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.
Gutta Bapineedu Vs. Gutta Venkayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.795; (1911)21MLJ82
1. We regret we have not had the advantage of an argument on behalf of the respondent, But on the best consideration we could bestow on the case, we think the Courts below are wrong.2. It is alleged in the plaint that the first defendant entered into an agreement with the plaintiff in 1902 to sell certain property to him and placed the plaintiff in possession of it. The 2nd defendant obtained a decree for money against the first defendant and attached the suit property in execution. The plaintiff preferred a claim, which was dismissed. But during the subsistence of the defendant's attachment the 1st defendant executed a registered conveyance in the plaintiff's favour on the 5th November 1907. The plaintiff asks for a declaration of his right to the property. The plaintiff also charges that, the 2nd defendant's decree against the 1st defendant was collusive. The Courts below have dismissed the suit on the preliminary ground that there was no right to sue on the allegations contained in ...
Vappuluri Tatayya Alias Veeranna Vs. Garinalla Ramakrishnamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.240a
1. The second appeal is argued as regards the validity of the gift of Item No. II to Lakshimamma who succeeded to the property of her father on his death in the sixties; she made a gift of 49 cents of her father's property to the 3rd defendant. The extent of land which came to her from her father was about 19 acres apart from houses and house sites and movable property. The gift was made on the occasion of the Pushkaram at Rajahmundry, a peculiarly holy event amongst Hindus which happens once in twelve years. She was the person to perform her father's shraddha on his death, there being no brothers and her mother having died before him. She performed the shradhha on the occasion of the Pushkaram and made the gift of the land as part of the shradhha ceremony. The plaintiff, a reversioner, impeaches the gift.2. Under the Hindu. Law in force in this presidency, the daughter is a limited owner like the widow and her powers of alienation as regards property which she has inherited from her f...
Nalupurakkal Tarwad Karnavan Syyali Vs. Kakki Mutaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.397
1. The District Judge does not find that sufficient assets have come into the hands of the defendant. The proper decree to make is only one against the assets. The personal decree ought to be set aside. In Nathuram Siviji Sett v. Kutti Haji 20 M.a 446 there was a finding that the defendants had taken sufficient assets.2. We modify the decrees of the Courts below ' by striking out the portion relating to the personal decree.3. The defendant denied liability altogether and although he succeeds in getting rid of the personal liability, it must be remembered he is in possession of some assets.4. The proper order as to costs will be that the appellant do pay half the respondents' costs throughout....
Sankaralinga Maistry Vs. Poonamalai Maistry and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.423
1. We are unable to agree with the Subordinate ' Judge. Exhibit D. assigns the suit property to Palavesa Maistry in its entirety. His brothers and himself were entitled to keep ca tie pens on the site separately. This cannot affect Palavesa's ownership. The plaintiff, who has succeeded to the rights of one of the brothers, claims partition as part owner. We think he is not entitled to this. The instrument is clear in giving the ownership to Palavesa. Mr. Rangachariar asks us to give the plaintiff a decree for an injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff's user of the site as a cattle pen. The plaintiff did not base his suit on Exhibit D. He is entitled to have only a portion of the site set apart for his use. This he must seek in a suit properly framed for the purpose. We do not think we can allow him to convert this, suit for partition of common ownership into a suit for the prevention of interference with a right in the nature of an easement. The decisi...
Padmanabaya and ors. Vs. Ranga and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.447
1. The suit is in ejectment. The defendants are permanent lessees. They denied the title of the landlord, the plaintiff, by a notice dated the 28th August 1905, before the institution of this suit. The District Judge held that the terms of this letter did not create a forfeiture. He was also of opinion that the lessor had done no act to show his intention to determine the lease and further that the forfeiture had been waived by the lessor suing for the rent sub-sequent to the date of the forfeiture.2. Dealing with, the last question first, we observe that the prayer was for past and future profits and not for rent, though the rent previously fixed appears to have been taken as the measure of the annual profits. Bat apart from this, if the forfeiture had been incurred, we fail to see how the suit for rent could operate as a waiver. If Section 112 of the Transfer of Property Act applied, the suit in ejectment having been instituted, the second proviso to that section would prevent waiver...
Gandrapu Sinayya Vs. Koppineni Venkataratnam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.701
1. The commencement of Abbanna's tenancy is found and also payment of rent for a number of years by him and successors. The District Judge has not found occupancy right. The tenancy must be presumed to be one from year to year. The plaintiff alleges due notice to quit. Far from denying it in the written statement, the defendant admits notice. In Venkatacharlu v. Kondappa 15 MA. 95, notice to quit was not found. The plaintiff is entitled to eject. We reverse the decree of the District Judge and restore that of the Munsif with costs here and in the lower appellate Court....
Thimmakke and ors. Vs. Parameshri and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.145
Arnold White, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs--(and there is also a Memorandum of objections) against the decree in a suit by certain members of a family governed by the Aliyasantana law to recover on behalf of the family certain properties which the plaintiffs allege belonged to the family and were acquired out of family funds. The members of the family are to be found in the pedigree which is set out in the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge. One Chennamma is the ancestress. She, I suppose, may be described as the founder of the family. She is found by the learned Subordinate Judge to have died in the year 1883. She left certain daughters who pre-deceased the parties to the suit. She left a daughter by name Timmakke who is the 1st plaintiff in the suit. Timmakke has several children who are the other plaintiffs to the suit. Chennamma also had a daughter called Akku, older than Timmakke. She is the 6th defendant in the suit. This Akku has a son who is the 7th defenda...
Nynappan Servai Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council, Throu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.403
1. The Collector levied water-cess from the tenant of a zemindar for Periyar water taken for irrigation through another Government stream called the Suruliyar. We do not think there is any foundation for the contention that the water was not supplied from a stream belonging to Government, The first and most important question argued was that the assessment upon the zemindari ryot was illegal. Under Section 1 of Act VII of 1865, the cess is imposed upon the land. By Section 1 of Act II of 1834, it is enacted that public revenue due on land shall be taken to include cesses payable to Government on account of water supplied for irrigation. Is a zemindari tenant, who uses the water of a Government Stream, for which his holding becomes liable to pay a cess to Government, a landholder for the purpose of Act II of 1864 'Landholder' is defined as comprising, amongst others, 'all holders of land in any way subject to the payment of revenue direct to Government.' That the land is not so subject ...
Kamulammal Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council, Through th ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.402
1. In this case the question is raised as regards the validity of the imposition of water cess at the rate of Rs. 10 an acre. We have not been referred to any rule of Government which authorizes the levy of this rate. In the rules for the levy of water-rate approved by Government in their Order dated the 25th of March 1874, the following appears: 'The Collector has power to impose prohibitory rates whenever water is taken without permission.' This was not originally applicable to Madura but appears to have been extended by the Board of Revenue by their proceedings, dated the 2nd of July 1878, No. 1827. The Government by their Order No. 1170, dated the 25th of July 1878 have simply 'recorded' the modification made by the Board of Revenue. Section 1 of Act VII of 1865 empowers Government to levy a separate cess for water supplied for irrigation and enables them to prescribe the rules under which and the rates at which such water-cess shall be levied. They have no right to delegate to the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›