Chennai Court December 1908 Judgments
The Secretary of State for India in Council Represented by the Collect ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-03-1908
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.76
1. In this case certain tankbed lands were granted on Darkhast to the plaintiff's father in 1894 and pattah was issued. This grant is in contravention of the Board's Standing Order No. 15 which lays down that tankbed lands are to be dealt with under, the Board's Standing Order No. 16. Under the latter order tankbed lands are to be divided into plots and sold by auction. In 1904 the Collector cancelled the pattah on the ground that the plaintiff 's father had obtained the land by fraud. The plaintiff then brought the present suit to have his pattah confirmed. The defendant, the Secretary of State for India, in his written statement alleged that the assignment of the land on pattah was in contravention of the Board's Standing Order No. 15, that the plaintiffs father obtained his pattah by fraud and collusion with the village officers, and that as the assignment of the land had been obtained by fraud and misrepresentation it was illegal and not binding upon the defendant. It seems clear t...
Tag this Judgment!Subramania Pillai and ors. Vs. Sannasia Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-03-1908
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.310
ORDER1. In this case the Magistrate gave notice to the Petitioners under Section 147 of the Criminal Procedure Code. When the case came on for hearing objection was taken that the case did not fall under Section 147 of the Criminal Procedure Code. To this it was answered that the case even if it did not fall under Section 147 of the Criminal Procedure Code did fall under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code. The Magistrate passed the following order:It seems to me that the Court has jurisdiction to try the case and evidence of possession has to be gone into.' We cannot gather from the order that the Magistrate actually decided that the case fell under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code and gave notice to the parties that he intended to deal with it tinder that section. He, however, eventually passed an order purporting to be under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Strictly speaking the Magistrate acted without jurisdiction in passing an order under Section 145 of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Rungachariar and ors. Vs. Rungasami Battachar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-1908
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.881
1. It will be well to consider first the memorandum of objections argued by the Advocate-General on behalf of the trustees. It is therein contended that the whole suit ought to have been dismissed on the ground that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to determine the questions raised in it.2. The plaint, however, showed a cause of action. It alleged that the defendants 'wrongfully obstructed the plaintiffs from their performing, as usual, the services that should be done by them and from receiving the emoluments and honours.' It is true that the trustees, for whom the Advocate-General appears, did, in a qualified way, admit in their written statement that most of the offices claimed by the plaintiffs were vested in them, but the archakas, the fifth and sixth defendants, denied this altogether and thus questions arose which required determination by the Civil Court in a proceeding to which the trustees were proper parties. It is clear that the suit was at any rate in part triable by th...
Tag this Judgment!Molamal Illoth Krishnan Nambudri and ors. Vs. the Secretary of State f ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-1908
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.30
1. This is a suit by the Secretary of State to recover from the defendants Nos. 1 to 4 certain lands which were the jenm of Government and which were granted to the predecessors of the 5th defendant by a cowle in 1853, and which, according to para. 3 of the plaint, at the date of filing the plaint were held under this cowle. The plaint goes on to allege that the 5th defendant was the tenant in possession and that he had been dispossessed by defendants Nos. 1 to 4 under a decree, that the plaintiff resisted delivery which, was nevertheless ordered (under Section 330, C.P.C.) in consequence of which the suit was filed. In para. 4 of their written statement defendants Nos. 1 and 2 say that 'the plaintiff who admits that he had no actual possession of the plaint property had no light to resist execution,' and that the cause of action shown in the plaint is not a lawful one. In para. 5 they also plead that the lands according to the plaint being held under the cowle and the jenm bogam and r...
Tag this Judgment!Madhava Gowdu Alias Dama Gowdu Vs. Sisinti Lokanatha Patro and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-1908
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.314
1. The District Judge appears to hold that even if the defendants and their predecessor-in-title had been in adverse possession of the suit lands for 12 years but for less than 60 years before the plaintiff obtained puttah the plaintiff's suit would not be barred. In so holding the District Judge is clearly wrong. The plaintiff's suit not being a suit by or on behalf of the Secretary of State, article 149 of the second schedule of the Limitation Act does not apply-Vide Kuthaa-perumal Rajali v. The Secretary of State for India 30 M.k 245 and the cases therein cited. The suit must fall under either article 142 or 144. If the former article applies the plaintiff must prove that he or the Government through whom he claims was in possession within 12 years before suit. If article 144 applies then the suit will be barred unless brought within 12 years, from the date when the possession of the defendants' predecessor in title or of the defendants became adverse, if it really did become advers...
Tag this Judgment!Rengammal Vs. Krishnamachari and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-1908
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.618a
ORDER1. The Magistrate is required by Section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code to record reasons before referring a case under that section for enquiry by the police.2. We do not think, however, having considered the statement of the Magistrate sent up under Section 441 and the documents brought to oar notice that this is a case in which the complainant has suffered in any way owing to this omission.3. Section 203 of the Criminal Procedure Code also requires the Magistrate to record reasons for dismissing a complaint and this has not been done. This is an irregularity but the statement under Section 441, Criminal Procedure Code, supplies the omission and having considered, that statement we are not prepared to interfere with the order made.4. We dismiss the petition....
Tag this Judgment!Srinivasa Reddi Vs. Sivarama Reddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-1908
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.506
1. The suit was for specific performance of a contract for the sale of land. The plaint alleges that the first defendant, as the managing member of a family consisting of himself and his son, the second defendant, entered into a contract to sell the land to the plaintiff and agreed to obtain the consent of his son to the sale and to induce him to join in the execution of the deed of conveyance. Accordingly he placed the plaintiff in possession of the land. The plaint also alleges sub-sequent ratification by the second defendant.2. It is found that the second defendant had not authorized the first defendant to enter into the contract and that he has not ratified it. The suit against him was rightly dismissed.3. The lower Courts have, however, passed a decree directing the first defendant to sell his share, i.e., half the land on payment to him of half the purchase money. The first defendant appeals against this decree.4. Under Section 17 of the Specific Relief Act, the Court shall not d...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Raja Bommadevara Venkata Narasimha Naidu Bahadur Zamindar Garu Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-1908
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.1132
1. The Court of first instance has not kept in view the distinction between a road and a public road, the latter of which alone is vested in the District Board. We have not been referred to any evidence, nor do the lower Courts refer to any, to support the finding that the Donka in question is a public road. We think it desirable to make the District Board a party to the suit for the final determination of that question. We accordingly set aside the decrees of the Courts below, direct the Munsif to make the District Board a party to the suit and proceed to decide the case according to law.2. We may point out that the Munsif seems to have assumed that the property being poramboke vests in the zemindar. It is not all kinds of property that is poramboke, which is so vested. Under Regulation 25 of 1802 he would not be entitled to any lakhiraj property.3. The Courts below, therefore, must decide without assuming whether the Donka belongs to the plaintiff. Costs will abide the result....
Tag this Judgment!Subbaraya Chetti and anr. Vs. Rathnavelu Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-1908
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.313
1. The property in suit is a house let on an agreement under which the tenant undertook to vacate the premises on a month's notice. The notice was duly given but the tenant did not surrender; the landlord sued for possession and obtained a decree; he now SUCK for arrears of rent due under the lease.2. The question for decision is whether the suit is barred by Section 43 of the Civil Procedure Code, whether, that is, the claim for rent is a part of the claim which the plaintiff was entitled to make in respect of the cause of action in which he founded his suit for possession,3. Let it be granted for the purposes of this judgment that the appellants are right in contending that the claim for rent and the claim for possession are both claims arising out of, or founded on obligations created by the agreement, that is to say, that the learned Judge was in error in holding that the foundation of the earlier action was tort and of the latter contract. That does not conclude the question for i...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›