Chennai Court November 1912 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.
The Secretary of State for India, in Council, Represented by the Colle ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.953
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...
Vyapuri Koundan and ors. Vs. A.C. Chidambara Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-1912
Reported in: (1913)24MLJ26
1. The plaintiff obtained a decree on a mortgage against the defendants. The decree directed a certain amount to be paid with future interest on the principal at 18 p. c. per annum. Various payments were made by the defendants from time to time. There have in all been fourteen applications by the plaintiff for execution. In the first twelve applications he appropriated the payments in a certain way (which it is unnecessary to describe). The 13th application, that is, the one immediately preceding the present one, he made his calculation of the amount due to him in quite a different way with the result that the amount was shown to be much larger than what would be due according to the method of calculation adopted in the previous applications. The court held without issuing notice to defendants that the plaintiff was not entitled to the larger amount and returned his application with the direction that he should amend the amount due to him in accordance with the mode of calculation prev...
Vyapuri Goundan and Two ors. Vs. A.C. Chidambara Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-1912
Reported in: (1914)ILR37Mad314
1. The plaintiff: obtained a decree on a mortgage against the defendants. The decree directed a certain amount to be paid with future interest on the principal at 18 per cent, per annum. Various payments were made by the defendants from time to time. There have in all been 14 applications by the plaintiff for execution. In the first 12 applications he appropriated the payments in a certain way (which it is necessary to describe). In the 13th application, i.e., the one immediately preceding the present one, he made his calculation of the amount due to him in quite a different way with the result that the amount was shown to be much larger than what would be due according to the method of calculation adopted in the previous applications. The Court held without issuing notice to defendants that the plaintiff was not entitled to the larger amount arid returned his application with the direction that he should amend the amount due to him in accordance with the mode of calculation previously...
Sama Row Vs. Doraisami Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1912
Reported in: (1913)24MLJ266
Miller, J.1. In this case the mortgagor and mortgagee are divided brothers. The finding is that out of the sum of Rs. 900 and odd which appears as the sum secured by the mortgage, some Rs. 540 were debts due by the mortgagor and Rs. 400 and odd represents nothing really due by the mortgagor but is a fictitious sum arranged in order apparently to make the amount secured by the mortgage equal or more than equal to the whole of the property mortgaged, and the finding of the Subordinate Judge as I understand it, is that this was done in order that the mortgagee might hold the surplus amount for the mortgagor in order to save it from his creditors. In these circumstances it seems to me that the Subordinate Judge was certainly right in holding that the whole mortgage was voidable as against the creditors represented by the 2nd defendant in this case. The only case decided in this Court which was referred to in support of the contention that the transaction may be declared voidable only to th...
The Public Prosecutor Vs. Sadananda Patnaik
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.786; (1912)23MLJ670
1. The facts of this case so far as they are necessary to state them for the purposes of this appeal, are as follows:2. One Sadananda Patnaik was convicted by the 1st class Magistrate of the Gumsoor Sub. Division, Ganjam, of an offence punishable under Section 161 I.P.C. On appeal the Sessions Judge of the Ganjam Session Division acquitted him. Against this acquittal the Public Prosecutor appeals on behalf of Government on the ground thai the Sessions Judge of the Ganjam Sessions Division had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. The offence was committed at Baliguda which is in the Ganjam Agency tracts. The case was transferred by the Agent to and was tried by the 1st class Magistrate of the Gumsoor Sub. Division who had local Criminal jurisdication over certain Agency tracts as well as over certain non-Agency tracts. The argument for the appellant is that tha Agent transferred the case to the 1st class Magistrate for trial in his capacity as a, 1st class Magistrate of the Agency, ...
Villuri Adinarayana Vs. Polimera Ramudu Alias Ramaswamy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.648; (1913)24MLJ17
1. In this case the plaintiff asked for a declaration of his right to take water through a channel for the cultivation of certain land belonging to him and for an injunction restraining the defendants from obstructing the course of the channel. The lands both of the plaintiff and defendants are situated in a proprietary estate. According to the plaintiff a river channel supplied the means of irrigation for the lands of the parties and other ryots who had lands alongside the stream. A branch leading from the main channel passed through the lands of the defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and then the 4th defendant's land and, according to the plaintiff, afterwards reached his own land. Defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3, are alleged to have blocked up the channel at a point higher than the 4th defendant's land. They contended that the channel never irrigated the lands either of the 4th defendant or of the plaintiff, and that it stopped somewhere near their own lands. The 4th defendant did not contest th...
V. Adinarayana Vs. P. Ramudu Alias Ramaswamy and Three ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-1912
Reported in: (1914)ILR37Mad304
1. In this case the plaintiff asked for a declaration of his right to take water through a channel for the cultivation of certain land belonging to him and for an injunction restraining the defendants from obstructing the course of the channel. The lands both of the plaintiff and defendants are situated in a proprietary estate. According to the plaintiff a river channel supplied the means of irrigation for the lands of the parties and other ryots who had lands alongside the stream. A branch leading from the main channel passed through the lands of the defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and then the fourth defendant's, land and, according to the plaintiff, afterwards reached his own land. Defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are alleged to have blocked up the channel at a point higher than the fourth defendant's land. They contended that the channel never irrigated the lands either of the fourth defendant or of the plaintiff, and that it stopped somewhere near their own lands. The fourth defendant did no...
Rajagopala Pandarithar, Minor Represented by His Next Friend Anni Amma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1912
Reported in: (1912)23MLJ676
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The District Munsif dismissed the suit for default under Order 9 Rule 12 because the minor plaintiff's next friend did not appear in person when ordered to do so.2. I do not agree with the Petitioner's Vakil that the court has no power to order a party to appear in person except when empowered by specific sections found in the Civil Procedure Code. I think the Court must have such power whenever it considers that the interests of justice require any party to appear in person at any stage of the case.3. But the Court has no power under 0. 9 Rule 12 to dismiss a minor's suit for default because of the disobedience of his next friend. The next friend is not a party to the suit (see Collector of Trichinopoly v. Sivarama Krishna Sastrigal I.L.R. (1899) M. 73though for purposes of answering interrogatories or for saddling him with costs, he might be treated as a party. He should not be treated as a party in order to visit his obedience to the court's orders upon the mino...
N.P.L.N.K.R. Kanniappan Chetti Vs. P.R. Manikavasagam Chetti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.763; (1912)23MLJ677
ORDER1. In this case the notice of motion asks for an order 'that the sale of the appellant's immoveable properties advertised for the 11th Nov. 1912 in the Court of the Sub-Judge of Raranad at Madura be stayed till the further orders of this Court and that all proceedings in execution of the decree in O.S. No. 160 of 1911 dated the 20th Sep. 1911 be stayed against the appellant pending the disposal of this appeal and for such other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem proper and necessary in the circumstances of this case and for an order that the costs of this application be costs in the appeal.'2. A preliminary objection has been taken that under Rule XII 6 (2) the application should be made to the court which made the order for sale, i.e., in this instance to the Sub-Judge's Court at Ramnad.3. Mr. Odgers has contended that there is concurrent jurisdiction in the Subordinate Judge's Court and in this Court and he has referred to the English Rules of the Supreme Court order LVIII Ru...
B. Ayyaparaju Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council (Represe ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1912
Reported in: (1914)ILR37Mad293a
Abdur Rahim, J.1. In this case the plaintiff sued the Secretary of State asking for a decree declaring his title to a house-site in a certain village, for recovering a certain sum of money which had been levied from him as penal assessment and for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from levying any such assessment on the lands in question. The defendant's case was that the land Ashalmenaha being what is called Potter's Inam, and does not belong to the plaintiff and that on that ground the defendant was entitled to collect penal assessment from the plaintiff.2. Both the lower courts, on a consideration of the evidence, have found that the plaintiff did not succeed in proving the ownership of the land. It is found however at the same time that the plaintiff: is in possession of the land and has been so for about throe years. He is in possession under two documents of title derived from two persons, Venkatasami and Subarayudu, one of whom at least was in possession of the la...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »