Chennai Court August 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.
Ramappaya Vs. Charda Bhatta
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.568
1. The decree directs the defendant to surrender the garden, on the plaintiff paying him Rs. 767 for improvements. He might have paid this at any time after the decree, and his application for delivery more than three years from the date of the decree is, therefore, time-barred. We agree with the observations of this Court in Rangiah Gounden & Co. v. Nanjappa Row 26 M. 780 : 13 M.L.J. 412., and are not prepared to follow the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Chhedi v. Lalu 24 A. 300 : 60 A.W.N. (1902). This appeal is dismissed with costs....
Suraja Venkatanarasimha Appa Row Bahadur Zamindar Garu Vs. Nanduri Ven ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.707
1. This is only an application for sale and, therefore, a continuance of the old application under which the property was attached and has continued attached. Section 230 only bars fresh applications after the expiry of 12 years. Chalavadi Kotiah v. Poloori Alamelammah 31 M. 71 : 3 M.L.T. 328 : 18 M.L.J. 46 follows Vencatappiah v. Jagannadha Row 12 M.L.J. 24. We reverse the order of the lower Court and direct the District Munsif to dispose of the application according to law.2. Costs will abide the result....
Kuppana Kaundan Vs. Kumara Kavundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.418
1. The petitioner who was the decree-holder purchased properties in execution of the decree and was obstructed by the respondents. He obtained an order for delivery, and an appeal against it was dismissed. Being resisted by the respondents when attempting to take delivery, he applies under Order XXI of the Civil Procedure Code, Rule 98. The District Judge has dismissed the application, holding that the said rule has no application. As regards the 7th defendant against whom no decree was passed and who was, therefore, not the judgment-debtor, the order is right. But we are unable to uphold it as regards the 1st defendant and Kumara Gownden, who is alleged to have purchased the property subsequent to the attachment and while the same was pending The purchaser of the attached property is the representative of the judgment-debtor within the meaning of Section 47 of the new Code of Civil Procedure, corresponding to Section 244 of the old Code. See Paramananda Das v. Mahbaeer Dossji 20 Ma. 3...
Chintakindy Parvatamma Vs. Lanka Sanyasi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1910
Reported in: (1911)ILR34Mad487
Wallis, J.1. In dealing with this case the lower Appellate Court has not sufficiently considered the provisions of the Indian Easements Act under which an easement may be extinguished by an express or implied release (Section 38) and also by non-enjoyment for twenty years (Section 47). The latter section distinguishes between the case of continuous and discontinuous easements--a continuous easement being defined in Section 5 as 'one whose enjoyment is, or may be continual without the act of man.' It is well settled that a drain is a continuous easement, see among other cases Pearson v. Spencer 1 B. & S. 571 which expressly contrasts continuous easements such as drains with discontinuous easements such as rights of way, also Pyer v. Carter (1857) 1 H. & N. 916 which has never been questioned on this point. In the case of continuous easements, the period of twenty years under the section begins from the day on which enjoyment was obstructed by the servient owner or rendered impossible by...
Chintakudy Parvatemma Vs. Lanka Sanyasi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.575
Wallis, J.1. In dealing with this case the lower appellate Court has not sufficiently considered the provisions of the Indian Easements Act, under which an easement may be extinguished by an express or implied release, (Section 38) and also by non-enjoyment for twenty years (Section 47). The latter section distinguished between the case of continuous and discontinuous easements-a continuous easement being defined in Section 5, as one whose enjoyment is, or may be, continual without the act of man.' It is well-settled that a drain is a continuous easement, see among other cases Pearson v. Spencer 1 B. & N.S. 571 : 7 Jur. (N.S.) 1195 : 4 L.T. 769 : 3 B. & S. 761 : N.R. 373 : 8 L.T. 166 : 11 W.R. 471, which expressly contrasts continuous easements, such as drains, with discontinuous easements, such as rights of way, also Pyer v. Garter 1 H. & N. 916 : 26 L.J. Ex. 258 : 5 W.R. 371, which has never been questioned on this point. In the case of continuous easements, the period of twenty year...
Muthu Pillai and ors. Vs. the Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-1910
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ488
ORDERSankaran Nair, J.1. The Sub-Divisional Magisate of Sattur passed an order requring the petitioners, six in number, to show cause why they should not be made to execute bonds for good behaviour as he had information that each of them 'is so desperate and dangerous as to render his being at large without security hazardous to the community' - see Section no, Clause (f) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. After taking evidence he passed bis final order directing them to give security. This is a petition against that order. The main contention is that there is no legal evidence on which the order can be sustained.3. All the prosecution witnesses except the first two and the fourth give evidence of accused being habitual offenders by repute-The first two speak to an assault by some of the accused for which there were tried and acquitted The fourth witness speaks to another assault, but the Magistrate thinks, and I agree with him, that he cannot be believed without corroboration which ...
Kodali Mathaya Vs. Tangoppala Ramaya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.320
Krishnaswami Aiyar, J.1. The suit is on a pronote and not for the original consideration, the balance of purchase-money. Yarlagadda Veeraragavaya v. Gorantla Ramaya 29 M. 111 : 15 M.L.J. 484, has, therefore, no application. The defendant admitted liability on the note but pleaded discharge. The discharge was not gone into. The question, however, is whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree. It has been held in Chenbasappa v. Lakshman Ramchandra 18 B. 369 and that decision is quoted with approval in Thaji Beebi v. Tirumalaiappa Pillay 30 M. 306 : 17 M.L.J. 308, that even where the defendant admits liability, the unstamped pro-note is acted upon if a decree is given in accordance with it. That Section 35 of the Stamp Act prohibits. I feel bound by the decision. I dismiss the petition with costs....
Subbu Reddi and ors. Vs. Veera Reddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.390
Krishnaswamy Aiyar, J.1. It is objected that the Small Cause Court had no jurisdiction to try this suit. This objection was not taken before the District Munsif. The suit is for the plaintiff's share of the value of produce realised by the defendants from property common to them and the plaintiff. I do not see how the possession of the defendants or their receipt of the produce was wrongful within Article 31 of Schedule II of Act IX of 1887. The decisions quoted, Savarimuthu v. Aithunusu Rowther 25 M. 103 : 11 M.L.J. 428; Innasimuthu and Thomasu v. Soonthia Pillay 13 M.L.J. 136 and Venkoba Row v. Muthu Iyer 18 M.L.J. 88 do not apply. Narayan Biaskar v. Balaji Bapuji 21 B. 248 appears to be in point. I dismiss the petition with costs....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›