Chennai Court November 1912 Judgments
Ramasami Aiyar Vs. Venkateswara Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-1912
Reported in: 19Ind.Cas.660; (1913)24MLJ1
ORDER1. This is an application to revise the order of the District Magistrate of Chittoor concerning the 'disposal of certain money and other articles seized by the Police in connection with a complaint of theft preferred by the petitioner against one Venkateswara Aiyar. The seizure was made in consequence of the petitioner's statement to the Police that he saw the accused running away from his house along with another person. A preliminary investigation was held by the Inspector of Police who came to the conclusion that the case was a false one and that the articles seized were probably foisted by the complainant himself or by his men into the accused's house where they were found by the Police. The complaint against the accused was dismissed by the 2nd class Magistrate of Gudiyatham under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure without notice to the accused. He directed under Section 517 of the Criminal Procedure Code that the articles seized by the Police should be forfeited t...
Tag this Judgment!Sankara Rayamma Vs. Andusmalli Venkatratnam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-1912
Reported in: (1913)24MLJ30
1. The Judge was wrong in not making allowance for the cultivation expenses incurred by the defendants. The cases referred to by him Altap Ali v. Lalji Mal I.L.R. (1877) A. 518, Dungar Mal v. Jairam I.L.R. (1902) A. 375, Dakhina Mohan Roy v. Saroda Mohan Boy I.L.R. (1893) C. 142 , do not support his view. These cases referred to a claim for the costs of collecting the rent due from the persons in occupation of land. The plaintiff claims Rupees Four an acre for those expenses. It is not contended that the claim is excessive. We allow it. The appellant is not able to shew that the amount paid by him for revenue and water-cess was more than the value of straw and some hemp which has been set off against it. The order of the Lower Court is modified by deducting from the amount decreed cultivation charges at Rs. 4 an acre.2. The Respondent objects to the court fee and pleader's fee on Rs. 9883-6-0. The amount of profits prior to the plaint has been omitted by mistake in the order of the Low...
Tag this Judgment!Ramasami Aiyar Vs. Venskateswara Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-1912
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.171
ORDER1. This is an application to revise the order of the District Magistrate of Chittoor, concerning the disposal of certain money and other articles seized by the Police in connection with a complaint of theft preferred by the petitioner against one Venkateswara Aiyar. The seizure was made in consequence of the petitioner's statement to the Police that he saw the accused running away from his house along with another person. A preliminary investigation was held by the Inspector of Police who came to the conclusion that the case was a false one and that the articles seized were probably foisted by the complainant himself or by his men into the accused's house where they were found by the Police. The complaint against the accused was dismissed by the 2nd class Magistrate of Gudiyatham under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure without notice to the accused. He directed under Section 517 of the Criminal Procedure Code that the articles seized by the Police should be forfeited t...
Tag this Judgment!Sitamraju Ramabrahmam Vs. M. Lakshmanna
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-1912
Reported in: 20Ind.Cas.843; (1913)25MLJ33
1. The question whether the defendant has occupancy right is one of fact. The judge is not right in saying that 25 years' possession would by itself confer occupancy right on the defendant but it is good evidence of such right. Possibly this was all that the Judge meant. The land being an Inam the presumption also is that the Kudivaram was not vested in the plaintiff. The defendant's written statement cannot be said to contain any admission that his claim of occupancy right was only under an express grant. We must accept the Judge's finding and dismiss the second appeal....
Tag this Judgment!The Secretary of State for India in Council Represented by the Collect ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-1912
Reported in: (1912)23MLJ746
1. The decrees of the Lower Courts are altogether unsupportable. The land is admittedly classed as wet land and no cess was levied from the plaintiffs under Act VII of 1865. The suit is therefore one for refund of land revenue on the ground that as the Government failed to supply water for raising wet crops, it was not entitled to levy the revenue assessed on the land. It is entirely a matter for Government to decide what amount of revenue should be levied on any land and Civil Courts have no jurisdiction to try any question relating to it. (Section 58 of the Madras Revenue Recovery Act II of 1864). The Lower Courts are quite wrong in supposing that the liability to pay land revenue rests on contract or some relation resembling contract. Land revenue is a tax imposed on lands by virtue of the prerogative of the State. The plaintiffs were bound to pay it whether water was available or not for wet cultivation If they regarded the tax as excessive, their proper and only remedy was to appe...
Tag this Judgment!R.M.P.R.V. Vellayappa Chettiar and ors. Vs. S.R.M.S. Narayanan Chettya ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-1912
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.81
Miller, J.1. The evidence in the case supports the finding of the Subordinate Judge that the promissory-note, Exhibit D, was executed as a part of the price of the land sold by the plaintiff to the 1st defendant. In order, for the 1st defendant, to succeed in his case it was for him to show and, I think, he has entirely failed to show it that any money was owing to him by the plaintiffs vendors, Ramasami Chetty and his brothers, at the time of the sale by the plaintiff to him. And ha would have to show also that there was nothing more owning to the plaintiff except the sum of Rs. 3000. Now as to the original transaction, Exhibit A, in 1897, recited that as the price of the land, the plaintiff took over the liabilities of Ramasami Chetty and his brothers which arose out of their dissolution of partnership. The recital was held to be proved in a former suit and that is alleged now by the plaintiff, and no reason has been shown to us why that should be disbelieved If that is so, it requir...
Tag this Judgment!Vuppuluri Atchayya and ors., Vs. Kanchumarti Venkata Seetarama Chandra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-1912
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.555
ORDERSadasiva Aiyar, J.1. These three petitions have arisen out of suits in ejectment brought by the same plaintiff who comes under the definition of a landlord under the Estates Land Act against his tenants. The Court of 1st instance (the District Munsif's Court of Tanuku) was of opinion that a Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suits and that under the Estates Land Act, the plaintiff ought to have brought the suits in a Revenue Court. The learned Munsif, therefore, ordered the plaints to be returned to the plaintiff for presentation to the proper Court.2. On appeal, the Subordinate Judge of Ellore held that under the saving clause to Section 153 of the Estates Land Act, the suits were cognizable by Civil Court. He set aside the District Munsif's orders and directed the District Munsif to take back the plaints, to restore the suits to his file and dispose of them according to law.3. These Civil revision petitions have been filed praying for the reversal of the learned Subordin...
Tag this Judgment!Lakshma Ammal and anr. Vs. Tyagaraja Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-1912
Reported in: (1913)24MLJ450
1. In this appeal, the scheme is objected to on two grounds. Objection is taken to paragraph 6 of the decree in which it is said that the jewels of the temple shall be kept in the joint custody of the Dharmakartha and the Gurukkals of the temple, and the objection is that the Gurukkals should not be allowed to have joint custody. We think however, without any reflection upon the Dharmakarta's trustworthiness or honesty, that it is desirable that in cases of valuable portable property the doable custody should be provided and subject to verbal modifications in the clause in order to make it clear that what is intended is that the jewels shall be kept in a box which shall bs provided with two locks of different patterns, the key of one lock being with the Dharmakarta and the key of the other with the Gurukkal whose turn it is to do duty; subject to that, we think we ought to maintain that clause. Then objection is taken to Clause 9 of the decree which provides for the removal of the trus...
Tag this Judgment!K. Lakshmana Aiyar Vs. Sankaramoorthy Pillayan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-1912
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.199
Miller, J.1. The question in this appeal is a question of priorities. The second defendant sold to his other co-parceners his one-sixth share of the family property for Rs. 70,000, and obtained a mortgage bond in 1894. The sale-deed is Exhibit H. We are concerned with that portion of the price, Rs. 7,000 which was not paid to the seller at the time; the deed contained a statement that that (Rs. 7,000) had been reserved on account of a hypothecation bond 'that has to be executed by you to me.' That was in August 1894. Then, in November 1894, the plaintiff obtained a mortgage (Exhibit A) of some of these properties; and, on the 12th December 1894, the 1st defendant gave to the 2nd defendant a mortgage (Exhibit II) of some of the properties in Kamsapuram, which ware some of the properties of which the one-sixth share was sold in August. Now, the question is whether, by reason of the prior agreement before this mortgage (Exhibit II, I ought to have said, was executed in pursuance of the ag...
Tag this Judgment!Lakshmi Ammal and anr. Vs. P. Thyagaraya Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-1912
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.378
ORDER1. On the question whether the 2nd defendant attained his majority at the age of 18 or is still a minor, we agree with the decision cited to us Ganesh Lal v. Suraj Mal 89 P.R. 1903 that the grant of Letters of Administration under Section 33 of the Probate and Administration Act, V of 1381, does not amount to the appointment by the Court of a guardian of the property of the minor or lunatic concerned, and, consequently, Section 3 of the Indian Majority Act, IX of 1575, does not operate to extend the period of minority. The 2nd defendant is declared to have attained majority....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »