Chennai Court April 1910 Judgments
The Secretary of State for India in Council Vs. Gopisetti Narayanaswam ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1910
Reported in: (1911)ILR34Mad151
1. Under Section 25 of Act XXVIII of 1860 (Madras), the starting point of limitation for the appeal by way of suit allowed by that section was the passing of the Survey officer's decision, and in Annamalai v. Cloete I.L.R. (1883) Mad. 189 and Seshama v. Sankara I.L.R. (1889) Mad. 1, it was held that the decision was passed when it was communicated to the parties.2. The language of Section 13 of Act IV of 1897, Madras, is somewhat different. The starting point is the date of the decision of the Survey officer, and in the present case that is a decision to which the provisions of Section 24 are applicable, and Section 13 is made by Section 25 to apply, mutatis mutandis, in the case of a final decision passed under Section 24. The starting point is therefore the date of the decision passed under Section 24. We find no difficulty in holding that the date of the decision is the date on which the decision is passed, and therefore that the starting point is the date of the passing of the deci...
Tag this Judgment!Erattakolam Melvittil Karnavan and anr. Vs. K.P. Suppan Menon
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.67
1. Item No. 1 is admittedly, in Cochin territory and was so on the date of this suit. The British Courts have no jurisdiction to entertain a suit for possession of that property. See Explanation to 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. We must modify the decree of the Courts below and dismiss the suit as regards item No. 1.3. With reference to the mesne profits also the decree is modified, the profits of item No. 2 alone are to be ascertained in execution and given to the plaintiff. Each party will bear his own costs throughout....
Tag this Judgment!Mukti Gopaludu and anr. Vs. Sri Sri Sri Krishna Chandra Gajapati Naray ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.876
1. The plaintiff sued for a declaration of right in respect of a tank and an injunction against the defendants. Both the Courts below have dismissed the suit on the ground that there is no averment in the plaint of ownership. We think this is a narrow construction. The plaintiff states that he and certain others have been in enjoyment, that they have made repairs, and that they have taken the fish. He also made a statement on the 20th August 1907 that he and his cousins had the 'huq' and none else. All that can be said at the highest is that the plaint is somewhat ambiguous. An amendment might have been asked for to make the plaintiff's meaning clear; the suit should not have been dismissed. As regards the other persons mentioned, who have not been joined, their absence is not fatal to the suit. It may be more convenient to make them parties.2. We set aside the decrees of Courts below and remand the suit to the Munsif for disposal according to law. The costs hitherto incurred will be p...
Tag this Judgment!Sudailamuthu Pillay Vs. Muthusawmi Pillay and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.49
1. The mortgagee sues for sale Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 are in possession respectively of the 2nd and 1st item of property comprised in the mortgage. The Munsif made a decree for a portion of the mortgage-money making item No. 2 liable. On appeal by the 2nd defendant, the Subordinate Judge has dismissed the suit. It is impossible to appreciate his reasons. Because a puisne mortgage discharged by the 2nd defendant is not mentioned in the plaints and the purchases of 2nd and 3rd defendant are ignored, he says the suit ought to be dismissed. We think the conclusion stated does not follow. The plaintiff is not bound to know or set out the interests of parties in possession, in the mortgaged property. The decision is clearly wrong. We set aside the decree of the Subordinate Judge and remand the case for disposal according to law. The appellant is entitled to the costs of this appeal. The costs in the Court below will be provided for in the revised decree....
Tag this Judgment!Koshikot Pudiya Kovilagath Sreeman Vikraman Alias Cheriya Rajah Averga ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-1910
Reported in: (1910)20MLJ849
1. This second appeal relates to improvements. The kanom sought to be redeemed is dated the 3rd of November 1872. It provided that the tenant shall accept the value of improvements according to local custom. The Subordinate Judge has held that the provision amounts to a special contract which is unaffected by the Malabar Tenants Improvements Act. He directed an enquiry into the customary rates and has awarded to the defendants a lesser sum for improvements than the Munsif fixed in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Now, Section 5 of Madras Act I of 1900 declare every tenant entitled to compensation for improvements on ejectment. Section 6 provide that the amount of compensation when claimed under Section 5 shall be computed according to Ss. 9 to 18. But he may instead claim compensation according to the provision contained in any contract between the parties. In that case, Section 6 has no application, nor have Ss. 9 to 18. In this case, the tenant claims compensation under Sec...
Tag this Judgment!Palakal Raman Menon and anr. Vs. Valia Chembashith Imoth Karnavan and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.889a
1. The relation of mortgagor and mortgagee continues until redemption. Though the-mortgage amount had been discharged by the arrears of rent, the plaintiff was bound to pay the value of improvements. And until ejectment in execution of a decree, the mortgagee is entitled to be in possession on the same terms as before: Sections 5 and 6 of Madras Act I of 1900. The plaintiff cannot, therefore, claim mesne profits from the date of suit. We modify the decree of the lower appellate Court as regards mesne profits and direct instead the payment of 60 paras of paddy and Rs. 5-8-0 per annum from 1082 till redemption. The decree of the Court below is otherwise confirmed. The appellant is entitled to the costs of this appeal....
Tag this Judgment!Kozhikot Pudiya Kovilagath Sreemana, a Vikraman Alias Cheriya Rajah Av ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-1910
Reported in: (1911)ILR34Mad61
1. This second appeal relates to improvements. The kanom sought to be redeemed is dated the 3rd of November 1872. It provides that the tenant shall accept the value of improvements according to local custom. The Subordinate Judge has held that the provision amounts to a special contract which is unaffected by the Malabar Tenants Improvements Act. He directed an enquiry into the customary rates and has awarded to the defendants a lesser sum for improvements than the Munsif fixed in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Now, Section 5 of Madras Act I of l900 declares every tenant entitled to compensation for improvements on ejectment. Section 6 provides that the amount of compensation when claimed under Section 5 shall be computed according to Sections 9 to 18. It is open to every tenant to claim compensation under Section 5 and, if he does so, the rules for ascertaining the compensation are laid down in Sections 9 to 18. But he may instead claim compensation according to the provis...
Tag this Judgment!Nachiappa Chettiar Vs. Chinnayasami Naicker
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-1910
Reported in: (1906)ILR29Mad453
Sankaran Nair, J.1. The suit is to recover the amount due under a promissory note executed by the late Zamindar of Mannarkottai which according to the appellant (plaintiff) is an impartible zamindary.2. The first defendant was the undivided brother and is the successor of the late zamindar and the second defendant is his widow. The lower Courts have found that the debt was not contracted for family purposes or the use of the zamin and have dismissed the suit. In second Appeal it is contended before us, that as the zamindar is impartible, it is not joint family property, but that it was the property of the late zamindar and liable, therefore, in the hands of the first defendant, his heir, for payment of his debt irrespective of the nature of such debt. In the lower Courts, this plea was disallowed on the ground that it was not properly raised in the pleadings.3. I am of opinion that the lower Courts are wrong in not deciding this question and that the plaintiff is entitled to a decision...
Tag this Judgment!Munisami Chetti Vs. Marthammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-1910
Reported in: (1911)ILR34Mad211
Wallis, J.1. In this case the plaintiff who is the daughter-in-law of the deceased sues the first and second defendants as executors of his will. The plaintiff claims that under the will of the deceased she was entitled to be paid a proper maintenance out of the profits of a fund of Rs. 25,000 and odd disposed of by the will, and charges the defendants with certain acts of maladministration, non-payment of maintenance and refusal to keep and show accounts, and prays among other things that the executors may be made to account and may be removed; and the suit may I think be treated as an administration suit in which the Courtis asked to take upon itself the administration of the estate and see that the provisions of the will are given effect to. One question raised is whether the plaintiff is entitled to maintenance under the will out of the fund. In my opinion she is. Under the will, exhibit A, there was to be no delivery to her until there was issue to her and her husband, and in the ...
Tag this Judgment!Sappa Krishna Patrudu and ors. Vs. thelli Mukunda Sahu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.586
1. The Judge holds that at the time of the main grant to Balajee Deo, the land was cultivated by one Brindavana who held it with occupancy right and that the defendant succeeded Brindavana.2. On these findings, we are not prepared to say the Judge was wrong in holding that the defendant is a tenant with occupancy right.3. We think the present case is distinguishable from Marapu Tharala v. Telukula Neelakanta Behara 30 M. 502 : 2 M.L.T. 470. There the tenants set up a permanent lease which they failed to prove. The appeal in that case came before the same District Judge, who heard the appeal in the present case. He observed in his judgment that, the lands being wain, the presumption of occupancy right did not apply unless the tenant or his predecessor-in-title held the Kudivaram right. He pointed out that there was no limit of any earlier tenancy than the alleged permanent lease. Here the Judge points out that all that passed under the grant from the zemindar to Balajee Deo was what the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »