Chennai Court August 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.
Damodara Nadar Vs. Manicka Vachaka Dasika Pandara Sannadhi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.463
1. The suit lands were purchased by the plaintiff at an auction-sale for arrears of revenue on 12th June 1901, The sale was confirmed by the Deputy Collector on 16th August 1901 and on the 10th August 1901 the plaintiff was put in possession under Section 40 of the Revenue Recovery Act by the District Munsif. An application was made to the Collector on 8th May 1902 to set aside the sale, but the Collector, by his order dated 6th September 1902, declined to interfere. A review petition was then presented on 8th October 1902, and the Collector passed an order cancelling the attachment. This order is not happily worded, but we have no doubt that the Collector, by his order, meant that the sale was cancelled. The defendant then applied to the District Munsif for restitution, and the Munsif then put him in possession of the lands. The plaintiff now sues to recover possession of the lands. The point for determination is, whether the Collector, after declining to interfere with the sale, can ...
Sri Sethuramaswamiar and ors. Vs. Sri Meruswamiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1909
Reported in: (1911)ILR34Mad470; (1910)20MLJ108
1. Plaintiff sues for partition and delivery to him of one-third of the properties annexed to the plaint which are claimed to be the properties of the joint family consisting of himself and of the first and second defendants. He also prays for the settlement of a scheme for the management of the charitable and religious endowments mentioned in Part III of the second schedule.2. The defence of the first defendant is that the properties are impartible. His contention is that he and his ancestors were the hereditary gurus of the family of the Maharajas of Tanjore and that these properties appertain to the office of guru as such. He further contends that his ancestor who was brought to Tanjore as his guru by the then Maharaja was also the head of a mutt and that these properties appertain to that mutt.3. The Subordinate Judge has found that the parties formed an ordinary Hindu family and has decreed partition. This is an appeal against that decision,4. Most of the properties specified in P...
Subramania Chetty Vs. Mahalingaswami Sivan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.624
1. We agree with Mr. Justice Pinhey that the 4th defendant in this case is not a defaulter within the meaning of the Revenue Recovery Act, 1864. The word is not defined in that Act, but reading it along with Regulation XXVI of 1802, we think that the term defaulter' applies only to the registered pattadar, Regulation XXVI of 1802, Section 3 provides: Transfers of land made by individual persons, without being so registered in the registers of the Collectors, shall not be valid in the Courts of Adalat; and such transfers of land being unregistered, shall not exempt the persons in whose names the entire estates are registered from paying the revenue due to Government from such lands'. The effect of this section is that unregistered transfers are invalid against Government. Although valid as between private parties, Mangamma v. Timmapaiya 3 M.H.C.R. 134 and so the registered pattadar remains the land-holder within the meaning of the Revenue Recovery Act and the person liable to pay the re...
Pudiya Kovilakath Kuttuni Thamburan and ors. Vs. Kuth Valia Thamburatt ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.480
1. The Subordinate Judge has not disposed of the reference correctly under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act. The compensation has to be apportioned among the persons known or believed to be interested in the land. As the kanom partakes of the character of a lease and a mortgage, the kanomdar has the two-fold interest of lessee and mortgagee and is entitled to compensation in respect of both interests. Where as here a part of the demised premises are acquired under the Act the most convenient course appears to be in the first place to assess the amount of compensation, if any, payable to the kanomdar in his capacity of lessee in respect of partial deprivation of possession he has sustained. In so doing allowance must be made for the fact that he is entitled to a proportionate reduction of rent in respect of this partial deprivation. Deducting the amount payable to the kanomdar as lessee, the balance represents the jenmies interest as lessor. This is mortgaged under the kanom to th...
Sri Sethuramaswamy Iyer and ors. Vs. Sri Meruswami Iyer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.76
1. Plaintiff sues for partition and delivery to him of one-third of the properties annexed to the plaint which are claimed to be the properties of the joint family consisting of himself and of the 1st and 2nd defendants. He also prays for the settlement of a scheme for the management of the charitable and religious endowments mentioned in part III of the 2nd schedule.2. The defence of the first defendant is that the properties are impartible. His contention is that he and his ancestors were the hereditary gurus of the family of the Maharajahs of Tanjore and that these properties appertain to the office of guru as such. He further contends that his ancestor who was brought to Tanjore as his guru by the then Maharajah was also the head of a mutt and that these properties appertain to that mutt.3. The Subordinate Judge has found that the parties formed an ordinary Hindu family and has decreed partition. This is an appeal against the decision.4. Most of the properties specified in parts I ...
T. Lutchimee Doss and anr. Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Cou ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.456
1. The principal question in this appeal is, what is the extent of the plaintiff's right to draw water for irrigation from the Thmanur tank?2. We have no doubt that plaintiff is not the owner of any part of, or share in, the bed of the tank. This question seems hardly to have been in dispute in the Court below, but was argued before us, though Mr. Sundara Aiyar did not consider it necessary for his case to prove his client's ownership.3. There is no doubt that the tank did not belong to the plaintiff's predecessors before the grant of the Cowle (Ex. C) in 1826, and there is nothing in that Cowle or in the Schedule A attached thereto-a schedule which, according to the Cowle, specifies the lands over which the right to collect the revenues is granted-to suggest that the ownership of the tank was thereby conveyed to the inamdar. On the other hand the schedule rather indicates that it was not so conveyed, and there are circumstances which render any such alienation improbable. There is evi...
Saminatha Vellala thevan Vs. Muthusawmi Vellala thevan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1909
Reported in: (1910)20MLJ98
1. We agree with Ramakrishna Bhikaji v. Bhimabhai I.L.R. (1906) C. 1233 and dismiss this appeal with costs....
Kanakasabapathy Chetty Vs. Venkatarama Iyer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.339
1. We agree with the District Judge that the sale was bad because the representatives of the 5th defendant were not brought on record. As the District Judge observes, the 5th defendant and his representatives had the right to redeem the prior mortgage and retained that right until the sale had been held and the execution was complete. We have been referred to Riyyakka v. Fakira 12 M.k 211 and Kunhammed v. Kutti 12 M.k 90.2. The former case is clearly distinguishable for there the order was merely an order for delivery of possession. As to the latter decision, it is really against the appellant, for it distinguishes the case there under consideration from the case of Ramaswami v. Bagirathi Ammal 6 M.k 180 in which no legal representative had been brought in and the sale was, therefore, set aside.3. The appeal is dismissed with costs....
K. Chinnaya Asari Vs. Annayappa Mooniappa Mudali and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.41
1. We nave no doubt that the District Judge has properly construted Section 3 of Act III of 1895, Rajah of Vizianagaram v. Dantivada Chelliah 28 M.k 84, is relied upon but then the fact that the office was that of a village carpenter in a proprietary estate seems to have escaped notice.2. This appeal is dismissed with costs....
N. Subbaraya Iyer and ors. Vs. Vaithinatha Iyer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.931
Miller, J.1. We are bound by the decisions of this Court to hold that the suit is not maintainable unless Meenakshi Ammal is the plaintiff and I cannot accede to the contentions of the Advocate-General that as the suit has been framed she is a plaintiff by implication, or that the statement in the plaint to the effect that the money belongs to the plaintiffs amounts to an assignment to the plaintiffs. I think, therefore, that the suit must be dismissed unless she can now be made a plaintiff. I have no doubt that this can be done under Order I, Rule 10(1) Vide Krishna Bai v. The Collector and Government Agent, Tanjore 9 M.L.T. 447 and the only question is whether if it is done now the suit will not be barred by limitation.2. We cannot bring her on the record now as from the date on which the suit was actually instituted; it is not very clear to me what was the effect of the order in Seshamma v. Chennappa 20 M.k 467, in the matter of dates, but clearly the learned Judges did not intend t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »