Chennai Court April 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.
M. Maniyam Pattar and ors. Vs. K. Lakshmana Nattama Karan and ors. and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.52
1. It was first argued that the 1st defendant alone is entitled to raise the plea that there was no notice to quit and as he did not appear in appeal, the Appellate Judge was wrong in dismissing the suit on that ground. But we find that the question was raised by the 1st defendant and formed the subject of an issue and though there was no decision on this point by the Court of first instance, it was necessary for the Appellate Court on appeal by the plaintiff to decide that question.2. It is next argued that the first defendant denied the plaintiff's title and, therefore, was not entitled to notice. The 1st defendant was the 2nd defendant's tenant. Both the plaintiff and the 3rd defendant were simple mortgagees under the 2nd defendant and while a suit by the plaintiff to enforce his mortgage was pending, the 2nd defendant granted a usufructuary mortgage to the 3rd defendant to whom the 1st defendant attorned. The plaintiff became a purchaser in execution of his mortgage-decree. It is n...
V. Srinivasa Varadachariar Vs. Sami Reddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.458; (1912)23MLJ161
1. The plaintiff, the owner of 51/15/6th share in the shrotriem, sues to enforce acceptance of pattas. As he is only a joint owner he is not entitled to sue for proportionate rent. This question has already been decided by this Court. See C.M.A. No. 125 of 1907 on the file of this Court.2. But it is contended that the plaintiff had already sued and obtained decrees for enforcement of pattas for his 5 1/8th share for fasli 1315 and as the defendants had executed muchilikas for Faslies 1315 and 1316 the plaintiff's right to enforce pattas for his 5 1/8th share should therefore be declared in this suit.3. As to the pattas of the Fasli 1315, it is contended by the Advocate-General that they were executed in pursuance of the decree and there is no res judicata as the decision with reference to the patta for Fasli 1315 was on a pure question of law.4. Assuming this to be so, we do not see why the agreement between the parties to pay proportionate rent for the plaintiff's 51/8th share evidenc...
K.A. Veeraraghava Thatha Chariar and ors. Vs. T. Srinivasa Thatha Char ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-1912
Reported in: (1912)23MLJ134
1. This is a suit for the settlement of a scheme for the management of the temple of Sri Devarajaswami at Conjeevaram and the shrines attached to it. The temple is one of the most ancient and famous in Southern India. It has unfortunately been also the source of constant and bitter litigation for a very long period of time, not less than a century. The suit has been instituted by certain members of a group of families known as the Thathachars who are all said to be the descendants of one Koti Kanyakadanam Thatha Desikar, a famous scholar who is reputed to have been the. priest of Sri Krishna Devaraya, the Rajah of the Carnatic. The original defendants were also members of the same family. Defendants Nos. 1 to 4 are admittedly trustees of the temple and the 19th defendant also claims to have been validly appointed as trustee by a mediator who is alleged to have possessed the power to appoint him. According to the rules of the institution prevailing at the time of the suit, the temple wa...
In Re: S. Kondareddi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-1912
Reported in: (1914)ILR37Mad112
ORDERBenson, J.1. The question raised in this petition is whether it is competent to a Magistrate under Section 94, Criminal Procedure Code, to issue a summons to an accused person to produce a document or other thing, the production of which might tend to incriminate him.2. The words of the section are general. No exception is made in favour of an accused person, though several exceptions are specified in Clause (3) of the section.3. The question was considered at length in Mahomed Jackariah & Co. v. Ahmed Mahomed (1888) 15 Calc. 109 and it was held that it was clearly the intention of the Legislature to make Section 94 applicable to an accused person, notwithstanding that this involved a departure from the general principle of the English law. A similar view was apparently taken in Nizam of Hyderabad v. Jacob (1882) 19 Calc. 52.4. A contrary view was taken in Ishwar Chandra Ghoshal v. The Emperor 12 C.W.N. 1016 in which the learned Judges referred to Sections 342 and 343, Criminal Pr...
M.V. Chappan Vs. P. Raru and Two ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-1912
Reported in: (1914)ILR37Mad420
1. The plaintiff, the trustee of a devasom, sues to redeem a mortgage of Rs. 50 created by the plaintiff's karnavan on the 21st January 1891. It is admitted that on the 21st February 1905, the same karnavan mortgaged the lands included in the mortgage instrument aforesaid with certain other lands for Rs. 1,650. On the same day he also mortgaged the equity of redemption for Rs. 1,500. It is conceded this mortgage for Rs. 1,650 was a consolidation of three previous mortgages, due for Rs. 900, dated 25th March, 1890 and the other for Rs. 700 on the 13th February 1890 and the mortgage for Rs. 50 which the plaintiff seeks to redeem. The mortgage for Rs. 900 has been already declared to be binding on the property.2. The District Judge held that the mortgage of Rs. 50 is now no longer in force as it is merged in the mortgage for Rs. 1,650 and that the plaintiff is bound to sue to set aside the mortgages of the 21st February 1905; and as a suit to redeem on those mortgages or set them aside wi...
Ambalavana Chetty and anr. Vs. Singaravelu Odayar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.146
1. The Subordinate Judge has not recorded clear findings on the questions:(1) How long the 1st defendant or any person who derived his possession from or through him continued to be in possession; and(2) when and how the 3rd defendant obtained possession of the land.2. The findings will be submitted within one month after the recess and seven days will be allowed for filing objections.3. Any further question arising in the second appeal is reserved.4. In compliance with the above order, the Subordinate Judge of Kubakonam submitted the followingFINDINGSI have been asked to submit on the evidence on record findings on the following issues:(1) How long the 1st defendant or any person who derived his possession from or through him continued to be in possession?(2) When and how the 3rd defendant obtained possession of the land?2. The first issue requires a preliminary finding on the issue as to which persons, if any, derived their possession through or under the 1st defendant. The District ...
Ravula Vengala Reddi, Having Died, His Heir and Widow, Ravula Vengamma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.328
1. In this case, judgment of the lower Appellate Court must be reversed on the question of limitation. The District Judge held that Section 59 of the Revenue Recovery Act applied and not Article 16 of the second. Schedule of the Limitation Act.2. In Second Appeals Nos. 838 and 844 of 1910 and 240 to 244 of 1911, we went into the question fully and we came to the conclusion that where there is a mere demand by the Government purporting to be made under the Revenue Recovery Act, such a demand will not makes Section 59 of that Act applicable as amounting to a proceeding under the Act. The judgment of the District Judge must, therefore, be reversed on this point and that of the District Munsif restored with costs in this and the lower Appellate Court....
Surey Kondareddi and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.493
ORDERRalph Benson, J.1. The question raised in this petition is, whether it is competent to a Magistrate under Section 94, Criminal Procedure Code, to issue a summons to an accused person to produce a document or other thing, the production of which might tend to incriminate him. The words of the section are general. No exception is made in favour of an accused person, though several exceptions are specified in Clause (3) of the section. The question was considered at length in the case reported in Ahmed Mahomed Jackariah and Co. v. Ahmed Mahomed 15 C.P 109 and it was held that it was clearly the intention of the Legislature to make Section 94 applicable to an accused person, notwithstanding that this involved a departure from the general principle of the English law. A similar view was apparently taken in the case reported in In the matter of the complaint of H. H. The Nizam of Hyderabad v. A. M. Jacob 19 C.P 52 A contrary view was taken in the case reported in Ishwar Chandra Ghoshal ...
Muthu K.R.V. Alagappa Chetty Vs. Dasapa Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1912
Reported in: (1913)24MLJ293
1. The plaintiff obtained a sale-deed from one Veeravasantha Chetty in 1906. The property was afterwards attached by the defendants for a debt due to them. The plaintiff then put in a claim petition and subsequently instituted this suit for a declaration of his rights under the sale-deed. Defendants contended that the sale-deed was not supported by consideration, that it was colourable and executed to defraud the creditors of the vendor. The District Munsif upheld the defendants' contention. He gives in his judgment several reasons in support of his view. He says that Veeravasantha Chetty disposed of all his properties about the time that the sale deed was executed, that he was deeply involved in debts, that the plaintiff was his brother and that the vendor suspended business shortly after he executed the sale-deed. He also points out that though the sale-deed sets out that the object of selling the property was to discharge the debts due to certain Madras creditors, those creditors ha...
M. Chengiah Vs. Rajah of Kalahasti and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1912
Reported in: (1913)24MLJ263
Charles Arnold White, C.J.1. I cannot accept the view of the District Judge that what was dons by the lessor's agents was done with the intention of bringing pressure to bear upon the lessees and should be treated as an intimation by the lassor to the lessees that he intended to determine the tenancy.2. I agree with Munro J. and I am of opinion that the lessor in this case by an unequivocal act intimated that he had elected to avail himself of the forfeiture. This intimation of the lessor's election having been communicated to the lessees was irrevocable and the parties could not by a subsequent agreement revive the old tenancy. See Jones v. Carter (1846) 15 M.& W. 718, Evans v. Wyatt (1862) 43 L.T. 176, and Smith's Leading cases notes to Dumpor's case Vol. I p. 32.3. I also agree with Munro J. that the 2nd defendant is liable to the plaintiff for use and occupation. It may be that during the subsistence of the lease the plaintiff notwithstanding that the 2nd defendant was in occupatio...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »