Chennai Court August 1904 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.
Venkatasami Pillai Vs. Kuppayee Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1904
Reported in: (1904)14MLJ377
1. In this case the plaintiff sued as manager of a temple and he-is so described in the decree which he obtained. On payment being made to him in pursuance of the decree he handed over the procet ds to the temple committee. On appeal, the plaintiff's decree was reversed, an order for restitution was made and on the failure of the plaintiff to make restitution, an application was made for execution of the order by his arrest.2. The decree was obtained by the plaintiff in his representative capacity as trustee and the order was made against him in his representative capacity. Trust property cannot be taken in execution, where the decree is against a person who is a trustee if the debt in respect of which the decree is obtained is a personal debt. Conversely the private property of an individual cannot be taken in execution of a decree against that individual in his capacity as a trustee, excepting, of course, in a case, where the liability arises fiom a breach, of trust on the part of th...
Sankaravadivelu Pillai and anr. Vs. the Secretary of State for India i ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-1904
Reported in: (1905)15MLJ32
Charles Arnold White, Kt. C.J.1. In this suit the plaintiffs ask for a mandatory injunction directing the defendant (the Secretary of State) to block up a calingula or ' byewash' in a certain channel known as the Korkai channel. The District Munsif dismissed the suit and the District Judge affirmed the Munsif's decree.2. The calingula was constructed by Government in 1882. It was put up for the propose of reducing the flow of water into the Korkai tank through the Korkai channel. The necessary effect of the calingula would have been to cause the water diverted from the channel to flood the plaintiffs' lands. To' obviate this, certain land was acquired by Government in 1882 and a small drainage channel formed to carry off the surplus water. The plain tiffs say that the drainage channel is not sufficient to carry off the water and that the water which flows over the calingula stagnates in their lands and makes them unfit for cultivation. There is no finding whether the water which flows ...
Annamalai Chettiar and anr. Vs. Pitchu Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-1904
Reported in: (1905)15MLJ28
1. The plaintiff's case is that they are assignees of a mortgage executed by the 1st defendant to one Rajagopala Aiyar The District Judge finds that the mortgage was a sham. There is evidence to support this finding, and we cannot go behind it in second appeal.2. On behalf of the plaintiffs it has been contended that even if the mortgage was a sham as between the mortgagor and the mortgagee the plaintiffs took as bona-fide assignees without notice. This is a new case It was not raised in the issues and was not taken in the lower appellate court. The appellants are not entitled to set up this new case on second appeal.3. The appellants have taken a further point that inasmuch as the 5th defendant the subsequent mortgagee alone appealed, the lower appellate court had no power to set aside the decree for the benefit of the defendants who did not appeal. The ground of defence, common to all the defendants, was that the mortgage was a sham, and the decree of the Subordinate Judge proceeded ...
Sandu Sakul Mithu Tharaganar and anr. Vs. HussaIn Sahib and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-1904
Reported in: (1904)14MLJ474
Charles Arnole White, C.J.1. In this case the decree holder in a suit purchased certain lands at Court auction. An application made by him under Section 318 of the Code of Civil Pro-cedure for delivery of possession was dismissed. After his death further applications were made by his heirs. These applications wore also dismissed. The heirs sold the lands to the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs now sue the judgment-debtors for recovery of possession. The point is--is the suit barred by Section 244, Civil Procedure Code? This involves two questions: (1) Is the right of the plain-tiffs to recover possession of the lands, a question relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree? (2) If it is, does the question arise between the parties to the suit in which the decree was passed, or their representatives?2. As regards the first question, if the matter were res-integra, I should be disposed to hold that the question is not one' relating to the execution, discharge or satisf...
In Re: Kosa Kumaran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-1904
Reported in: 30Ind.Cas.450
ORDER1. We think that no person should be bound over to be of good behaviour under both Sections 109 and 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The sections contemplate different classes of cases and if a man is amenable under Section 109 he can hardly be amenable under Section 110, and vice versa. In this case evidence shows the prisoner was properly bound over under Section 110, and we see no evidence to justify his being bound over under Section 109. We, therefore, cancel the order binding him over under the section and leave the order to stand as one made under Section 110....
Bankala Vittil Usman Koya and anr. Vs. Chidriamokkausa Akoth and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1904
Reported in: (1905)15MLJ368
1. The 1st plaintiff granted to the 1st defendant a lease of certain land for 6 years. On the expiration of the six years the plaintiff sued the defendants for recovery of possession of the land, rent and mesne profits. 2. The 1st defendant set up the defence that the land was not the property of the 1st plaintiff but the property of Government and that in 1893 he had accepted a putta from Government comprising the land in question. The Lower Courts were of opinion that on the facts, the 1st defendant had established a good defence to the plaintiff's suit. The ordinary rule of course is that a tenant is estopped from denying the title of the landlord who let him into possession.3. Mr. Rosario on behalf of the 1st defendant did not attempt to support the judgment of the Lower Appellate Court on the ground taken by the District Judge. But his argument was that admitting the 1st plaintiff's title to the property in 1891 that title was determined in 1893.4. The 1st defendant entered into p...
Munisami Naidu Vs. Ammani Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1904
Reported in: (1905)15MLJ7
1. The respondent as guardians of her minor grandsons borrowed money from the appellant, who brought a suit, impleading her in it and got a decree. In execution thereof he sought to proceed against her, and in the application for execution the reliefs prayed for were expressed thus:-'It is prayed that the amount mentioned in column 8 with subsequent interest and costs may be recovered by the attachment and sale of the first defendant's maintenance right in the immoveable property described in list B, attached hereto, and the instrument of lease (apparently the rent due under the instrument) executed to the said first defendant by one Anukapalli Goundan in respect of the said lands.' On objection being raised by the respondent the District Munsif, on the 20th August 1901, made on her petition the following order, viz:--' The decree states that respondents are liable for the sum claimed. They cannot now say that they are not personally liable' and on the execution petition wrote the word...
Subba Reddi and anr. Vs. Kotamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-1904
Reported in: (1904)14MLJ442
1. We must take it that the finding of both the Courts below was that the plaintiffs were bound by the arrangement made by the then guardian, as it was in compromise of a doubtful right. There is no reason for importing any malafides to the guardian, who evidently acted in the best interests of the minors by getting for them 4 acres out of the estate which had been in the possession of the 1st defendant for over 12 years. It is contended that now it is found the plaintiffs were in fact entitled to the whole property the 7 acres of which the 1 st defendant continued in possession must in the absence of a registered instrument conveying the land to her be delivered to the plaintiffs. This assumes that the plaintiff's ownership was never in doubt. When a state of facts is accepted as the basis of a compromise, parties cannot be afterwards allowed to say the real state of things was otherwise. Having found in favour of the compromise, it was unnecessary to decide in this case as to the own...
Chendrasekhara Dalai and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1904
Reported in: (1904)14MLJ491
ORDER1. The order of the Head Assistant Magistrate shows beyond doubt that, at the time referred to therein, the village was in the possession of the first; accused as the grantee thereof from the Zemindars and that the ryots of the village had previously attorned to and been paying rents to him having executed muchi-likas in his favour. In these circumstances when the agent of the Zemindar, attended by a body of men stated to be about twenty, came to the village for the express purpose of ousting him by inducing the tenants to break their engagements with him and to make them go over to the Zemindars and execute muchilikas and pay rents to them thereafter those agents were clearly acting ille-gally. The first defendant was certainly entitled to object to such trespasses being committed by them and to protest against their improper proceedings so long as in doing so he committed nothing unlawful. Admittedly the first accused himself was not at the scene with reference to which the orde...
Kesava Pillay Vs. Kannusamy Pillay and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1904
Reported in: (1905)15MLJ30
1. In our opinion item No 6 of the schedule with reference to which registration of the whole document has been refused, purports only to transfer the right of management of the temple therein mentioned and the reference to the endowments of the temple is incidental to the right purporting to be transferred We are not concerned with the question of the validity of this part of the transaction. The question is whether it is a transfer 'relating to immoveable property' and if so, whether the description is 'sufficient to identify the property'. There can be no doubt that the right of a manager of a Hindu temple, even though such management involves the holding of improvable property forming part of the endowments of the temple, is not immoveable property within the meaning of the Registration Act. The incident of reference in the instrument, to the endowments stated above, cannot alter the character of the transfer. In this view no question as to the sufficiency of the description arises...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »