Chennai Court February 1912 Judgments
S. Sundaram Iyer, Receiver and Manager, Palace Estate Vs. Muthuganpati ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.184
Miller, J.1. The Estates Land Act received the assent of the Governor of Madras on 25th March 1908, but by virtue of Section 40 of the Indian Councils Act, 1861, (24 & 25 Vict. C. 67) had no validity; that is to say, did not become law before it received the assent of the Governor-General on the 28ch of June 19C8. It came into operation on the 1st of July 1908, two days later.2. The cause of action for arrears of rent on which the suit was based was more than three years old on the 28th of June 1908. Article 8 of Part A in the Schedule attached to the Estates Land Act provides a limitation period of 3 years for suits by a land-holder to recover arrears of rent, and if this Act applies to the case the suit is barred by limitation as the Courts below have held. The contract by which the tenant holds his land was, however, contained in a registered instrument and, according to the decisions of this Court vide Ambalavana Pandararn v. Vaguran 19 M.k 52 the landlord is given in such cases a ...
Tag this Judgment!Papala Narayanasawmy Naidu and ors. Vs. the Secretary of State for Ind ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1912
Reported in: (1913)24MLJ36
1. In this case the plaintiff as owner of the shrotriem village of Kilianur, asked for a declaration that a portion of the bed of the Kusasthalai river belonged to him, and for an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the enjoyment thereof. The Defendants Nos. 1 to 14 are the ryots of the neighbouring village of Patraiperambudur. The 15th defendant is the Secretary of State for India. The District Munsif dismissed the suit. On appeal the District Judge gave a decree for the Plaintiff. The Defendants appeal against this decree. We think the appeal must be allowed on the ground that the plaintiff is not the owner of the portion of the river-bed claimed by him. In this Presidency the beds of rivers are ordinarily vested in Government, as pointed out by Sundara Aiyar J. in the recent case of Chockalingam Pillai v. Emperor (1912) 1 M.W.N. 119 See also Section 2 of Act III of 1905 and Kundukuri Mahalakshmamma Garu v. The Secretary of State for India I.L.R. (1910) M. 296...
Tag this Judgment!Papala Narayansawmi Naidu and ors. Vs. Pensalani Kanniappa Naidu and o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.261
1. In this case, the plaintiff, as owner of Shrotriem village of Kilianur, asked for a declaration that a portion of the bed of the Kusasthalai River belonged to him and for an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his enjoyment thereof. The defendants Nos. 1 to 14 are the ryo's of the neighbouring village of Patraipur-rambadur; the 15th defendant is the Secretary of State for India.2. The District Munsif dismissed the suit. On appeal the District Judge gave a decree for the plaintiff. The defendants appeal against the decree. We think the appeal must be allowed on the ground that the plaintiff is not the owner of the portion of the river bed claimed by him. In this Presidency, the beds of river are ordinarily vested in Government, as pointed out by Sundara Aiyar, J., in the recent case of Chockalingam Pillai v. Emperor (1912) 1 M.W.N. 119 : 11 M.L.T. 162. See also Section 2 of Act III of 1905 and Kundukuri Mahalakshmama Garu v. The Secretary of State for India 34...
Tag this Judgment!Venkatachariar Vs. the Divisional Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.625
1. In this case a plot of land measuring 41 cents with a building, a well and trees thereon had been acquired by Government. The land is very near to the Court buildings in Tinnevelly and the compensation allowed by the District Judge is Rs. 7,054 all told. Objection is taken by the appellant to the District Judge's award under two heads, that is, for the value of the site of the land and compensation for loss of earnings. The Deputy Collector's award for the land was Rs. 2,059, that is, at the rate of Rs. 50 a cent and the District Judge has allowed Rs. 770 only, that is, at the rate of about Rs. 19 a cant. We think that the decision of the Land Acquisition Judge is wrong on this point. He has apparently proceeded on the basis of a small piece of nanja land sold under Exhibit II which, as described in the evidence, is a triangular piece of land, low-lying and useless for cultivation and on which no building could be built unless the level was raised. On the other hand, the land that h...
Tag this Judgment!Mangama Guruvappa Naicken Vs. Rajama Naicken and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.148a
1. The question in this second appeal relates to the construction of a compromise entered into between the 1st defendant and her deceased husband, Exhibit J in the case. The 1st defendant had been living apart from her husband, who was suffering from physical deformity. The object of Exhibit J was to induce the wife to live with her husband. It provides that both should live together in the husband's house, and contains certain stipulations with respect to the property mentioned therein. It does not appear that that was all the property owned by the husband. In fact, the house in which the two were to live together is not dealt with in the agreement. It provides that both should jointly enjoy the property, but neither should alienate it. Then follows the clause whose construction is in dispute. It is to the effect that in case of the death of either the husband or the wife, the other should enjoy the land with full right.' The question is, what did the parties mean by the expression wi...
Tag this Judgment!The Crown Prosecutor Vs. Subraya Naicker
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.207
ORDER1. This case is governed by the decision in Veeraraghavulu V. President Corporation of Madras 34 M.k 130 : 7 Ind. Cas. 743 : 8 M.L.T. 305 : 20 M.L.J. 773. We set aside the order of acquittal and direct the Presidency Magistrate to re-try the case and dispose of it in accordance with law....
Tag this Judgment!T.M. Ittithayeri Nambudri Vs. P.C.K. Kanvastri Ithri Amma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.284
1. The first question argued is that the Subordinate Judge wrongly disallowed a considerable extent of paddy lards as not included in the demise. It is argued that the onus was on the defendants to point out the lands demised to him and not on the plaintiff to prove what lands he demised and claims to recover. There is absolutely no warrant for this proposition. The case relied on Dugappa Chetti v. Tirthasami 6 M. k263 lends no countenance to it. As pointed out in (hat case, if the tenant destroys the boundaries of the lands he takes possession of from his landlord or otherwise mixes up the lands with other lands in his possession, then the onus of pointing out the lands demised would be shifted to the tenant. This rule does not displace the principle that the plaintiff who wants to recover any land on the ground that it belongs to him must prove his case. In (his case it was not alleged that the tenant so mixed up plaintiff's lands with other lands as to relieve the plaintiff of the o...
Tag this Judgment!R.M.A.R. Raman Chetty and ors. Vs. P. Nagarathna Naicker
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.380
Wallis, J.1. This is a suit brought by the plaintiff, R. M. A. R. Raman Chetty, on a promissory-note in a two-fold character of payee and indorsee of the note. At the trial, the claim of the plaintiff as indorsee broke down as he was unable to prove the authority of the agent who made the endorsement. And the plaintiff's Counsel then contended that he was entitled to succeed as a sole payee owing to the fact, as he alleged, that, subsequently to the making of the note, his partner had retired from the firm and he had become the sole owner of the firm, and he adduced evidence to that effect. Thereupon, I allowed him to make the other member of the firm a party to the suit either as plaintiff or defendant and adjourned the case. When the case came on, no further argument was addressed to me nor evidence called by either side, and treating the case as undefended, I gave judgment, without assigning reasons, for the plaintiff, on the basis that the original plaintiff had become the sole own...
Tag this Judgment!The Maharaja of Vizayanagaram Vs. Mahaswaram Ramabhadrayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.397
1. The first point urged is that as defendants Nos. 1 and 2 were in possession of the land in question on the date when the Estates Land Act, I of 1908, came into force, they acquired the right of occupancy in the land under Section 6 of the Act, and that the plaintiff is, therefore, not entitled to recover possession from them. It has been found by the lower Appellate Court that the plaintiff was in possession of the land for more than the statutory period before he was dispossessed in 1906. He had, therefore, acquired by prescription either the absolute right to the property or the right of a ryot. We are clearly of opinion that the object of Section 6 of Act 1 of 1908 was only to confer on ryots in possession as against the landholder the occupancy-right in the land and that it was not intended to destroy the occupancy-right which vested, in our opinion, prior to July 1908, in favour of another person wrongfully in possession of the holding in July 1905. This argument cannot, theref...
Tag this Judgment!C.V. Gangadara Sastri Vs. the Deputy Collector of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1912
Reported in: (1912)22MLJ379
Abdur Rahim, J.1. This is an appeal by one Mr. C.V. Gangadara Sastri from the award of the Chief Judge of the Presidency Small Cause Court in a land acquisition case and the only question we are asked by the appellant's vakil to consider is whether it was competent for the learned Judge to hold that on some of the items included in the award of the Collector the claimant was entitled to a sum less than what the Collector would give him though, on the whole, the total amount of compensation awarded by the Collector has not been reduced. The property acquired is a certain quantity of land and buildings standing on a portion thereof. The Deputy Collector awarded as compensation a sum of Rs. 5,404-3-5 which consisted of the following particulars:Rs. A. P.1. Land at Rs. 1,000 per ground .. .. 1,700 0 02. Superstructure .. .. .. .. .. 2,103 0 03. Trees .. .. .. .. .. .. 26 4 04. Compensation for loss caused by severance ofacquired land from other land of theclaimant .. .. .. .. .. .. 1,000 0...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »