Madhavi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1901
Reported in: (1902)ILR25Mad452
1. Two grounds are urged before us in support of the second appeal.2. The first is that the memorandum of Second Appeal No. 675 of 1884 preferred by one of the three defendants was confined to that portion alone of the property comprised in the suit in which the defendant was interested, and that therefore the reversal of the lower Appellate Court's decree and the restoration of the decree of the Court of First instance by the High Court should be construed as limited only to such portion. This point was not taken in the lower Courts and we cannot allow it to be now set up, as it involves a question which cannot be determined without admitting additional evidence.3. The second point urged is that the plaintiffs suit is barred by limitation, under Article 139 of the Limitation Act, as it was not brought within twelve years from 1885 when it is contended that the kuikanom lease granted in 1873 determined by efflux of the time limited by the lease. There is no time fixed in the lease, and...
Tag this Judgment!King-emperor Vs. Balu Kuppayyan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1901
Reported in: (1902)ILR25Mad525
1. The documents in question are, as we understand the case, in the legal custody of the Collector, having been sent to him under Section 38(2) of the Stamp Act. The Collector will have to return them to the Deputy Magistrate under Section 40(3) of the same Act. When they have been so returned, the Deputy Magistrate may dispose of them under Section 517, Criminal Procedure Code, and we have no doubt that he will do so without any unnecessary delay.2. We have no authority to order the return of the documents to the party at this stage unless the action of the Deputy Magistrate in impounding them under Section 33(2)(a) of the Stamp Act was illegal. It is argued that the action of the Deputy Magistrate was illegal, because the documents did not come before him in the performance of his functions within the meaning of Section 33(1), but we are unable to accept this contention. The word 'comes' is sufficiently wide to include the production of documents under a search-warrant issued by the ...
Tag this Judgment!Ethirajulu Vs. Sreeramulu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1901
Reported in: (1902)12MLJ11
1. As regards the sum of Rs. 72-8-10, it appears that the contract between the parties was entered into in Kottapa-tam. The District Munsif of Ongole consequently had jurisdiction. As regards the sum of Rs. 780, we are of opinion that the District Munsif had no jurisdiction. The jewels regarding which this claim has arisen were either wrongfully retained or concerted in Madras, and the suit regarding them consequently could not be filed in Ongole. The decree of the lower Courts will be modified accordingly. The plaintiff (respondent) and defendant (appellant) will pay and receive costs in proportion to the extent to which they have failed or succeeded.2. The memorandum of objections not having been moved, it is rejected....
Tag this Judgment!Ramasami Chetti and anr. Vs. Paraman Chetti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1901
Reported in: (1901)11MLJ403
1. The plaintiff brought this suit to recover possession of the plaint lands with mesne profits from defendants alleging that he had purchased the lands from the former owners and had been unlawfully ousted from them by the defendants.2. The defendants denied that plaintiff had any title to the land or any possession. They denied the alleged trespass and alleged that they had themselves been in possession for many years and had a title to the lands.3. Issues were framed on these allegations and were all found in plaintiff's favour by the District Munsif who accordingly gave plaintiff a decree for possession and for past and future mesne profits.4. On appeal the District Judge found that plaintiff had failed to prove a valid purchase from the former owners, but had shown that he had been dispossessed otherwise than by due course of law by the defendants, within six months prior to the institution of the suit. He therefore confirmed the decree of the District Munsif so far as it restored...
Tag this Judgment!Ramasami Chetti and ors. Vs. Paraman Chetti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1901
Reported in: (1902)ILR25Mad448
1. The plaintiff brought this suit to recover possession of the plaint lands with mesne profits from defendants alleging that he had purchased the lands from the former owners and had been unlawfully ousted from them by the defendants.2. The defendants denied that plaintiff had any title to the land or any possession. They denied the alleged trespass and alleged that they had themselves been in possession for many years and had a title to the lands.3. Issues were framed on these allegations and were all found in plaintiff's favour by the District Munsif who accordingly gave plaintiff a decree for possession and for past and future mesne profits. On appeal, the District Judge found that plaintiff had failed to prove a valid purchase from the former owners, but had shown that he had been dispossessed otherwise than by due course of law by the defendants within six months prior to the institution of the suit. He therefore confirmed the decree of the District Munsif so far as it restored p...
Tag this Judgment!Ramalinga Muppan and ors. Vs. Payadai Gounden
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1901
Reported in: (1901)11MLJ399
Bhashyam Aiyangar, J.1. The question and the only question which arises in this second appeal is whether, under the Mitakshara Law a divided brother of a Sudra A, who died without leaving legitimate mate issue is entitled to succeed to A's estate in preference to A's grandson, the legitimate son of A's predeceased illegitimate son. Neither side relies upon any usage or custom having the force of law and the question has 'td be decided as an abstract question of Hindu Law. There is no direct authority, either in the Hindu Law texts or in judicial decisions, applicable to the case. The question, therefore, has to be answered with reference to established principles and the analogies which have heretofore prevailed in like cases.2. The author of the Mitakshara defines the rights of an illegitimate son in Ch. I, Section 12. He lays down that a son begotten by a Sudra on a female slave can be given a share by the father's choice; but that after the death of the father leaving legitimate mal...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Ponnusami and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1901
Reported in: (1906)ILR29Mad517
ORDER1. The District Magistrate has overlooked the change that has been made in the definition of an 'offence' since the ruling of the High Court to which he refers was made. By Section 4(o) of the Criminal Procedure Code as now revised the word 'offence' includes an act in respect of which a complaint may be made under Section 20 of the Cattle Trespass Act. It follows that a person against whom an order under Section 22 of the Cattle Trespass Act is made is a 'person convicted on a trial.' In the present case the accused were 'convicted on a trial' by a Magistrate of the third class.2. An appeal against that conviction therefore lay under Section 407, Criminal Procedure Code, and there is no ground for our interference.3. We may add that the Deputy Magistrate was wrong in supposing that he was acting, or had any jurisdiction, under Section 250, Criminal Procedure Code. That section applies to a case in which compensation is awarded to an accused person, because a frivolous complaint h...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »