Chennai Court February 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.
Mukkattum Prath Poovatham Kandi Ummacha Vs. Purushothamma Doss Pragji ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.682a
Miller, J.1. It does not appear that the 1st defendant denied that the property was tarwad property, and it is impossible now to say what questions were raised as the District Munsif neither sets out the defence nor the points for determination. If, as alleged in the plaint, the property was tarwad property when it was assigned to the plaintiff that would be strong evidence (unless it was also found that the debt due to the 1st defendant was binding on the tarwad) that the transfer was not in fraud of the creditors of the 2nd defendant. The District Munsif has not considered these questions and it is impossible to say whether or not they were raised.2. The law requires that he should set out in his judgment the points for determination and in the present case his failure to do so has rendered it impossible to form an opinion whether he has considered all the questions raised before him.3. I, therefore, reverse his decree and remand the suit for disposal according to law.4. The costs wi...
Venkatasami Naicken and anr. Vs. Ramanthan Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.916a
1. Under the judgment of the Privy Council in Umeschunder Sircar v. Zahur Fatima 18 C. 164 : 17 I.A. 201 the plaintiffs are entitled to interest calculated according to the mortgage deed and not according to the decree. The case of Ganga Das Bhattar v. Jogendranath Mitra 5 CRI.L.J. 315 : 11 C.W.N. 403 relied upon by the District Judge, has been dissented from in Thenappa Chettiar v. Marimuthu Nadan 31 M. 258 : M.L.J. 344 : 4 M.L.T. 293 which follows Umeschunder Sircar v. Zahur Fatima 18 C. 164 : 17 I.A. 201. We must, therefore, ask the District Judge to find on this basis, the proportionate amount which plaint item No. 4 is liable to contribute.2. The finding should be submitted with in four weeks from the date of this order and seven days will be allowed for filing objection....
Chaidambaram Velar Vs. Velu Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.926
Miller, J.1. The defendant set up the title of Kandasami Pillai to half of the shop let to him. He is not prevented from doing so by the fact that Ramalingam's name alone appears in the lease. See Kuppu Konan v. Tirugnana Sambundam Pillai 21 M. 461.2. The District Munsif should have framed an issue dealing with this question. I must now do so and ask him to find whether the plaintiff's vendor Ramalingam Pillai was entitled to the whole shop of which the rent is claimed and as such entitled to collect all the rent.3. Fresh evidence may be adduced. The finding should be submitted within six weeks from this date and 7 days will be allowed for filing objections....
Shreevarayan Alias Anujan Kunhunni Raja and ors. Vs. Palthia Kovilakat ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.937
1. This is a suit for contribution for costs recovered from the plaintiff in a former suit in which the present plaintiff and defendants sued as plaintiffs. That suit was for maintenance against a Karnavathi and her Anandravans. The suit was decreed against the Karnavathi, but dismissed with costs against the Anandravans.2. Looking at paragraph 14 of the judgment in that case, Exhibit III, we are not disposed to think that the joinder of the other defendants in that case was otherwise than bona fide. We agree with the Munsif in the present case in holding that the defendants have failed to show that there was any misconduct in the plaintiffs in impleading the defendants whose costs they were made to pay. The rule in Merryweather v. Nixon 8 Term Rep. 186 : 16 R.R. 810, is one of doubtful expediency. It certainly is not to be extended to cases where costs have been ordered in a bona fide litigation. See Shakul Kamdeed Alim Sahib v. Syed Ibrahim Sahib 26 Ma. 373. We must dismiss this seco...
Aiyavu Muppan Vs. Vellaya Nadan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1910
Reported in: (1911)ILR34Mad55
1. It is found by the Subordinate Judge that the first plaintiff and plaintiffs Nos. 2 to 4 are divided in interest, and have been in possession of separate portions of the disputed land. The plaintiffs allege title under a sale in 1878. This was negatives by the District Munsif. But the Subordinate Judge without finally deciding that question has found a title by adverse possession for more than 12 years in their favour. It is argued for the appellant that the suit is bad for misjoinder of causes of action. The first plaintiff and plaintiffs Nos. 2 to 4 claim different lands and their title as found is by adverse possession of their respective portions. The injury to their rights is by the defendants' trespass. Although the trespass might have been at the same time, the right being separate, the cause of action must be held to be separate. The authorities cited by Mr. Rangachariar are decisive of the question. The decision of the House of Lords in Smurthwaite v. Hannay (1894) A.C. 494...
Shruvararayan Alias Anujan Kunjunni Raja and ors. Vs. Pulthia Kovila K ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.268
1. This is a suit for contribution for costs recovered from the plaintiffs and defendants sued as plaintiffs. That suit was for maintenance against a karnavathi and her anandravans. The suit was decreed against the karnavathi but dismissed with costs against the anandravans. Looking at paragraph 14 of the judgment in that case Exhibit III, we are not disposed to think that the joinder of the other defendants in that case was otherwise than bona fide. We agree with the Munsif in the present case in holding that the defendants have failed to show that there was any misconduct in the plaintiffs in impleading the defendants whose costs they were made to pay. The rule in Merryweather v. Nixon 16 R.R. 810 : 8 TR 186, is one of doubtful expediency. It certainly is not to be extended to cases where costs have been ordered in a bona fide litigation, see Shakul Kameed Ali Sahib v. Syed Ibrahim Sahib 26 M. 373. We must dismiss the second appeal....
Sangana Reddiar and ors. Vs. Perumal Reddiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.921
1. The plaint does not allege a defined water course. No claim is made for an easement in respect of such a water-course. The rain-water falling over certain land belonging to the plaintiff flows over to the defendant's adjoining land. This would be a natural right and the defendant cannot claim damages for any inconvenience caused to him thereby. But it is equally a natural right of the defendant to build up to the edge of his land so as to obstruct the flow of surface water from adjoining land, or he may erect a dam upon his own land which has the effect of obstructing the flow of the neighbour's surface drainage over his land. Following the decision in Maha Mahapadyaya Rangachariar v. The Municipal Council of Kumbaconam 29 M. 539 : 1 M.L.T. 333 : 16 M.L.J. 582, we must reverse the decrees of the Courts below and dismiss the suit. But having regard to the fact that the defendant has not distinctly raised in the Courts below, the question now dealt, we must direct each party to pay hi...
Appasami Aiyar Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council Represe ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.265
1. We are unable to agree with the Court below. The inamdar is by engagement with Government entitled to one-fifth of the water of the tank. See column 61 of the Inam Register Exhibit B. Under the proviso to Section 1 of Act VII of 1865, the plaintiff is not liable to any water-cess if he is entitled to water under an engagement with Government. It is not shown that the plaintiff has taken more water than he is entitled to. What use he chooses to make of his water seems to us to be immaterial. He may extend his wet cultivation or raise double crops on single crop lands provided he does not exceed his one-fifth share of water. It may be another question which it is not necessary for us to discuss whether, if the capacity of the tank be increased of the supply of water improved by a Government work, the plaintiff is still entitled to claim one-fifth of the increased quantity of water. As he is now within his rights, we must allow the second appeal and decree the plaintiff's claim with co...
Asundi Basavon Vs. Bareddi Goviadappa and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1910
Reported in: (1910)20MLJ369
1. The plaintiff sued as really entitled on a promissory note executed by the 2nd defendant in the name of the first. He also asked for relief against the 1st defendant for not having collected the money and paid it over. The Munsif made a decree against the 2nd defendant only for the suit amount. The Judge reversed the decree and dismissed the suit on appeal by him. The plaintiff preferred no appeal or memorandum of objections, nor does it appear that he asked the Judge to make a decree in his favour against the 1st defendant on the ground that he admitted having received the money. The plaintiff prefers this second appeal and claims a decree against the 1st defendant. The ruling in Kulai Kada Pillai v Viswanatha Pillai I.L.R. (1904) M. 229 is admittedly against the plaintiffs' contention that the Judge should have passed such a decree under the old Code. Pup Janu Bibee v. Abdul Khadar Bhuyan I.L.R. (1904) C. 643. Iswardhart Singh V. Bibee Sahebzadi I.L.R. (1908) C 538. Subramanian Ch...
Ahmed Bee Vs. Ameena Bee
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1910
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ492
ORDERSankaran Nair, J.1. In this case the order was apparently passed under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Under that section the Magistrate must record his reasons for the dismissal. In his order the Magistrate only says that he agrees -with the Police. This may be sufficient if the Police report is made a part of the order. This has not been done. The reasons for the dismissal must appear in the order itself. Otherwise it is not possible for this Court to exercise its powers of revision. The order is set aside and the Magistrate is directed to pass fresh orders....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »