Chennai Court November 1909 Judgments
Venkatrama Iyer and anr. Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Counc ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1909
Reported in: (1910)20MLJ74
1. In this case the plaintiffs prayed for a declaration that they are the owners of the tank described in the plaint; and for recovery of its possession, and for damages against the Secretary of State for India because his agent the Collector had leased out the aloe flowers on the banks of the tank and thus invaded their rights. The Courts below have found against the plaintiffs' title, and they appeal. Their claim is founded on two grounds, viz., (1) that as sole Mirasidars of the village they have by immemorial custom an exclusive right to all the Poramboke lands of the village; and (2) that they have been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the tank for over the statutory period adversely to the Government and they have thus acquired a title to it by prescription. We think the title of the plaintiffs by adverse possession is established by the evidence. No doubt their enjoyment of the aloe flowers and of the fishery in the tank for the past 35 or 40 years if it stood alone woul...
Tag this Judgment!Ponaka Subba Rani Reddi Vs. Vadlamudi Seshachulam Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1909
Reported in: (1910)20MLJ328
1. The defendants Nos. 1 to 4 entered into a contract with the plaintiff to sell him certain lands for Rs. 1,400. He brings the suit to enforce specific performance. The Courts below have dismissed the suit. Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 were minors and the contract was entered into on their behalf by the first defendant as their guardian. It is found that the contract was not for purposes binding on the minors and therefore no specific performance could be decreed against their interests in the properties. The contract being one and indivisible the Courts below have dismissed the suit even against defendants Nos. 1 and 4. In second appeal the plaintiff asks for a decree against the shares of the 1st and 4th defendants at least. This, we think, he cannot have. Section 17 of the Specific Relief Act is against him. Sections 14, 15 and 16 of the Act do not enable the contract to be separated as regards the 1st and 4th defendants in this case. The plaintiff relies on the decision in Gurusamy v. ...
Tag this Judgment!MoThe Achayya Garu and ors. Vs. the Municipal Council of Ellore
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.828
1. Reading Section 168(1) of Act IV of 1884 in its grammatical sense, the sub-section applies to any projection which is made in front of a building which is in a public street. We think the words 'in any public street' refer to 'building or land' and not to projection. It is quite clear that in Section 169 of the Act as it stood originally, the words public street had reference to buildings or land and not to verandah, balcony etc. This is equally clear as regards the section,as amended by the Act of 1897.2. We think the pandal in question is a projection in front of a building which is in a public street within the meaning of Section 168(1) of the Act. This being so, it was within the powers of the Municipal Council to cause it to be removed. Sub-section 3 of the section gives a right to compensation to a person who has been injured by the exercise of the powers conferred by the section. We have been asked to hold that the words 'lawfully made' in the sub-section mean, made under the...
Tag this Judgment!Mukkatparkum Kodarakandy Mammad Haji and ors. Vs. Kattikayilpakum Kosh ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.1081
1. We think the District Judge was right in his view that the properties in question were inherited under the Mahomedan Law. Having regard to the additional issues which were framed, the defendants cannot rely on the alleged admission in the plaint that Suppi's children were governed by the Marumukkathayam law of inheritance.2. It must now be taken to be common ground that on Suppi's death his children inherited the property under Mahomedan Law. It was argued, however, that on the death of plaintiff's father, who was one of Suppi's children, the further descent of his share in the property must be according to Marumakkathayam Law because he was also a member of Marumakkathayam Tarwad. This does not, however, follow, for in the absence of any usage; to the contrary, property inherited under Mahomedan Law will pass in further descent under that law. This is in accordance with the decisions in Chathuni v. Sankaran 8 M. k238; Assan v. Pathumma 22 M.k 494 and Kunhimbi Umma v. Kandi Moithin ...
Tag this Judgment!Vencatrama Aiyar and anr. Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Coun ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.118
1. In this case the plaintiffs prayed for a declaration that they are the owners of the tank described in the plaint, and for recovery of its possession, and for damages against the Secretary of State for India because his agent the Collector has leased out the aloe flowers on the banks of the tank and thus invaded their rights. The Courts below have found against the plaintiff's title, and they appeal. Their claim is founded on two ground viz., (1) that as sole mirasidars of the village they have by immemorial custom an execlusive right to all the poramboke lands of the village, and (2) that they, have been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the tank for over the statutory period adversely to the Government and. that they have thus acquired a title to it by prescription. We think that the title of the plaintiffs by adverse possession is established by the evidence. No doubt their enjoyment of the aloe flowers and of the fishery in the tank for the past 35 or 40 years, if it stoo...
Tag this Judgment!Gavara Ramanna Vs. Adabala Rattayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-1909
Reported in: (1910)20MLJ94
1. Except in the cases in which the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts is taken away by Act III 1895 that jurisdiction remains. 2. The section of the Act of 1895 which bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts is Section 21. The present suit does not fall within that section. It is not a claim to succeed to any of the offices mentioned in Section 13. It does not raise a question as to the rate or amount of the emoluments of any such office. If it did, every claim to recover lands would be outside the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts, which is opposed to the words 'but such decision shall not bar the right of the claimant to institute a suit in a Civil Court for recovery of the land itself'--the last sentence in proviso (ii) to Section 13(1) of the Act. A claim to recover lands, in our judgment, does not raise a question as to the rate or amount of the emoluments of the office. Section 21 itself contains an express provision as to any claim to recover the emoluments of the office, which m...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Muthan Papayya, 1st Prisoner
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.391
1. We are unable to support the conviction in this case. It rests wholly on the evidence of the approver Siddugadu and that evidence is entirely uncorroborated by any evidence to show that it was the accused who committed the murder. On this short ground we must hold that the conviction is bad in law and must be set aside.2. The Sessions Judge says that the evidence of the approver is corroborated on several points viz., because (1) the Medical evidence is consistent with it, (2) Siddugadu showed the prosecution witness Inspector the place where the deceased fell and blood was found at the spot, (3) Siddugadu pointed out the spot where the mutton which the deceased was carrying had been left. The evidence does not show at what date Siddugadu pointed out these matters. There is nothing to show that it was before the post mortem was held or before the whole village was aware of the other facts, so that any one might have spoken to them. Then the Sessions Judge says that the Reddi said th...
Tag this Judgment!Gavura Ramanna Vs. Adabala Rattayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.136
1. Except in the cases he which the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts is taken away by Act III of 1895, that jurisdiction remains.2. The section of the Act of 1895 which bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts is Section 21. The present suit does not fall within that section. It is not a claim to succeed to any of the offices mentioned in Section 13. It does not raise a question as to the rate or amount of the emoluments of any such office. If it did, every claim to recover lands would be outside the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts which is opposed to the words 'but such decision shall not bar the right of the claimant to institute a suit in a Civil Court for recovery of the land itself,' the last sentence in proviso 11 to Section 13(1) of the Act. A claim to recover lands, in our judgment, does not raise a question as to the rate or amount of the emoluments of the office. Section 21 itself contains an express provision as to any claim to recover the emoluments of the office which ma...
Tag this Judgment!Sree Rajah Venkata Narasinha Appa Row Bahadur Vs. Sree Rajah Malraju L ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.102
1. This is an appeal under Section 15 of the Letters Patent against the decree of this Court dismissing the appeal from the decree of the lower Court, under Section 575 of the Civil Procedure Code 1882, as the learned Judges differed. The plaintiff sued to recover possession of the village of Repudi which had been purchased by the late zemindarini Papamma Row and Mr. Justice Sankaran Nair agreeing with the District Judge held that the plaintiff was entitled to succeed on the ground that Papamma Row had entered into a contract to bequeath this village to the plaintiff in consideration of the plaintiff and her husband undertaking to live with her for the remainder of her life. Mr. Justice Abdur Rahim on the other hand was of opinion that no such contract was proved. This is also the conclusion at which we have arrived. It is common ground that Papama Row was very fond of the plaintiff, brought her up and got her married, had the plaintiff and her husband to live with her, maintained them...
Tag this Judgment!Gangineni Kondiah Vs. Gottipati Pedda Kondappa Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-1909
Reported in: (1910)20MLJ41
1. The question is whether Article 145 or Article 49 applies to the suit. It is assumed for the purpose of this judgment that there was a deposit by the plaintiff's father with the defendant of a certain jewel. It is found that there was a demand and refusal more than three years before suit. If Article 49 applies the suit is clearly barred. If on the other hand the Article applicable is 145, the suit is in time. The decisions it Administrator General of Bengal v. Kristo Kamini Dassee I.L.R. (1904) C. 519 and Narbadadai v. Bhavani Shankar I.L.R. (1902) B 430 are clear authorities in favour of the applicability of Article 145. It is argued for the respondent that Article 145 has no application to a case where there has been a demand for the return of the deposit and a refusal by the depositary. In such a case it is said the possession of the defendant which was lawful from the commencement of the deposit becomes wrongful on refusal to return, and therefore the suit becomes one ' for oth...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »