Chennai Court March 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.
Audirazu Veerayya Vs. Audirazu Sangayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.1004
1. The suit is for the recovery of the kamam's office in an inam village in the Kristna District and of certain emoluments attached to that office. The Munsif decreed the claim to the office. The District Judge on appeal has dismissed the suit, holding that the Civil Courts have no jurisdiction. It is to be regretted that he has not pointed out the particular provision of the law under which the jurisdiction is ousted. But we think he has arrived at the right conclusion. We have had the case twice argued before us. On the first occasion it appeared to us that the case fell within Clause (1) of Section 3 of Act III of 1895. But on a closer examination we are satisfied that, that clause does not apply. Madras Act IV of 1864 had no application to inam villages which were not, for purposes of village administration, grouped with ryotwari villages. The Government Notification dated the 25th of July 1878 did not, therefore, extend to the Agraharam we have to deal with. Madras Act IV of 1893 ...
C. Venkatachari Vs. C. Rangaswami Iyengar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.223
1. We are of opinion that the agreement Exhibit III is admissible for the purpose of showing the nature of the defendant's possession and the findings are that the defendant has held the land rent-free since the date of the agreement. On the authority of Kurri Veerareddi v. Kurri Bapireddi 16 M.L.J. 395 it may be that notwithstanding Exhibit III the plaintiff is entitled to eject the defendant, but, in our opinion, he is not entitled to enforce on him the acceptance of a pattah.2. We must set aside the decree of the District Judge and restore that of the Court of first instance with costs here and in the lower appellate Court....
In Re: Munirama Reddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.546a
ORDERMunro, J.1. Under Dis. No. 272 of 1907, whenever a pleader representing a party in any Criminal proceeding does not file in Court a Vakalath from his client, such pleader shall be required to file a memorandum of appearance containing a declaration that he had been duly instructed to appear for or on behalf of the party whom he claims to represent. In the present case it was not necessary for the Magistrate even to ask for this memorandum as the party was present in person along with his Vakil. The conviction and sentence are set aside and the Magistrate directed to give the appellant's Vakil an opportunity of being heard and to dispose of the appeal according to law....
Pandula Subbaya Vs. Pandula Ambamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.155
ORDERMunro, J.1. The petitioner, in his statement, offered to maintain his wife and the Magistrate should have asked the woman whether she was willing to live with the petitioner. If she refused, it was for the Magistrate to consider the grounds of refusal and pass such order as he thought fit. The Magistrate's order is set aside and he is directed to dispose of the case according to law....
Ramaswami Naik Vs. Thiruvenkatam Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.1142
1. We are of opinion that Ex. A is a lease as was held with reference to the instrument in Seeni Chettiar v. Santhanatham Chettiar 20 M.k 58 and not a license as was held with reference to the instrument in Maumikkutti v. Puzhakkal Edom 29 M.k 353.2. The plaintiff was obstructed in the exercise of his lights by the late zamindar, the successor to the zamindar, who granted the lease. The 1st defendant is the representative of the party by whom the plaintiff was obstructed and as such he is liable in damages to the plaintiff to the extent of the assets in his hands.3. The second appeal is dismissed with costs....
Arayalpurath Randupurayil Kunhimayan and anr. Vs. Kautilat Cheekiladen ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.204
1. We think Mr. Rosario has shown sufficient cause why we should excuse the delay in presenting the appeal and we proceed to hear it. Mr. Rosario argues first that Boddain, J., had no power, sitting alone to review the judgment of the Court though he had power to allow the application for review i.e., to direct that the judgment be reviewed. The learned Advocate General agrees with him and so do we, and we must, therefore, allow the appeal and set aside Boddam, J 's order as one made by a Court not competent under the rules to make it.2. The judgment will, therefore, have to be reviewed by a competent Court, that is by a Bench of two Judges and as we form such a Court, and no objection is taken to the adoption of this procedure we proceed to review it.3. Mr. Rosario argues that we cannot in review make an order such as Boddam, J., has made because the plaintiff not having appealed himself or filed it memorandum of objections to his opponent's appeal, against the decree of the Court of ...
Murugappa Asari Vs. Amrithammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.430
1. In Original Suit No. 96 of 1892 the testator's uncle sought to recover from the present plaintiff possession of certain properties mentioned in the schedule in plaint in that suit on the ground that the will, which purported to deal with the testator's properties, including the house in question in the present suit, was invalid. It was not disputed that the house in question, when the suit of 1892 was instituted, was in possession of a mortgagee. A compromise was entered into under which the present 1st defendant was to redeem on the house and the present plaintiff was to get the house.2. The District Judge held that as regards the house the compromise was bad. It seems to us that in so holding he placed an unduly narrow construction on Section 375 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In, our opinion the cause of action in the suit of 1892, being the right to the property on the ground of the invalidity of the will, and it being admitted that if the will was good the property in the hous...
Muthu Kumaraswami Rowthan Minda Nayanar Vs. Kuppusawmi Aiyangar and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.82
1. It is admitted that when the sale took place the order for stay made by this Court had not been communicated to the Subordinate Court.2. We think the order only became effective 'when communicated to the Subordinate Court. On this question we prefer to follow the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Bessesswari Chowdhurani v. Harro Sundar Mozumdar 1 C.W.N. 226 rather than in the later judgment in Hukam Chand Boid v. Kamala-nand Singh 33 C. 927.3. There is authority for the proposition that a sale in violation of an order for stay is an irregularity (wee Freeman on Execution, Articles 32,33), though we are not prepared to say that the view of the Subordinate Judge, that the sale was an irregularity, was wrong. We prefer to rest our judgment on the ground stated.4. The appeal is dismissed with costs (one set)....
Chella Nagi Reddi Vs. Jevipothula Venkata Reddy and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.1143
1. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that the District Judge did not consider the real question in the case, viz., whether the 2nd defendant having made the conveyance as de facto guardian of the minor, the transaction was for the benefit of the minor. This question was not raised in the 1st defendant's written statement or in the issues or in the grounds of appeal to the lower appellate Court. It is raised for the first time in second appeal. Assuming in these circumstances it is open to the appellant to take this point, there is nothing in the findings of the lower appellate Court which would warrant us in holding that the transaction was for the minor's benefit.2. As regards improvements the point is taken in the grounds of appeal to the lower appellate Court,but there is nothing to indicate that any claim for improvements was pressed in the lower appellate Court. The District Judge makes no reference to the question.3. We have looked at the evidence which has been pr...
Gavaranga Sahu Vs. Botokrishna Patro and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.507; 4Ind.Cas.503
ORDERMiller, J.OPINION1. We agree with the view taken in the order of reference and with the reasons upon which it is based. Section 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is in accordance with this view.2. We answer the question which has been referred to us in the negative....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »