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.
Popuri Peddanna and ors. Vs. Tummala Ganta Kotiah and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.761
ORDER1. Section 148(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code permits a Magistrate to direct by whom are to be paid any costs which have been incurred as witnesses' or Pleader's fees; we think the section does not permit him to give any direction in respect of other costs which might be admissible under the much wider provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code as costs incidental to the proceedings. The penalties in the present case are not such expenses as are included in the provision of Section 148(3), and we are asked to hold that the Magistrate was entitled to deal with them by reason of Section 44(3) of the Stamp Act. We are unable to give to this section the effect suggested. It cannot, as we understand it, clothe the Magistrate to 'deal with costs other than those provided for by the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. The case, Raiendra Narain Roy v. Mahomed Arzumand Khan 9 C.W.N. 887 is cited as authority for the view that costs not mentioned in Section 148(3) may be dealt with by the Magis...
Padala Krishna Rao Vs. Padala Kumarajamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.340
1. The question raised for decision in this second appeal is, whether the plaintiff, who is the illegitimate son of one Ragavulu, born of a woman who had been previously married to another person when young and had been subsequently been in the keeping of Ragavulu after her husband's death, is entitled to inherit Ragavulu's property. The case of Annayyan v. Chinnan 33 M.K 366 : 5 Ind. Cas. 84 : 7 M.L.T. 140 : 20 M.L.J. 355 is a direct authority against the contention of the appellant that he is entitled to inherit. It was laid down in that case that, in order that an illegitimate son may be entitled to inherit to his father, he must have been born of a woman who was never married to any one before she came under the keeping of the person whose son the claimant is. It is contended that Colebrook's Translation of the Text of Dayabhaga that the illegitimate son must be the son of an unmarried woman is not quite accurate, that the Sanskrit expression really means the son of a woman not mar...
Vemusami Gavaramma and anr. Vs. Chilukuri Pitohamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.573
1. The matter in dispute before the arbitrator was whether the plaintiff was entitled to have a sale-deed set aside. The arbitrator was of opinion that while the plaintiff was entitled to have it set aside, she was also bound as a matter of equity to repay the money that she had received in connection with the sale-deed. It cannot be said that he acted beyond the limits of his jurisdiction in passing what in substance was a conditional award in plaintiffs' favour and the District Munsif was right, therefore, in holding that there was no ground under Rule 14, Schedule II of the Civil Procedure Code, to remit the award. The Appellate Court's decision on the merits modifying the decree of the District Munsif is wrong. In this view of the case, it is, perhaps, unnecessary to consider whether an appeal lay to the Subordinate Judge at all against the Munsif s decree. The Procedure Code provides no appeal against an order refusing to remit an award and the Full decision of this Court in Surya...
Titali Venkata Seetharamaya Vs. Vedvla Venkataramaya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.334a
1. In this case, the plaintiff is a person holding a mortgage from the 3rd defendant over some properly belonging to him; the 1st and 2nd defendants obtained a money-decree against the 3rd defendant and attached the mortgaged property. After the attachment, the plaintiff instituted a suit for sale on his mortgage, but impleaded only the 3rd defendant as a party and obtained a decree for sale. The defendants Nos. 1 and 2 then made an application to bring the property to sale in pursuance of their attachment. The plaintiff then put in a claim petition stating that the 3rd defendant had no longer any saleable interest in the property as he had brought it to sale in pursuance of his mortgage decree. The claim was disallowed and he instituted the present suit for a declaration that the 1st and 2nd defendants are no longer entitled to bring the property to sale. An attaching creditor is one of the class of persons that are entitled to redeem a mortgage under Section 91 of the Transfer of Pro...
Soma Ballachariar and ors. Vs. Thiruvenkatachariar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.409
S. A. No. 1484 of 1909.1. The plaintiffs in this case are persons who are entitled to the 1st, 3rd and 4th thirthams in the temple of Thirunagiri Ranganatha Swamy. Defendants Nos. 7 to 23 are entitled to thirtham along with them. Defendants Nos. 1 to 3 are the trustees of the temple and defendants Nos. 4 to 6 are the Archakas, whose duty it is to carry on the daily worship of the idol. The object of the suit is to establish the plaintiffs' right to receive the thirtham first after the conclusion of the siva and Sathu-murai, that is, after the recitation of Tamil Vedas and hymns. In the plaint, the ' plaintiffs ask also for the establishment of their lights to other emoluments appertaining to the office they hold, 'but the right to these other honours and emoluments was really not denied by any of the defendants. There was a previous suit by some of the defendants jointly entitled to the 1st thirtham along with the plaintiffs for the establishment of their right to the honours and emolu...
Kolakkot Kuntambi Vydiar Vs. Pudikakandyil Parkum Muratath Mumacha and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.574
1. In this case, the appellant before us is the holder of a Saswatham or permanent lease. The 'Marupat' or counterpart executed by him contains these stipulations: (2nd para).The purapad settled to be paid by us to you hereafter annually is 1,200 seers of paddy worth Rs. 96. We agree to pay the said 1,200 seers of paddy before 30th Makaram every year and take a receipt and to pay Rs. 16-2-9, the revenue of the said properties, along with the said taram and take a receipt.' The question raised for decision is whether the landlord is entitled to recover from the tenant the increase in the Government revenue in consequence of a fresh settlement made by Government after the date of the lease. The covenant on the part of the tenant is to pay a certain sum, namely, Rs. 16-2 9, to the landlord which was the revenue on the properties at the time of the lease. There is no provision in the deed that the tenant should pay the Government revenue, whatever it may be, in addition to the rent fixed i...
G. Narayanasawmi Naidu Garu Vs. Gangadharam Sitayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.784
1. There is no foundation for the view that the village is not an estate within the meaning of the Estates Land Act.2. That being so, the plaintiff is not entitled to eject tenant. The second appeal is dismissed with costs....
Narayana Pillai Vs. the Secretary of State for India, in Council, Repr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1912
Reported in: (1912)23MLJ162
1. It is not quite clear from the judgment of the learned District Judge whether he considered the question whether the plaintiff's predecessors in title were in possession of the two links of the pial in dispute before the plaintiff obtained his conveyance. The District Judge observes that the plaintiff's possession was proved to date only from 1906. He says also : 'plaintiff's possession is evidently not such as to throw the burden of proof on the other side' i.e., apparently, that possession for 2 years is not suffaient to shift the onus.2. We may also observe that, when possession for a certain period is shown, it will be open to a court deciding the facts to presume that possession prior to that period was also in the party whose subsequent possession is proved. See Venkatarama Iyer v. The Secretary of State for India, in Council I.L.R. (1910) M 362.3. We request the lower appellate Court to record a revised finding on the evidence on record on the question of possession of the tw...
C.S. Adinarayana Iyer Vs. K. Krishnan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.97
1. This second appeal relates to the plaintiff's right to recover two of the items included in a demise made in favour of the family of defendants Nos. 1 to 10. The items with which we are concerned are Nos. 2 and 4. Of these, item 2 is in the possession of the 17th defendant. The case of the demises is that they were evicted from this item in pursuance of a decree obtained by a stranger and that as they lost possession of the item, in taking the account between the plaintiff and them, the proportionate rent of this item must be deducted. The 17th defendant who was subsequently made a party is the person in possession of this item and he contends that he obtained possession of this item from the Thomarakavu davaswam which he says is the jenmi. The 4th issue in the suit raised the question whether the demises lost possession of the property in thy suit referred to by them and the 3rd issue raised the question of the 17th defendant's title to hold the land independently of the plaintiff ...
Puthempurayal Amman Pariyayi and ors. Vs. Mangalasseri Pullikkandi Pak ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-1912
Reported in: (1913)24MLJ548
Miller, J.1. The District Judge bases his decision on the ground that the plaintiff and defendants are co-owners in the Parambas on which the Plaintiff has paid the land revenue, but the allegations in the plaint do not seem to support this view. The Plaintiff ip the plaint alleges that the defendants are by a karar which is not on the record, owners in Jenm right of one of the three parambas contained in the survey-field in question and that he himself is the owner in Jenm right of the. other two. The Plaintiff does not claim any interest in the paramba of defendants, nor admits that the defendants have any interest in his parambas.2. The District Munsiff gave him leave to amend his plaint and on the Karar by which the parambas were divided but he failed to take advantage of the opportunity so given. If then the District Judge's order is to be supported it must be on the ground that the fact that the Survey field is undivided for purposes of the assessment of the land revenue upon it,...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »