Chennai Court February 1910 Judgments
Muthukana Ana Ramanadhan Chettiar Vs. Vada Levvai Marakayar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-1910
Reported in: (1910)20MLJ254
1. The question which arises in this second appeal is whether the disposition of property contained in a document executed by two Mahomedans of the Hanafi sect, Ahmed Nayna Marakayar and Hussain Kuthu Sahib, is valid according to Mahomedan Law. The deed Exhibit I begins with a recital that the property consisting of two villages of the total value of Rs. 20,000 is given for the purpose of charity and then states that out of the gross yields the melvaram, repairs, salaries for servants, maganam, and other important expenses are to be defrayed and the balance of the income is to be divided in 3 shares. From 2 shares out of the 3 shares of the income the Dharmakartas or trustees appointed by the deed and their successors are to take Rs. 10 per mensem as salary for discharging their duties, and as regards the remainder of the two shares, the direction to the trustees is as follows.--'You should perform annually without failure the customary (not 'the annual' as wrongly translated in the pa...
Tag this Judgment!Pemmarazu Venkiah Vs. the Secretary of State for India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-1910
Reported in: (1911)ILR34Mad108
Arnold White, C.J.1. In this case I am unable to adopt the view which has been taken by the District Judge. I turn first to the order made by the Collector under Section 12 of the Surveys and Boundaries Act IV of 1897. There I find this passage: 'Unfortunately absolute certainty is not possible in this case owing to the shifting character of the riverbed and the disappearance of land marks referred to.' Later the order goes on 'I accordingly record my decision that the line indicated in that plan as the line indicated and intended by the Panchayatdars be accepted as the true dividing line between the two villages and that it be demarcated, the excess area of 109 acres odd referred to by the renter falling beyond the line being clearly an accretion to the land appertaining to the Gopalpur Zamindari,'2. Then I find in the written statement put in by the defendant these allegations in paragraph 9: 'The plaintiff is entitled only to that land which was therefore enjoyed as part of Sidhanta...
Tag this Judgment!Ansur Subba Nayudu and anr. Vs. Bathula Bee Bee Sahiba and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-1910
Reported in: (1911)ILR34Mad479
Miller, J.1. The appeal is for costs only. The lower Court has given costs to the plaintiff although the first and second defendants satisfied the claim after suit. If the plaintiff had a cause of action the payment after suit would be no reason for refusing him his costs, and the appeal is therefore grounded on the contention that he had no cause of action.2. The defendants purchased property from the plaintiffs undertaking to pay the price or part of it to his creditor or creditors. For three years they failed to make any payment and thus left the plaintiff in the position that property other than that sold was still under encumbrance when it ought to have been freed from encumbrance. Though the property had not been actually sold up as threatened by his creditors, still there is authority that he had a cause of action against the defendants: a cause of action for damages to the amount of the money which he or his creditors ought to have received, if Dorasinga Tevar v. Arunachalam Ch...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Kanchi Doraisamy Mudaliar Vs. Â
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.683
1. We do not think that the conviction under Sections 482 and 486, Indian Penal Code, can stand. The title-page of the alleged piracy and the title-page of the complainant's book are so different that we do not think any one is likely to have been misled. As to the illustration at the commencement of the book, we do not think it can properly be regarded as either a trademark or a properly mark. We, therefore, set aside the convictions under Sections 482 and 486, Indian Penal Code. The appellant is, however, clearly guilty under Sections 6 and 7 of Act IV of 1889. In the title-page of his book he has put the word copyright which is proved to be a false trade description. We confirm the conviction under these sections and reduce the fine imposed to Rs. 100 (one hundred) or 3 months' simple imprisonment in default....
Tag this Judgment!Pemmaraju Venkiah Garoo Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Counci ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.727
Arnold White, C.J.1. In this case I am unable to adopt the view which has been taken by the District Judge, f turn first to the order made by the Collector under Section 12 of the Surveys and Boundaries Act IV of 1897. There I find this passage: 'Unfortunately absolute certainty is not possible in this case owing to the shifting character of the river bed and the disappearance of landmarks referred to.' Then, later, the order goes on: I accordingly record my decision that the line indicated in that plan as the line indicated and intended by the panchayatdars be accepted as the true dividing line between the two villages and that it be demarcated, the excess area of 109 acres odd referred to by the renter falling beyond the line being clearly an accretion to the land appertaining to the Gopalpur zemindar.2. Then I find in the written statement put in by the defendant these allegations in paragraph No. 4: 'The plaintiff is entitled only to that land which was theretofore enjoyed as part ...
Tag this Judgment!Ansur Subba Naidu and anr. Vs. Bathula Bee Bee Sahiba and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.269
Miller, J.1. The appeal is for costs only. The lower Court has given costs to the plaintiff although the 1st and 2nd defendants satisfied the claim after suit. If the plaintiffs had a cause of action, the payment after suit would be no reason for refusing his costs, and the appeal is, therefore, grounded on the contention that he had no cause of action.2. The defendants purchased property from the plaintiff undertaking to pay the price or part of it to his creditor or creditors. For three years they failed to make any payment and thus left the plaintiff in the position that property other than that sold was still under encumbrance when it ought to have been freed from encumbrance. Though the property had not been actually sold up as threatened by his creditors, still there is authority that he had a cause of action against the defendants, a cause of action for damages to the amount of the money which he or his creditors ought to have received, if Dorasinga Tevcr v. Arunachalam Chetty 2...
Tag this Judgment!Peram Narasigadu Vs. Machiredi Butchireddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1910
Reported in: (1910)20MLJ732
1. The plaintiff purchased a portion of the 2nd defendant's pattah land, and has been holding the same ever since with the exception of a part which he transferred to his wife. The 1st defendant, the Zemindar, has recognised the plaintiff as tenant and accepted rent from him for several years though the puttah continued to stand in the name of the 2nd defendant for the whole land. For the arrears of Fasli 1313 he took proceedings under the Rent Recovery Act against the 2nd defendant and brought to sale the plaintiff's portion which the 3rd defendant purchased. The plaintiff seeks to set aside the sale as invalid. We agree with his contention. No notice was given to the plaintiff of the arrear or of the attachment. The proceedings therefore, are void as against the plaintiff. Mr. Subrahmania Aiyar relies on Orr v. Rakkumarathi I.L.R. (1905) 29 M. 83 for the view that the landlord is under no obligation to proceed against the real tenant but is at liberty to proceed against the person to...
Tag this Judgment!Mangalasami Alias Muthuvijia Raghunatha thevar Vs. Subbiah Pillay and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1910
Reported in: (1910)20MLJ966
1. The plaintiff is the owner of a fourth share in the melwaram right of Kavoor village. The 1st defendant having obtained a decree in O.S. No. 24 of 1898 in the Subordinate Court of Madura, East, for a three-twentieth share of the melwaram right, the plaintiff's guardian entered into an arrangement with the 1st defendant whereby the 1st dependent was to have a mortgage of the plaintiffs right to the fourth share of the rents due to him from Fasli 1310 as security for the 1st defendant's share of the rents for Faslis 1307 and 1308 unlawfully received by the plaintiff's father. The transaction was in substance a mortgage of future rents due for the plaintiff's share to the 1st defendant. Both the Courts below have held that the document being unregistered was inadmissible in evidence. The Munsif gave a decree to the plaintiff for the sum of Rs. 496-8-6, holding that the 1st defendant was a trespasser. The District Judge, on appeal, has dismissed the plaintiff's suit. He has come to the ...
Tag this Judgment!Rangaswamy Padayachi and anr. Vs. Narayanaswami Padayachi by His Agent ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1910
Reported in: (1911)ILR34Mad247
1. The suit was upon a promissory note executed by the first defendant at Kimberley in Griqualand. He was adjudicated an insolvent by the High Court there before the institution of this suit at Mayavaram. The first objection to the jurisdiction of the Munsif that the cause of action arose out of British India need not be considered as the defendants resided within the jurisdiction at the date of suit. The second objection is that the insolvency operates as a discharge of the debt. No authority has been cited in support of that proposition. The first defendant was examined as a witness and he does not say in his deposition that an order of discharge was made. Insolvency does not by itself operate as a discharge in all jurisdictions. Even assuming that it does so under the French law, as to which see Quelin v. Moisson 1 Knapp. 267: 12 E.R. 320 and Murugesa Chetti v. Annamalai Chetti I.L.R. (1900) Mad. 458 it does not follow it is the law of Griqualand. No statute or decision or text book...
Tag this Judgment!A.L.A.R. Arunachellum Chettiar Vs. P.S.K. Haji Sheik Meera Rowther
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.856a
1. The 2nd defendant who is the appellant before us claims ratable distribution out of moneys realised in execution of the decree in Original Suit No. 681 of 1904 on the file of the District Munsif of Tinnevelly. In execution of that decree certain movable properties which belonged to the 9th and 10th defendants were sold. The 2nd defendant who had instituted Original Suit No. 701 of 1904 attached the same properties before judgment. The sale was held on the 10th March 1905, but the proceeds were realised on various days up to the 1st of April. The 2nd defendant applied for rateable distribution on the 11th March 1905. His application having been allowed, the present suit is instituted by other decree-holders against the same judgment-debtor who raises the question as to the 2nd defendant's right to rateable distribution. We may assume notwithstanding the fact that the sale was held on the day previous to the date of the application for rateable distribution, if that application could ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »