Chennai Court January 1911 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.
K.R. Narasinga Row, Alias N.R. Karjagi and ors. Vs. S. Kasturiranga Ai ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.279
Arnold White, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Bakewell, J. dismissing a suit in which the plaintiffs claimed damages for libel. The alleged libel was contained in a letter published in the 'Hindu' newspaper. The letter was in the following terms:A certain picture of Sri Subramaniaswami is being advertised as the handy work of the late Raja Ravi Varma. Its artistic character is not, in my judgment, in the well-known style of that great man. If I wish to verify my suspicions, will any of your readers be so good as to inform me through your columns to whom I should write? Chittoor, 18th September 1907. Anti-Humbug.2. At the time when the letter was inserted in the 'Hindu', an advertisement was appearing in that paper. The advertisement was in these terms:'The Hindu', Saturday, September 21st 1907.* * * * * *Ravi Varma Pictures. Very artistically and specially painted for us by, the famous Raja Ravi Varma.3. God Subramaniaswami with his consort, 20 by 14 on the peacock vehicle ...
Samiasi Kavundan and anr. Vs. Akkulammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.278
1. The only point we have now got to determine is whether the tenant could institute a suit in the Civil Court for a declaration that the pattah tendered for Fasli 1316 was bad. There is no provision in the Rent Recovery Act which precludes Such a suit. The decision of the Full Bench in Zamindar of Ettayapuram v. Sankarappa Reddiar 27 M. 483, that a suit for a declaration that an attachment in pursuance of an improper pattah was bad was maintainable in the Civil Court, is an authority in favour of the view that the present suit lies. The appellant does not now want the injunction he originally asked for. It may be that a declaration is a discretionary relief, but unless there are good reasons for not exercising the discretion in the plaintiff's favour it should, not be refused. The passing of the Estates Land Act does not affect the tenant's right to the declaration in a suit instituted before it came into force. We must set aside the decrees of the Court below and remand the case to t...
Mulla Veetil Seethi Kutti Vs. Korambath Paruthooli Achuthan Nair and a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.513
1. The order of reference in this case states the following question for the decision of the Full Bench. 'Whether a first mortgagee who has purchased the mortgaged property in execution of a decree on his mortgage and sues for possession, or in the alternative for the recovery of his money, is entitled to a decree for possession subject to redemption by a puisne mortgagee with possession who was not a party to the suit by the first mortgagee?'2. Our answer is in the negative. There are conflicting decisions of this and the other Indian High Courts on the question which it is impossible to reconcile. The source of the difficulty seems to lie mainly in arriving at a definite conception of the rights of the second mortgagee. Section 60 of the Transfer of Property Act lays down the right of the mortgagor to redeem the mortgage. Section 75 of the Act gives every second or other subsequent mortgagee the same rights as against the prior mortgagee as the mortgagor has against him as regards th...
Ranga Koravan and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.727a
Ayling, J.1. There is no reason to doubt that the death of the deceased, Subba Korathi, was caused by a violent blow on the head with a stone as described by Prosecution witness No. 2. And I find no ground for distrusting the identification of the five appellants by this witness and her son Prosecution witness No. 1. The appellants were persons quite familiar to them and there was more light to see by. There is evidence to show that all the men were given immediately after the offence. There is no evidence to support the very improbable allegation of the appellants that the old woman was killed by her own son (Prosecution witness No. 1) to get them into trouble.2. On the other hand, I find no sufficient ground for holding that the beating of the deceased with a stone was in pursuance of the common object of the appellants and consider that the opinion originally expressed by the Assessors is correct, viz., that the second accused alone is guilty of an offence under Section 304, Indian ...
Rangaswami Iyengar and P. Vaithinatha Iyer Vs. the District Board of T ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1911
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ728
1. It is first contended that under Section 6 of the Madras Estates Land Act the appellants have a permanent right of occupancy. There is, however, nothing before us to show that the appellants were in possession when the Act came into force, so that this contention must fail.2. It is next contended that the Collector's judgment merely directed the defendants to accept the amended patta, and omitted to direct the defendants to execute a muchilika in accordance with it and that as in fact no muchilika was tendered by the landlord along with the patta, the landlord has not made out his right to evict under Section 10 of Act VIII of 1865. The judgment should no doubt have ordered the execution of a muchilika, but we do not think the omission is material in this case. It is found that an amended patta was tendered and refused and if the defendants refused to accept the patta they would certainly have refused to execute a muchilika. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that it is the duty of...
Krishna Bai Vs. the Collector and Government Agent and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1911
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ808
1. In this case a plaint was, in the first instance, put in by the Collector of Tanjore as Manager of the Mangalavilas Estate asking for the ejectment of the 1st defendant from certain property. The 1st defendant alleged inter alia that the Collector had no authority to sue on behalf of the estate. This plea failed before the District Munsif, but was allowed on appeal, the appellate court directing that the members of the Mangalavilas should be placed on record as plaintiffs m substitution for the Collector and sending the case back to the court of the District Munsif for fresh disposal. Against the order, there was an appeal to the High Court, and owing to the non-receipt of the records from that court, the suit had to be adjourned to 14th May. The case was taken up on 17th May and on that day the defendants' pleader put in a fresh written statement and asked for a de novo trial. This the District Munsif, who was not the same District Munsif as disposed of the suit as originally frame...
Rangasami Iyengar and anr. Vs. the District Board of Tanjore
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.730
1. It is first contended that tinder Section 6 of the Madras Estates Land Act the appellants have a permanent right of occupancy. There is, however, nothing before us to show that the appellants were in possession when the Act came into force; so that this contention must fail.2. It is next contended that the Collector's judgment merely directed the defendants to accept the amended pattah, and omitted to direct the defendants to execute a muchilika in accordance with it, and that as in fact no muchilika was tendered by the landlord along with the pattah, the landlord has not made out his right to evict under Section 10 of Act VII of 1865. The judgment should, no doubt, have ordered the execution of a muchilika but we do not think the omission is material in this case. It is found that an amended pattah was tendered and refused and if the defendants refused to accept the pattah they would certainly have refused to execute a muchilika. Assuming for the sake of argument that it is the dut...
In Re: the Secretary to the Commissioner of Salt, Abkari and Separate ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.342a
1. We are of opinion that the receipt mentioned in the letter of the Secretary of Revenue Board is exempt from stamp duty as being a receipt for payment of money without consideration within the meaning of Article 53 of Schedule I of the Indian Stamp Act, exemption (6)....
Rangasawmi Pillai and ors. Vs. Ondia Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.640
1. The plots about which there is a dispute in the second appeal are ABCD and EFGD. The Judge finds that ABCD must be decreed to be common to the plaintiffs and the defendants. We cannot accept this view. The plaintiffs claimed the plot as their own. The defendants, in paragraph 3 of the original written statement and in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the second written statement, merely claimed an easement of way over it. We must, therefore, overrule the Judge's finding as to common ownership. As regards the easement set up it is not clear to what place this right of way was attached. The Judge will take a statement from the defendants on this point and try the question raised under the fifth issue. As regards the plot EFGD, the Judge has found it to be the property of the plaintiffs and declared an easement of way over it in the defendant's favour. This conclusion he has based on the Munsif's finding of user under a license. This view is not legally sound. The Judge must find under the fifth ...
C. Ramanjulu Naidu and anr. Vs. C. Aparanji Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1911
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ313
Charles Arnold White, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from a decree of Mr. Justice Bakewell directing the defendants to remove a certain wall which is marked in the plan, and perpetually restraining them from erecting any wall or building so as to obstruct the access of light and air through the three openings on the southern wall of the plaintiff's house. The allegation in the plaint - paragraph 4 - is : - 'That the defendants have recently commenced to erect on the first floor of their house a structure which is calculated to. interfere with the plaintiff's right of light and air to the windows, doors and rooms on the southern side of her house, which right the plaintiff claims as a right by reason of her house having been built for upwards of 20 years, and thereby having acquired by peaceable enjoyment a right of light and air thereto.'2. Now, three points were taken in appeal. The first point was that the plaintiff had not proved 20 years' enjoyment of the right by way of easement. T...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »