Chennai Court January 1910 Judgments
In Re: J. Oliveira
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.834a
ORDERArnold White, C.J.1. The Public Prosecutor says he is unable to support these convictions. I entirely agree.2. Exhibit I was signed by the complainant. It is not found he was not aware of the contents when he signed it.3. Under Exhibit I the complainant was a licensee and he agreed that if he failed to pull down the hut after three days' notice, Messrs. A spin wall might pull it down. The Sessions Judge finds the notice was duly served. After service of the notice and non-compliance herewith, Messrs. A spin wall were entitled under the express terms of Exhibit I, to pull down the hut. I am unable to take the view of the Sessions Judge that the complainant was a tenant entitled to the benefit of Act I of 1900. He was a licensee and does not come within the definition of tenant in Section 3 of the Act.4. The convictions must be set aside and the fines, if paid, refunded....
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Aligiriswami Naicken
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.831
1. During the preliminary-enquiry into a certain dacoity case R.C. No. 19 of 1908 on the file of the Periakulam Sub-Magistrate, the present accused was tendered a pardon by the District Magistrate under the provisions of Section 337, Criminal Procedure Code, and accepted the tender and was examined as a witness on the 4th and 5th December 1908 and then made what may be taken to be a full and true disclosure of what was known to him in connection with the dacoity as required by that section.2. A few days afterwards the present accused was examined as a witness in the Dindigul Sub-Divisional Magistrate's Court in another case connected with the same transaction and made a statement which was totally contradictory of the evidence given by him in R. C. No. 19 of 1908. In consequence of this the Sub-Magistrate who was holding the enquiry in R.C. No. 19 of 1908 re-called the present accused and further examined him on the 4th January 1909 and the accused then adhered to the statement made by...
Tag this Judgment!Anantarama Madyastha Vs. Mandarthi Shrinivasa Adiga and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.267
1. As regards the sum of Rs. 154-8-0 it is found by the District Judge that the amount has not been paid and that the suit is in time as the 2nd plaintiff attained majority within three years before suit. The case of Ahinsa Bibi v. Abdul Kader Saheb 25 M. 26 does not support the judge. That was the case of co-heirs of a deceased Muhammadan when one of them is not entitled to give a discharge on behalf of all. As pointed out in that very case and, as laid down in Vigneswara v. Bapayya 16 M. 436, it is otherwise in the case of a joint Hindu family in which the manager is competent to give a valid discharge on behalf of all. In the present case the 1st plaintiff attained majority in 1901 and was presumably the manager as the senior in age, competent to give a valid discharge. The suit having been brought more than three years after he attained majority it is barred as regards the sum of Rs. 154 and odd.2. The next item is a sum of Rs. 300 due on a pro-note taken in the defendant's name. I...
Tag this Judgment!Kaji Mahomed Sheriff Saheb Vs. Eusuff Sheriff Saheb and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.455
1. The inam title deed and register make it abundantly clear that the lands were granted for the support of the mosque. The fact that the kazi and the khatibs divided the property and managed it in separate shares cannot make it the property of the managers to be alienated by them at their pleasure. The decisions in Lotlikar v. Wagle 6 B. 596 and Minakshisundaram Pillay v. Chockalinga Royer 15 M.L.J. 10 do not touch the present case. There the property was beneficially enjoyed by the alienors and had been granted for such beneficial enjoyment. We must hold that the inam was inalienable and that the sale in execution of a decree against one of the khatibs cannot be upheld against the mosque.2. But the District Judge has thrown out the suit on the ground of the non-joinder of certain other khatibs. This objection was not taken in the first Court, but was raised for the first time on appeal. We think that the proper course, the Judge should have adopted, was to order the joinder of the ot...
Tag this Judgment!Muthuvelu Pillay Vs. Aiyasawmi Naick and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.7
1. The lands sued for are ryotwari lands for which the pattah stands in the name of a temple. The defendants set up occupancy right Reliance is placed on Exhibits Nos. IV, VI, I, II, and VII in sup- port of the right. The temple was at the time under the management of Government under Regulation VII of 1807. The documents re- late to the settlement of the assessment and of the swamibogam due to the temple. There are such Words as 'permanent', 'you and your heirs' used in their documents in connection with their holding. Having regard to the history of the Revenue Settlement of this District, we cannot regard these terms as conferring a permanent right. The Privy Council has held, in Mayandi Chettiyar v. chockalingam Pillay 27 Ma. 291 : 31 I.A. 83 : 14 M.L.J. 200 : 8 C.W.N. 545, that it is not competent to the trustee of a temple, in the absence of special circumstances, to grant a permanent lease of temple property. We think the decision of the District Judge is right and dismiss the s...
Tag this Judgment!Muthu Payal Alias Muthu Nadan Vs. Nagalingam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-26-1910
Reported in: (1910)20MLJ878
1. The appellant's Vakil says he has no instructions. The party does not appear. The second appeal is dismissed for default with costs.2. The second appeal having been dismissed for default, the respondent presses his memorandum of objections. It is admitted that such a memorandum under the old Code of Civil Procedure cannot be argued. It is not a memorandum under rule 22 of order XLI of the New Code. In C.M.A. No. 124 of 1908 the question was not argued. We must, therefore, disallow this memorandum of objections. But the respondent says he is entitled to his costs on the authority of Appeal Suit No. 208 of 1905. All that that case decided was that the Court had jurisdiction to allow costs upon such a memorandum. That case does not compel us to hold that the respondent in every such case is entitled to the costs of his memorandum. In this case we are not satisfied we should allow costs on the memorandum. The memorandum of objections is dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Latchmi Narayana Iyer Vs. the Municipal Council of Trichinopoly Repres ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-26-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.916
1. Following the decision in Mothe Achayya Garoo v. The Municipal Council of Ellore 19 M.L.J. 757 : 7 M.L.T. 66 : 4 Ind. Cas. 828, we hold that the pandal constitutes a projection liable to be removed by order of the Municipality. The plaintiff can have no easement which overrides the provision of Section 168 of the District Municipalities Act.2. The second appeal is dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Appandai Vathiyar and ors. Vs. Bagubali Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1910
Reported in: (1910)20MLJ275
1. The only question for consideration in this case is whether the mother's sister's son or the maternal uncle's son is the preferential heir to the estate of a deceased Hindu. The matter is involved in considerable obscurity and no clear pronouncement can be gathered from the texts of the Hindu Law. The commentators are also mostly silent upon the subject. The well-known text, cited as that of Vriddha Satatapa or sometimes that of Baudhayana, divides bandhus into three classes, namely Atmabandhus, Pitribandhus and Matribandhus. The Mitakshara is explicit that these three classes succeed in the order in which they are named; see Mitakshara, Ch. II, Section 6, PI. 2. And the Privy Council accepting the decision of this Court in Muthuswami v. Muthukumaraswami I.L.R. (1892) M. 23 has approved of this order in Muthusami Mudaliar v. Simambedu Muthukumarasawmi Mudaliar I.L.R. (1896) M. 405. The question of the order of succession of the three classes of bandhus being thus settled, the furthe...
Tag this Judgment!Ramasami Iyengar Vs. Sriranga Chariar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.681
1. In the suit the prayers were for a certain declaration and that the temple keys should he handed over to the plaintiffs.2. The decree gave the declaration, and stated that the plaintiffs 'are entitled to the keys of the temple.' The present appellant claiming to be the representative of the decree-holder sought to execute this decree and asked that the keys should he delivered to him. The District Judge, although no such objection was taken by the respondents, raised the point that the decree was purely declaratory and could not be executed and decided the point against the appellant. We are clearly of opinion that under the decree, the appellant is entitled to recover possession of the keys. The decree cannot be substantially distinguished from the decree in L.P. Appeal No. 22 of 1899. We therefore, reverse the decision of the District Judge and remand the application for disposal according to law.3. The costs will abide the result....
Tag this Judgment!Kelu Manikaran Vs. Pakarvoor Manakal Jatavedan Nambudripad's L.R. Nara ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1910
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ465
1. The appellant was restrained by a decree from taking water which the respondents carry through a thodu. He has now put up a dam and carried the water to his fields against the terms of the decree, with the result that the 1st respondent has sustained damages estimated at about Rs. 300 by the lower court. Under Section 260 of the C.P.C. the appellant's property has been ordered to be placed under attachment for the satisfaction of the amount. It is conceded that if Section 260 applies this appeal fails, but it is contended that the section does not apply, as the 2nd clause shows that it contemplates only cases where the judgment-debtor may carry out the terms of the decree within the period of one year the property is to remain under attachment before it is sold and does not therefore apply to this and similar cases where the judgment-debtor is restrained from doing an act, and he has already violated the terms of the decree.2. We are unable to agree with that contention. In the pres...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »