Chennai Court September 1902 Judgments
Thomas Souza Vs. Gulam MoidIn Beari, Purchaser from and Representative ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-1902
Reported in: (1903)13MLJ214
1. We are of opinion that the decree of the District Judge is wrong and must be reversed. The suit was brought under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act (Act I of 1877). By the last clause of that section ' no appeal shall lie from any order or decree passed in any suit under this section,' etc. According to the explanation to Section 647 of the Civil Procedure Code, applications for execution of decrees are proceedings in suits. This, the Privy Council says in Thakur Pershad v. Sheik Fakirullah 22 I.A. 44 is a mere statement of what was the law. The application upon which this decree was passed was an appeal against a decree or order in execution of the decree under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act and therefore there was no appeal.2. Again on the merits it appears to us that the decision is wrong. The plaintiff obtained a decree for possession and was entitled to possession as from the date of the decree at least, At that time the crops were standing and the plaintiff was entitl...
Tag this Judgment!innassi Muthu Pillai and Thomas Pillai and anr. Vs. Savuthia Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1902
Reported in: (1903)13MLJ136
1. This suit was not cognizable by a Court of Small Causes as we take it that the ruling of the Full Bench in Savarimuthu v. Aithirusu Rowther I.L.R. 25 M. 103 when read with the order of reference therein applies to all suits for the recovery of mesne profits.2. We set aside the decree and direct the District Judge in whose jurisdiction the case now is, to return the plaint for presentation to the proper Court. The parties will bear their own costs hitherto incurred including the costs of the petitioners....
Tag this Judgment!Chidambara Pillai Vs. Swaminathan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-1902
Reported in: (1903)13MLJ135
1. We are not prepared to say that in this country there is a presumption that a will has been revoked by the testator when it is shown that it was in his possession some time before his death, but is not found at the time of his death.2. If there is any such presumption, it is one of fact and depends on all circumstances of each case. Here both the Courts have found as a fact that there is no evidence of revocation, and we cannot say that that finding is one which, in the circumstances of the case, they were not entitled to arrive at.3. We dismiss the second appeals with costs...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Arumuga Sengundan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-1902
Reported in: (1902)12MLJ391
ORDER1. We have no doubt of our power to transfer this case under both Section 526 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Clause 29 of the Letters Patent. If a case under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not a 'criminal case,' it is difficult to conceive what it is. With all respect we are unable to agree with the decision of the Bombay High Court in In re Pandurang Govind I.L.R. 25 B. 179. Upon the merits we think, upon the fact stated by the Acting District Magistrate, that he ought to have made the transfer. We accordingly direct that the case be transferred from the file of the 1st Class Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Tanjore Division to the file of the District Magistrate or to that of such other 'Magistrate as the District Magistrate may transfer it....
Tag this Judgment!Sri Rajah Venkata Narasimha Appa Row Bahadur Zemindar Vs. Nootulapati ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-1902
Reported in: (1903)13MLJ81
1. We think that the decree of the District Judge is right. The question was whether the plaintiff was entitled to eject the defendants. In the case of two of the plots of land it appears that a relinquishment of the Kudivaram right was given to the Zamindar some 20 years ago by the then occupying royts and that a year or two afterwards that right was granted to the 1st defendant ; and the lands were entered with his other lands in his ordinary Seri puttah. In the case of the other plots of land there was nothing to show that the Kudivaram right had ever vested in the Zamindar. As regards these latter lands it is evident that the principle of Venkatanarasimha Naidu v. Dandamudi Kotayya I.L.R. 20 M. 318 applies, while in the case of the two former plots of land it was for the Zemindar to show that he made the grant under circumstances or on conditions which entitled him to eject the defendants at the end of any year. We think that the entry of the lands in the same puttah as the lands f...
Tag this Judgment!Moidu Haji Vs. Kunhi Moidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-1902
Reported in: (1903)13MLJ314
1. We think that the construction placed upon Exhibit C by the learned District Judge cannot be supported.2. No doubt the parties hoped and it is even not improbable that they may have expected, that the kanom right mortgaged by defendants 6 to 9 to defendants 1 to 3 would not be redeemed during the ten years for which the mortgage was to run; but there was certainly no express covenant for quiet enjoyment for that term nor do we think that such a covenant ought to be inferred. The dates of the kanoms which were mortgaged were stated in the document, and the parties must have known, as every one in Malabar does know, that a kanom is liable to be redeemed after 12 years, and that therefore in this case the kanom over items 3, 4 and 5 was liable to be redeemed at any time. The defendants 1 to 3, we think, took the mortgage knowing of the existence of this risk, though they may have hoped that the kanom would not be redeemed. We find that it was in fact redeemed within two years, of the m...
Tag this Judgment!Rangasamy Naicken Vs. Jellibodi Naicken and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-01-1902
Reported in: (1903)13MLJ131
1. The case is exactly on all fours with that of Venkata Somayazulu v. Kannam Dhora I.L.R. 5 M. 184. The plaintiff clearly could not obtain possession without paying off the second mortgagee who was in possession, and the plaintiff's suit for possession might have been dismissed on that ground as the plaintiff did not offer to redeem. The second mortgagee, however, was willing to pay off the plaintiff's prior mortgagee as he might have done if he had been made a party to the suit brought by the plaintiff on his mortgage. The second mortgagee is clearly not liable to suffer because the plaintiff failed to make him a party to that suit and it makes no difference to the second mortgagee whether the plaintiff's failure was wilful or due merely to ignorance of the existence of the second mortgage.2. As to the amount which the second mortgagee has to pay we agree with the lower courts in holding that it is the amount he would have had to pay if he had been made a party to the plaintiff's sui...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Pachai Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-01-1902
Reported in: (1903)13MLJ67
ORDER1. The Magistrate before whom a prosecution is instituted in pursuance of a sanction given under Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code by a competent Court, cannot question the propriety or legality of the sanction given by the Magistrate in respect of an offence of the kind mentioned in Section 195 which is alleged to have been committed in any proceeding before his court.2. The petition is rejected....
Tag this Judgment!Pakuru Dasu Vs. Bheemudu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-01-1902
Reported in: (1903)13MLJ133
1. Section 22 of the Abkari Act 1 of 1886 imposes a duty on the lessee or assignee, that is, on the defendant, not the plaintiff in this case; but Clause 21 of the plaintiff's license which is issued under Section 24, Clause (e) of the Act, imposes the duty on the plaintiff also as grantee of Government to obtain the Collector's license for his lessee, the defendant.2. Thus there was a legal duty on the part of both the plaintiff and the defendant to obtain the Collector's permission to the sub-letting. They failed to do so, and the contract entered into between them that defendant should sell arrack was illegal, and the plaintiff therefore cannot sue on it.3. We dismiss the second appeal with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Venkatrayudu Vs. Subbamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-01-1902
Reported in: (1903)13MLJ302
1. The finding is that possession passed to the 1st defendant under the oral gift in 1884. In our opinion that possession was adverse to the title of the donor. Both the 1st defendant and the donor believed that the 1st defendant's title to the land was good, and that she held it as owner by virtue of the oral gift. She did not admit that any right any longer existed in the donor. She prescribed for the full ownership as against the donor and every one else from 1884, and her possession was, therefore, adverse whether her title was valid or not. The appellant relies on the cases Rajah Haimun Chull Singh v. Koomer Gunsheam Singh 5 W.R.P.C. 69 and Labrador Company v. The Queen 1893 A.C. 104 but we do not think that the principle of those cases applies in the present case. We dismiss the second appeal with costs....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›