Chennai Court January 1908 Judgments
Venkoba Rao Vs. S. Muthu Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-1908
Reported in: (1908)18MLJ88
Munro, J.1. The question for determination is whether the suit is cognizable by a Court of Small Causes. The plaint begins by describing the suit as a suit for the value of paddy wrongfully carried away by the defendant. It then goes on to state that certain land had been hypothecated to the plaintiff in 1896 by one A. Kilakodayan, and afterwards sold by the latter to the defendant; that the plaintiff got a decree on the hypothecation bond, purchased the land in execution and got delivery on the 19th November 1905; that at the time there were crops on the land which had been raised by the defendant; and that the defendant though entitled to only one-sixth of the crops as waram, wrongfully reaped and carried away the whole produce. The suit as brought is, in my opinion, exempted from the cognizance of a Court of Small Causes under Section 31 of the Second Schedule of Act IX of 1887, being a suit for the profits of immovable property, belonging, to the plaintiff which have been wrongfull...
Tag this Judgment!Kunhi Kannan Vs. Mannayatha Suppi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-13-1908
Reported in: (1908)18MLJ132
1. In this suit the plaintiff sues for possession of certain land which he purchased at a Court auction in execution of the Small Cause Court decree 1489 of 1876 which had been obtained against the Karnavan of the Paloli Edan tarwad in respect of a debt binding on the members of the tarwad. To this suit the nth defendant pleaded that subsequently to the decree and prior to the execution proceedings the Paloli Edan tarwad divided itself into two tavezhis, the Thachormal and the Kunnumal, and that the suit land was allotted to, and became the property of, Thachormal Tavezhi to which he belongs, and that the sale in execution of the decree is not binding on the Tachormal Tavezhi as no member of this Tavezhi was made a party to the execution proceedings. Both the lower Courts have upheld this contention on the authority of Sankara v. Kelu I.L.R. (1889) M. 29 and we agree with the conclusion at which they have arrived. The members of a tarwad cannot escape liability for debts or decrees bin...
Tag this Judgment!Mahammade Alias Hummade Beari Vs. the Secretary of State for India in ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1908
Reported in: (1908)18MLJ62
Munro, J.1. In 1895, certain land within the limits of the port of Koombla was granted on darkhast to the plaintiff-appellant by the Divisional Officer, on appeal from the order of the Tahsildar refusing to grant it. Before making the grant the Divisional Officer did not refer the plaintiff's application to the Presidency Port Officer as required by Government Order, dated the 4th July 1890, Mis. No. 4017, Rev., embodied in the Board's Proceedings No. 434, dated the 21st July 1890 - Exhibit II. On this ground the Collector, five years later, cancelled the grant and called upon the plaintiff to execute a muchilika in respect of the land, or vacate the same by a certain date, failing which penal assessment would be imposed. The plaintiff then sued for a declaration that the Collector's order was not binding upon him, and, having failed in both the Courts below, has filed this second appeal.2. The Counsel for the Crown was unable to support the decree except on the ground that the grant b...
Tag this Judgment!Subramania Aiyar Vs. S.A. Subramania Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1908
Reported in: (1908)18MLJ245
1. As regards the question of interest we think the appellants were not entitled to any interest before the filing of the plaint as there was no agreement to pay interest and no demand in writing to bring the case within the provisions of the Interest Act. On this point, we are not prepared to differ from the decision in Kamalammal v. Peeru Meet a Levvai Rowthen I.L.R. (1897) M. 481. As regards the recent case of Saunadanappa v. Shivbasawa I.L.R. (1907) B. 354 which awarded interest on the ground that the parties were Hindus and that it was according to Hindu usage to pay interest in such cases, it has been settled in this Court, ever since the case of Annaji Rau v. Ragubat (1871) 6 M.H.C.R. 400 that Hindu law is not binding in such matters as the payment of interest.2. The appeal must, therefore, be dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Aiyasami Aiyar Vs. the District Board and Two ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-1908
Reported in: (1908)18MLJ91
1. The plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and other land-holders seek for a permanent injunction restraining the District Board of Tanjore from increasing the size of two tunnels or culverts passing under a public road. The road runs from north to south, and for a part of its length on the west side of it, and running parallel with it, there is an irrigation channel called the Pallavan Channel; it is in this part of the road that the two tunnels in question are situated, and water from the Pallavan Channel passes through them under the road and is used for the irrigation of the seed beds of the plaintiffs and other landholders, lying on the east side of the road. These two tunnels having fallen into disrepair the District Board, the authority responsible for the maintenance of the road, decided, in repairing them, to increase their size, the object being to allow a greater volume of water to pass through them and thus to prevent the waters on the west side of the road from rising in th...
Tag this Judgment!Ramkrishna Aiyar and ors. Vs. Krishna Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-1908
Reported in: (1908)18MLJ85
1. This is an appeal from a decree of the District Judge, Trichinopoly. In the plaint the plaintiffs set out that melvaram rights in the suit village have been divided into 40 shares of which they have acquired of shares by purchase, while they are also usufructuary mortgagees of ten shares. They state further that in these circumstances they have had great difficulty in recovering their rents and that they have been led to sue for partition. They pray, therefore, for a declaration that they are entitled to the shares above mentioned and that land proportionate to such shares may be ascertained and set apart for them, and that they may be placed in exclusive possession thereof, that is to say, that melvaram rights in certain specified lands may be allotted to them in respect of their shares. So far, the plaint appears to be in order, whatever practical difficulties there may be in carrying out the partition prayed for. The plaintiffs, however, have joined not only their co-sharers in t...
Tag this Judgment!Srimanth Raja Erlagudda Mallikarjuna Prasada Naidu Bahadur Zemindar Ga ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-1908
Reported in: (1908)18MLJ246
1. With regard to the rent of fasli 1313 these civil revision petitions are not pressed. It is contended that as the tenant executed the muchilika, Exhibit A, for fasli 1308 to 1312 inclusive and the landlord accepted it, it was not necessary for the landlord to tender any puttah as it is to be inferred that both parties agreed to dispense with puttah.2. We do not think any such inference can be drawn in this case. In the first place it was not the landlord's case in the Courts below that there was any agreement to dispense with a puttah; on the contrary, in paragraph 6 of the plaint it was stated that a puttah was prepared in accordance with the muchilika for 5 years and actually tendered to the tenants, but refused by them. In the second, place we are not prepared to hold that the mere acceptance by the landlord of a muchilika executed by the tenant is sufficient proof that puttah has been dispensed with - Varathachari v. Balu Naiken I.L.R. (1881) M. 2 55 and Narayana v. Muni I.L.R. ...
Tag this Judgment!Yella Krishnamma Vs. Kottipalli Mali
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-02-1908
Reported in: (1920)ILR63Mad712
Coutts Trotter, J.1. The short point in this Second Appeal is whether a plaintiff who has not paid the purchase money of a property which has been conveyed to him can maintain a suit for possession without paying for it, or submitting to a decree for payment, or a condition attached to the decree as to the purchase money which he had agreed to pay. No doubt it seems very reasonable that a man who comes to enforce his right against the property should be expected to do what is just and pay the price. But we think that there is no doubt whatever that the law in this country, following the English law, is otherwise. Two benches of this Court, in, Subrahmania Ayyar v. Poovan I.L.R. (1904) Mad. 29 and in Rama Aiyar v. Vanamamalai Aiyar (1915) 27 I.C. 396, have held that in such cases as the present the vendee can be compelled to pay the purchase money in extinction of the lien of the vendor before he gets a decree for possession, That must proceed on two assumptions. The first is, that the ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›