Chennai Court August 1908 Judgments
In Re: Pachappa Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1908
Reported in: (1908)18MLJ455
ORDERMunro, J.1. The peon is not an Abkari officer within the meaning of Section 62 of the Abkari Act (I of 1886). The conviction is set aside and the fine, if paid, will be refunded....
Tag this Judgment!Rajai Thimmanayanim Bahadur Varu Vs. P. Rama Rayanim Garu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1908
Reported in: (1908)18MLJ567
1. We cannot interfere with the decision of the lower Court as to the rate of rent payable by the defendant.2. On the other question raised, the Judge's decision is opposed to the recent decision of this Court in Bodda Goddeppa v. Maharajah of Vizianagaram I.L.R. (1906) M. 155 in which it was held that the landlord is entitled to restrain the tenant from cutting down fruit-bearing trees. The contention of the plaintiff that the tenant is not entitled to cut down other trees also on his holding cannot be accepted. The puttah must be amended; and the decree of the lower appellate Court will be modified accordingly. No costs will be allowed....
Tag this Judgment!Bandalapalli Pedda Bangappah and ors. Vs. Moka Subbarayadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-1908
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.1128a
ORDERMiller, J.1. I think I ought not to interfere with the orders passed by the District Magistrate and the second class Magistrate in this case. 2. The Magistrates had, in my opinion, jurisdiction to make the orders in case of need and the case of Kamal Narain Addikari v. Raja Jotindra Mohun Roy 8 C.W.N. 376 relied on by Mr. Osborne is not when examined an authority against this jurisdiction. Whether the order made was or was not the best that could have been made is not a question which I have to consider.3. I dismiss the petitions....
Tag this Judgment!Muniappan Chetti Vs. Balayan Chetti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-1908
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.1167
1. The appellant, the 6th defendant, filed a written statement, but failed to appear at any adjourned hearing, and a decree was passed against him in his absence. He has now applied under Section 108, Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the decree passed ex parte against him. Following the decisions in Ramanuja Reddiar v. Rangaswami Ayangar 18 M.L.J. 51; 3 M.L.T. 225; Jonardhan Dhobey v. Ramdhone Singh 23 C. 738 ; Hildreth v. Sayaji Piraji Contractor 20 B. 380 and Shankar Dat Dube v. Radha Krishna 20 A. 195 which were apparently not cited before the learned Judge, we hold that the appellant is entitled to make this application. The lower Courts have not decided whether the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing when the suits was heard. It is also alleged that the application is barred by limitation. We, therefore, set aside the orders passed by the learned Judge and the Courts below and direct the District Munsif to restore the application to his file and dispose of...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›