Chennai Court October 1910 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.
Singaram Pillai and ors. Vs. Hazarath Kibulai Syed Gulam Ghouse Sha Sa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-1910
Reported in: (1910)20MLJ927
1. We think the conclusion the learned Chief Justice has arrived at is correct. Pattah for the suit fasli was tendered before the judgment of the High Court-. Exhibit C-was pronounced. As the pattah tendered was not in accordance with the judgment of the High Court the plaintiff could not successfully maintain a suit for rent upon it and he could not tender a fresh pattah as the fasli had by then expired. His only course in this case was to sue under Section 9 of Act VIII of 1865 to enforce acceptance of the paltah tendered. This he did do and he had to await an adjudication under Section 10 of the Act, and we think that limitation runs from the date of that adjudication, as it was only then that it can be said that the rent for the suit fasli was ascertained-Rangayya Appa Rao v. Bobba Sriramulu I.L.R. (1903) Mad. 143 We express no opinion as to the effect of the High Court's judgment in the case of faslis subsequent thereto.2. The appeals are dismissed with costs....
Sreemuth Devasikamani Pandara Sannadhi Alias Nataraja Desikar Vs. Pala ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-1910
Reported in: (1910)20MLJ969
1. The question is raised whether a permanent lease by the trustee of a temple of building site belonging to the temple for a nuzzar or a premium is valid. It is argued for the appellant that such a lease constitutes a breach of trust and is therefore invalid. The Subordinate Judge, in appeal, has upheld the lease on the ground that it was made in the proper and reasonable exercise of the power of the trustee and in accordance with local usage, and was, therefore, an act of prudent management on his part. Assuming that local usage, would, at all events, be an element in the determination of the question whether the lease was an act of prudent management, it is difficult to uphold the finding in its favor, as the earliest instance on record of such a lease was as late as 1870 and the other instances in evidence are only a few in number and not all of them permanent tenures. We are unable to hold that the evidence is sufficient to support a custom. That the alienation in question was in ...
The Secretary of State for India in Council Represented by the Collect ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-1910
Reported in: (1911)ILR34Mad366
1. This appeal is presented on behalf of the Secretary of State for India in Council against the decree of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Tinnevelly directing a refund of Rs. 83513 7 faslijasti (water rate for a second crop cultivated on wet lands) alleged to have been illegally collected for fasli 1310 on the respondent's mitta of Rambaneri Pudukudi, and granting a permanent injunction against the future levy of such faslijasti on the lands situated under the plaint tanks 15 in number.2. The tanks in question are fed by branch channels leading from the pappankal, an artificial channel, which takes off from a river called the Karuppanadi. The whole suit turns on the right of Government to levy water-cess on irrigation so conducted and this has to be judged solely with reference to the provisions of Madras Act VII of 1865.3. A reference to the Act will show that the essential conditions for the levy of water-cess are these:A. The irrigation must be effected by means of the water of...
Sreemuth Devasikamoney Pandarasannadhi Alias Nataraja Desikar Vs. K.P. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-1910
Reported in: (1911)ILR34Mad535
Krishnaswami Ayyar, J.1. The question is raised whether a permanent lease by the trustee of a temple of a building site belonging to the temple for a nuzzer or a premium is valid. It is argued for the appellant that such a lease constitutes a breach of trust and is therefore invalid. The Subordinate Judge in appeal has upheld the Iease on the ground that it was made in the proper and reasonable exercise of the powers of the trustee and in accordance with local usage and was therefore an act of prudent management on his part. Assuming that local usage would at all events be an element in the determination of the question whether the lease was an act of prudent management, it is difficult to uphold the finding: in its favour, as the earliest instance on record of such a lease was as late as 1870 and the other instances in evidence are only a few in number and not all of them permanent tenures. We are unable to hold that the evidence is sufficient to support a custom. That the alienation ...
Sreemuth Devasigamani Pandarasannadhi Alias Nataraja Desikar Vs. Palan ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-1910
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.281
1. The question is raised whether a permanent lease by the trustee of a temple of a building site belonging to the temple for a muzzer or a premium is valid. It is argued for the appellant that such a lease constitutes a breach of trust and is, therefore, invalid. The Subordinate Judge in appeal has upheld the lease on the ground that it was made in the proper and reasonable exercise of the powers of the trustee and in accordance with local usage and was, therefore, an act of prudent management on his part. Assuming that local usage would, at all events, be an element in the determination of the question whether the lease was an act of prudent management, it is difficult to uphold the finding in its favour. The earliest instance on record of such a lease was as late as 1870 and the other instances in evidence are only a few in number and not all of them permanent tenures. We are unable to hold that the evidence is sufficient to support a custom. That the alienation in question was in f...
Sri Mirza Pasupati Viziarama Jagapathi Rajamaharaju Maya Sultan Bahadu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-1910
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.32
Abdur Rahim, J.1. I think the Subordinate Court's judgment in appeal ought to be set aside. He has not disposed of the case on the evidence and does not say that he disagrees with the findings of the Munsif on the issues raised in the case. He would have been quite within his rights if he has considered whatever discrepancies there were between the descriptions of the pro-notes in the plaint and the terms of the pro-notes themselves as circumstances in dealing with the question whether the pro-notes were given and executed for consideration. But he has dismissed the plaintiff's suit simply on the ground of such discrepancies. It is urged by Mr. Ramesam that even if the Judge is wrong in the way he has disposed of the appeal, the error is not one relating to jurisdiction. But I cannot accept his contention. To my mind the method adopted by the Subordinate Judge in dealing with the case amounts to a failure to exercise jurisdiction and at least is a very material irregularity in the exer...
Velayutha Chetty and ors. Vs. Govindasawmi Naiken
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-1910
Reported in: (1911)ILR34Mad543
1. This appeal [see Velayutha Chetti v. Goindasawmi Naiken I.L.R. (1907) Mad. 524] was ordered to be re-heard on the ground that at the date of the former hearing the appellant was dead and no one had been brought on the record to represent him. At the rehearing it was contended that we were wrong in having given the vendee who was found not to have paid the whole of the purchase money an unconditional decree for possession and we were referred to the recent decision in Baij Nath Singh v. Paltu I.L.R. (1908) All. 135, in which it was held that although a vendea who has not paid the purchase money is entitled to maintain an action for possession against the vendor yet the vendor has an equity arising out of the nonpayment of the purchase money and that the proper decree is that if the plaintiff pay the purchase money within six months the property be delivered to him, and if he fail to do so his suit; do stand dismissed. The decision follows an obiter dictum, of Mahmood, J., in Shib Lal...
Govindasami Pillai and ors. Vs. Dakshinamurthi Poosari and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-1910
Reported in: (1912)ILR35Mad92
1. The plaintiffs sued for possession of the pujah and stanikam rights in the temples No. 1 to 3 of the idols themselves, and of certain immoveable properties specified as items Nos. 19 to 27 in the schedule attached to the plaint The Subordinate Judge dismissed the entire suit as barred by limitation, It is agreed that the pujah and stanikam rights referred to include the trusteeship of the temples. The plaintiffs preferred an appeal to the District Court and limited the relief claimed in the appeal to the possession of items Nos. 19 to 24 of the plaint schedule with mesne profits. This they did not merely by valuing items Nos 18 to 21 only for purposes of Court fee, but also by adding a special prayer limiting the relief claimed in appeal as above mentioned, The District Judge has passed a decree in the plaintiff's favour as regards these items, It is argued in second appeal that this decree is bad. The contention is that items Nos. 18 to 24 being properties attached to the temples a...
Marudaga Nachiar (Died) and ors. Vs. Savadi Tirumalai Kolundu Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-1910
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ320
1. In A. No. 108 OF 1904. The plaintiff, as a Hindu reversioner, sues for the recovery of the properties specified in Schedules A, B, C and D to the plaint and forming the impartible ancestral polyam of Naduvakurichi from the various defendants who claim to be entitled to the lands in their respective possession under sales in execution of decrees passed against one Thangama Nachiar, widow of the last Zemindar Kuthala Thevar, or by virtue of alienations made by her. The plaintiff is the daughter of Kuthala Thevar, and though the legitimacy of her descent was questioned in the Subordinate Judge's court, his finding in her favour or the point has not been contested before us. Kuthala Thevar died in October 1856 and his widow in 1899. The present suit was instituted in 1901. The Subordinate Judge has dismissed the suit so far as it relates to properties included in Schedules A, B and D and has given a decree to the plaintiff with respect to lands in Schedule C. The plaintiff has preferred...
Veerabadra Aiyar and anr. Vs. Marudaga Nachiar (Died), Subramania Teva ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-1910
Reported in: (1911)ILR34Mad188
1. The plaintiff as a Hindu reversioner sues for the recovery of the properties specified in Schedules A, B, C and D to the plaint and forming the impartible ancestral polyam of Naduvakurichi from the various defendants who claim to be entitled to the lands in their respective possession under sales in execution of decrees passed against one Thangama Nachiar, widow of the last Zamindar Kuthala Thevar, or by virtue of alienations made by her. The plaintiff is the daughter of Kuthala Thavar and though the legitimacy of her descent was questioned in the Subordinate Judge's Court, his finding in her favour on the point has not been contested before us Kuthala Thevar died in October 1856 and his widow in 1899. The present suit was instituted in 1901. The Subordinate Judge has dismissed the suit so far as it relates to properties included in Schedules A, B and D and has given a decree to the plaintiff with respect to lands in Schedule C. The plaintiff has preferred an appeal (No. 108 of 1901...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »