Chennai Court October 1909 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.
Kuttah Krishnan and Manager of Tarwad Vs. P.W. Chathu Menon and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.740
1. The plaintiffs claim the right to a channel marked in the plan Exhibit A across the defendant's lands which originally belonged to Government. There was no channel then. There can be, therefore, no claim to an apparent and continuous easement under Section 13 of the Easements Act. The plaintiffs had the channel cut subsequent to the severance of the tenements; and they have not had enjoyment sufficient to enable them to acquire a prescriptive right. If the decision in Morgan v. Kirbey (sic), be opposed to this view, we must, with all respect, hold that it has not been rightly decided. Any how it is not a decision on the language of Section 13 of the Act, which is clear. We may add that Morgan v. Kirb(sic) (1) may have proceeded on the view of t facts that the artificial channel there existed when both properties were in the hands of Government. We must reverse the decree of the lower appellate Court and dismiss the suit with cost throughout. The memo, of objections is dismissed with...
In Re: Krishna Baipadithaya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1909
Reported in: (1910)20MLJ132
1. On the morning of the 22nd March 1908, the house of the accused was burnt down. At 4. p.m. that day Prosecution Witness No. 4 reported to the Potel-Defence Witness No. 9-that Prosecution Witness No. 1 had set fire to the house. The Potel reported this to the Police in Exhibit D and asked them to come and investigate. Prosecution Witness No. 10, the Constable who received the report, went to the scene on the 23rd March, and after questioning the accused, his wife and children, arrested Prosecution Witness No. 1. What the accused said was embodied in the Constable's Case Diary: Exhibit F. It was also made the subject of a separate statement, Exhibit E, which the accused signed. Prosecution Witness No. 1 was tried for arson but was discharged. Proceedings were then taken against the accused, and the charge under Section 211, I.P.C. on which he has been tried and convicted is that with intent to cause injury to P. W. No. 1 he instituted criminal proceedings before the Constable, Prosecu...
Muvvula Seetharam Naidu Vs. Doddi Ramu Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-22-1909
Reported in: (1910)20MLJ91
1. The question is whether a suit for a village officer's inam land, on the expiry of a lease to the defendant granted by the plaintiff, is cognizable by a Civil Court. The Courts below have decided against the plaintiff. The Subordinate Judge relies on the decision in Kasiram Narasimhulu v. Narasimhulu Patnaidu I.L.R. (1906) M. 126. Far from supporting his view, the observations, in that case, of Miller J., at page 131, are in favour of the plaintiff, and the other learned Judges do not dissent from his remarks. Indeed it may be said that the ratio decidendi of that case supports the appellant's arguments. Both the learned Chief Justice and Justice Miller say that Sections 13 and 21 of Act III of 1895 should be read together. Section 13 confers jurisdiction on the Revenue Courts and defines the class of cases of which a Revenue Court may take cognizance. Section 21 specifics the class of suits of which the Civil Court shall not take cognizance. It is reasonable to hold, notwithstandin...
Komarappa Naicken and ors., Vs. Venkatachellam Pillay, the Secretary o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-22-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.312
1. We are clearly of opinion that the suit as brought does not offend against the provisions of Section 28, Civil Procedure Code. To see whether there is misjoinder of parties or causes of action, we must confine ourselves to the four corners of the plaint, and not manufacture a plaint for the plaintiffs. The case laid in the plaint is very simple. The plaintiffs say that the 1st defendant has charged them a certain amount for the use of certain water claiming the water to be his, and that the 2nd defendant also seeks to charge them for the water on a similar claim. What the plaintiffs, therefore, ask for is a decision as to which of the defendants, they are bound to pay for water. If the water is found to belong to the 2nd defendant they ask for a refund of the money collected by the 1st defendant. If the water is found to belong to the 1st defendant they ask that the 2nd defendant may be prohibited from charging them for the use of it.2. The reliefs claimed are clearly in respect of ...
Mavoulu Seetharam Naidu Vs. Doddi Rami Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-22-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.137
1. The question is whether a suit for a village officer's inam land on the expiry of a lease to the defendant granted by the plaintiff is cognizable by a Civil Court. The Courts below have decided against the plaintiff. The Subordinate Judge relies on the decision in Kesaram Narasimhulu v. Narasimhulu Patnaidu (sic). Far from supporting his view, the observations in that case of Miller, J., at page 131, are in favour of the plaintiff, and the other learned Judges do not dissent from his remarks. Indeed it may be said that the ratio decidendi of that case supports the appellant's argument. Both the learned Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Miller say that Sections 13 and 21 of Act III of 1895 should be read together. Section 13 confers jurisdiction on the Revenue Court and defines the class of suits oil which a revenue Court may take cognizance. Section 21 specifies the class of suits of which the Civil Court shall not take cognizance. It is reasonable to hold, notwithstanding the apparent ...
Rajammal Vs. Authiammal Alias Athi Lakshmiammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-1909
Reported in: (1910)20MLJ519
1. The question in this case is whether the instrument, Exhibit A, is a settlement or a will. In form it purports to be an agreement executed by Nilakanta Pillai to his wife and his son's widow. This is a circumstance to be taken into account, although as observed in Rambhat v. Lakshmana Chintaman Mayalay I.L.R. (1881) B. 630 'this, per se, is not much.' It has been registered as a settlement. In Marjoribanks v. Hovenden (1843) Dru. 11, as observed by Jarman, ' the fact of registration as a deed appears to have been deemed almost conclusive against its testamentary character.' [See Jarman on Wills, 5th Edn., Vol. 1, page 22] Without giving the same effect to registration in this country it is at least permissible to hold that that is also a circumstance to be taken into account. Going to the provisions of the instrument, it is to be observed that there is no reservation of a power of revocation. It may be doubted whether the same importance should be attached here to the absence of a p...
In Re: Muthu Gownden
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.36a
ORDER1. The counter-petitioner was on the 17th December, 1907, ordered to enter into a bond with sureties to be of good behaviour for one year. The counter-petitioner failed to find sureties, but instead of being committed to prison as provided by Section 123 of the Criminal Procedure Code, he was apparently given time to find sureties. Finally on the 24th February 1909 as he failed to find sureties he was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 11 months and 28 days, he having already, in June 1908 undergone two days' imprisonment. Section 123 of the Criminal Procedure Code lays down that if a person ordered to give security does not give such security on or before the date--in this case the 17th December, 1907, as it does not appear that the Magistrate fixed, any later date (vide Section 120 of the Criminal Procedure Code)--on which the period for which such security is to be given commences, he shall be committed to prison until such period expires or until within such period h...
Gadulula Venkatamma and ors. Vs. Yadiki Honkaram
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.97
1. The District Judge was, we think, wrong in holding that the suit was barred under Section 13 of the Civil Procedure Coda (XIV of 1882), as the Court in which the first suit was brought was not competent to try the present suit. We think he was also wrong in holding that it was barred by Section 43. Reading the plaint in this earlier suit it does not appear to us to allege dispossession of the plaintiff by the defendant, but a certain degree of interference with the plaintiff's possession. The present plaint alleges that the defendant occupied the well, and in effect the plaintiff had been dispossessed. The two causes of action, therefore, were not the same and the bar under Section 43 does not arise. We set aside the decree and remand the suit for disposal according to law....
Rajammal Vs. Authiammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-1909
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.357
1. The question in this case is whether the instrument, Exhibit A, is a settlement or a will. In form it purports to be an agreement executed by Nilakanta Pillai to his wife and his son's widow. This is a circumstance to be taken into account, although as observed in Rambhat v. Lakshmana Chintaman Mayalay 5 B. j 630 'this, per se, is not much.' It has been registered as a settlement. In Marjoribanks v. Hovenden (1843) 11 Ir. Eq. R. 238 as observed by Jarman, the fact of registration as a deed appears to have been deemed almost conclusive against its testamentary character. [See Jarman on Wills, 5th Edn., Vo. 1, page 22]. Without giving the same effect to registration in this country, it is at least permissible to hold that that is also a circumstance to be taken into account. Going to the provisions of the instrument, it is to be observed that there is no reservation of a power of revocation. It may be doubted whether the same importance should be attached here to the absence of a powe...
Muthayya Pillai Vs. Velusami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.511
1. The suit was on a promissory-note alleged to have been executed by the defendant. The defendant denied execution and contended that on the date of the note he was not at Sholavandan where the note is said to have been executed. The plaintiff and two attesting witnesses swore to the execution of the note by the defendant and to the passing of consideration, and nothing was brought out in cross-examination sufficient to throw suspicion upon their evidence. It is said that one of the attesting witnesses did not appear when summoned to appear in the District Court. The witnesses have already been cross-examined and discharged in the Sub-Court and nothing advers to the truth of his testimony can be inferred merely because he failed to attend for fresh cross-examination. There may have been quite innocent reasons for his non-appearance and if his attendance was thought very necessary a warrant could have been issued ; nor do we think that the fact that one of the attesting witnesses on on...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »