Chennai Court April 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.
U.C. Krishna Bhatta Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council Re ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-1910
Reported in: (1913)25MLJ161
1. The burden is upon the plaintiff in this case to prove that the bed of the thodu is his property. The District judge has not referred to the evidence relied upon by the District Munsif in support of his finding in the plaintiff's favor, but we have considered that evidence and are clearly of opinion that it fails to make out the plaintiff's case. Admittedly the plaintiff has no grant from the Government nor has it been shown that he pays assessment on the bed of the thodu. We do not think it proved that the channel is not a natural water-course, nor do we think the circumstances relied upon, viz., that the plaintiff happens to have lands on both sides of the thodu as his property in documents to which the Government was no party and that at a point in the thodu outside his lands there had been a slight diversion, are sufficient to establish his ownership.2. The Second Appeal is dismissed with costs....
The Secretary of State for India in Council Represented by the Collect ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-1910
Reported in: (1910)20MLJ794
Miller, J.1. I think it is beyond doubt that what was sold in this case was land of the defaulter within the meaning of Act II of 1864, and the question is why should not the provisions of Section 42 be applied to the sale ?2. The learned Vakil for the 1st respondent with the aid of an ingenious piecing together of dicta to be found in Secretary of State for India v. Narayana I.L.R. (1884) M. 130, Narayana Raja v. Ramachandra Raja I.L.R. (1902) M. 521, and Ramachandra v. Pichaikannu I.L.R. (l884) M.434 presents for our acceptance the conclusion that the sale is not free of incumbrances because the land sold is not by Section 2, made security for the public revenue for which it was sold. His construction of Section 2 is not established by any of the cases, and I am not prepared to decide that it is correct, but assuming its correctness I cannot see how the plain words of Section 42 are to be limited by reference to Section 2. A sale may be free of incumbrances whether or not it is held ...
Venkatasami Chetti Vs. Suppa Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-1910
Reported in: (1911)ILR34Mad90
1. The lease in this case was for a three years' term and the rent fixed was a consolidated amount of Rs. 56-4-0 and tan bundles of betel leaves payable in one lump about the middle of the term. The question is whether the document requires registration, That depends upon the meaning of the proviso to clause id) of Section 17 of the Registration Act. But for the proviso the instrument would require registration. Clause (d) provides for three alternative conditions, any one of which would suffice to bring an instrument within the rule as to compulsory registration. One of these alternatives is a term exceeding one year. The proviso requires two conditions for exemption. One of them is that the term does not exceed five years. Here it does not. The other is that the annual rent reserved does not exceed Rs. 50. Does this mean that there should be an annual rent reserved and that it should not also exceed Rs. 50? Mr. Justice Miller apparently thinks so. 'With great respect we are unable to...
The Secretary of State for India in Council Represented by the Collect ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-1910
Reported in: (1911)ILR34Mad493
Miller, J.1. I think it is beyond doubt that what was sold in this case was land of the defaulter within the meaning of Act II of 1864, and the question is why should not the provisions of Section 42 be applied to the sale.2. The learned vakil for the first respondent with the aid of an ingenious piecing together of dicta to be found in Secretary of State for India v. Narayanan I.L.R. (1885) Mad. 130, Narayana Raja v. Ramachandra Raja I.L.R. (1903) Mad 521 and Ramachandra v. Pilchikanni I.L.R. (1884) Mad. 434, presents for our acceptance the conclusion that the sale is not free of encumbrances because the land sold is not by Section 2 made security for the public revenue for which it was sold. His construction of Section 2 is not established by any of the cases, and I am not prepared to decide that it is correct, but assuming its correctness I cannot sea how the plain words of Section 42 are to be limited by reference to Section 2. A sale may be free of encumbrances whether or not it i...
Subraya Kakramaya (Died) and ors. Vs. Subraya Padayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.715
1. Though the decree in O.S. No. 727 of 1858 may not be res judicata, we are of opinion that the razaenamah is strong evidence of the hereditary rights of the plaintiff therein to the office.2. We are not prepared, therefore, to interfere with the finding on that question.3. It is then contended that the plaintiff claims as an alienee and that the alienation in his favour by his mother-in-law is invalid.4. The plaintiff's mother-in-law is the holder of the office, and she has no sons. She accordingly executed an adalti mokhtiar, on which the plaintiff's right is based, in his favour to perform the ceremonies as she herself could not perform them and to carry out the other duties of the office.5. The Judge states that she could not perform the duties of the office herself. It is not contended before us that he is wrong. We see, therefore, nothing improper or illegal in the appointment of the plaintiff as a manager. As an alienation to continue in force beyond the life-time of the mother...
Arakkal Muttukalel Ummathi Ummathi Vs. Erambathil Kunhamad and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.801
1. Moidunni and Pathamma were admittedly trustees. Moidunni died in 1885 and the 1st defendant took possession of the plaint lands after his death and has continued in possession ever since. The Judge finds that the 1st defendant was a 'self-constituted' trustee and came into the possession of the property as such on the death of her brother Moidunni. The 1st defendant's case, which the Judge apparently accepts, is that till Pathamma's death they acted jointly as trustees. As the 1st defendant has been in possession of the office of trustee from 1886, she has now become a trustee and is entitled to continue in possession of lands. Pathamma's interest has passed under the settlement Exhibit B to the plaintiff and defendants Nos. 3 and 4. They can only claim to be joint trustees with the 1st. defendant and their claim for exclusive possession must fail. We are unable in this cape to allow the plaintiff to convert the suit into one for joint possession as the plaintiff and the 4th defenda...
A. Venkatasawmy Chetty Vs. Suppa Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.382
1. The lease in this case was for a three years term and the rent fixed was a consolidated amount of Rs. 56-4-0 and ten bundles of betel leaves payable in one lump about the middle of the term. The question is whether the document require registration. That depends upon the meaning of the proviso to Clause (d) of Section 17 of the Registration Act. But for the proviso, the instrument would require registration. Clause (d) provides for three alternative conditions, any one of which would suffice to bring an instrument within the rule as to compulsory registration. One of these alternatives is a term exceeding one year. The proviso requires two conditions for exemption. One of them is that the term does not exceed five years. Here it does not. The other is that the amount of rent reserved does not exceed Rs. 50. Does this mean that there should be an annual rent reserved and that it should not also exceed Rs. 50? Mr. Justice Miller apparently thinks so. With great respect we are unable t...
Reverend P.G. Simon and ors. Vs. Thuraimuthu Kadamban and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.419
1. It is found that the land in suit forms part of the Natham Paramhoke of Sadayaneri village. The village lands appear to have been held by the ryots according to Panganazi but in the case of this natham they were enjoying it in common for their communal purposes.2. The defendants were in possession for some time but such possession is found to have been permissive. The defendants then abandoned their permissive possession, and the community again began to use it for communal purpose till March 1903.3. In March 1903, the Head Assistant Collector directed that the land should be given to the defendants and entered in the register kept for natham lands for cultivation for which the charge of highest dry rate should be made. In the next year the defendant raised crops for which they paid assessment to Government.4. On the facts found that the land belongs to the village community and that they were in possession till 1903, the plaintiffs are entitled to recover. The action of the Revenue...
Karnam Venkatakrishna Pillai Vs. Appana Muthialu Reddy and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-1910
Reported in: (1910)20MLJ821
1. In this case the tenant did not accept the Patta tendered and the landholder therefore was entitled to proceed by summary suit before the Collector to enforce acceptance of the Patta, and in such a suit it is for the Collector to settle the terms of the tenancy.2. It has been decided by the Judicial Committee that so long as proceedings are pending before the Collector and on appeal from him before the Civil Courts, the rate of rent is in suspense and therefore no arrears of rent can be said to have been due within the meaning of the Limitation Act. This conclusion is based upon a consideration of the sections of the Rent Recovery Act. For the same reasons we hold the rent became due under Section 2 of the Rent Recovery Act for purposes of proceedings under the Act when the rate of rent was ascertained by the final decision of the Civil Court. There is, therefore, no tear under that section.3. It is argued that the attachment is bad as it was for a larger amount than what the Distri...
Sankarappa Naiken Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council Thro ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-1910
Reported in: (1910)20MLJ977
1. The assessment in this case was realised by proceedings professedly taken under Section 59 of Act II of 1864, and therefore the suit should have been brought within the period of six .months provided by that section.2. It is contended that though the suit may be barred in so far as it seeks to recover the assessment levied, still it is not barred so far as the declaration and injunction prayed for are concerned.3. The necessity for asking for these reliefs all arise out of the action of Government in levying the assessment, and is part of the grievance for which under Section 59 the plaintiff may apply to the Civil Court for redress.4. The second appeal is dismissed with costs....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »