Chennai Court July 1912 Judgments
Narsaya Upada Vs. Venkataramana Bhatta
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-1912
Reported in: (1912)23MLJ260
1. The plaintiff in the suit is the Muktessar or trustee of a small temple in South Canara. The object of the suit is to obtain a declaration that the defendant is not entitled to obtain possession of certain land from the plaintiff on the ground of his being purchaser in execution of a decree which defendant obtained against a third party to whom he had granted the lease and whose rights he brought to sale for the realisation of the arrears of rent due to him under the lease. The defendant had obtained a mulgeni or permanent lease of the land from a former trustee of the temple in the year 1882 and subsequently granted the lease to the person whose rights he brought to sale and purchased in Court auction. Previous to the defendant's suit against his lessee which was in 1906 the plaintiff had obtained possession of the land from the lessee. The plaintiff's contention was that the permanent lease granted by the previous Muktessar was invalid and not binding on the temple. Defendant was ...
Tag this Judgment!Narsya Udpa Vs. Venkataramana Bhatta
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.53
1. The plaintiff in the suit is the muktasar or trustee of a small temple in South Canara. The object of the suit is to obtain a declaration that the defendant is not entitled to obtain possession of certain land from the plaintiff on the ground of his being purchaser in execution of a decree, which defendant obtained against a third party, to whom he had granted the lease and whose rights he brought to sale for the realisation of the arrears of rent due to him under the lease. The defendant had obtained a mulgeni or permanent lease of the land from a former trustee of the temple in the year 1882, and subsequently granted the lease to the person whose rights he brought to sale and purchased in Court auction. Previous to the defendant's suit against his lessee which was in 1906, the plaintiff had obtained possession of the land from the lessee. The plaintiff's contention was that the permanent lease granted by the previous muktasar was invalid and not binding on the temple. Defendant wa...
Tag this Judgment!Bana Veeramma Vs. Gungala Chinna Reddy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1912
Reported in: (1912)23MLJ443
1. This is a suit for possession of a house site. The plaintiff stated in her plaint that the house was purchased by her elders, that her husband left the place and went away to foreign places, that she and her father-in-law lived in it subsequently for 5 or 6 years, that the father-in-law then died, that she then continued to live in the house for some time till it fell down, that she then went to live with her brother in another village and that when she returned to the village in 1908 she found that the defendants had trespassed on it.2. The defendants put the plaintiff to the proof of her title and possession. The case that the plaintiff attempted to make out at the hearing was that she succeeded to the house as the heir of her husband. No positive evidence was adduced to shew that her husband survived her father-in-law. She could not succeed unless the Court found that she did so. It is argued by the learned Vakil for the appellant that the appellate court was bound to presume tha...
Tag this Judgment!B. Veeramma Vs. G. Chenna Reddi and Two ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1912
Reported in: (1914)ILR37Mad440
1. This is a suit for possession of a house-site. The plaintiff stated in her plaint that the house was purchased by her elders, that her husband left the place and went away to foreign places, that she and her father-in-law lived in it subsequently for five or six years, that the father-in-law, then died, that she then continued to live in the house for sometime till it fell down, that she then went to live with her brother in another village and that when she returned to the village in 1908, she found that the defendants had trespassed on it.2. The defendants put the plaintiff to the proof of her title and possession. The case that the plaintiff attempted to make out at the hearing was that she succeeded to the house as the heir of her husband. No positive evidence -was adduced to show that her husband survived her father-in-law. She could not succeed unless the Court found that she did so. It is argued by the learned vakil for the appellant that the Appellate Court was bound to pres...
Tag this Judgment!Band Veeramma Vs. Gangala Chinna Reddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.43
1. This is a suit; for possession of a house site. The plaintiff stated is her plaint, that the house was purchased by her elders, that her husband left the place and went away to foreign places, that she and her father-in-laW lived in it subsequently for five or six years, that the father-in-law then died, that she then continued to live in the house for some time till it fell down, that she then went to live with her brother in another village and that when she returned to the village in 1903, she found that the defendants had trespassed on it.2. The defendants put the plaintiff to the proof of her title and possession. The case that the plaintiff attempted to make out at the hearing was that she succeeded to the house as the heir of her husband. No positive evidence was adduced to show that her husband survived her father-in-law. She could not succeed unless the Court found that she did do so. It is argued by the learned Vakil for the appellant that the Appellate Court was bound to ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Angamuthu Vanathrian
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.522; (1912)23MLJ732
ORDERMiller, J.1. It has been held by all the High Courts that Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code does not warrant a District Magistrate in reporting to the High Court the proceedings of a Court of Session. Vide Emperor v. Jamna Bai 2 Cri.L.J. 515 and Queen-Empress v. Karamdi 23 C.k 250. There is an unreported case in the Bombay High Court to the same effect and in this Court: High Court Proceedings, dated 21st September 1895, No. 443.2. There is no material difference between the words of Section 438 in the present Code and those of the same section in the former Code of 1882.3. The District Magistrate, if he considers the Sessions Judge's order illegal, should move the Public Prosecutor to bring it before this Court....
Tag this Judgment!K.R. Manicka Mudaliar Vs. T. Chinnappa Mudaliyar and Eleven ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-1912
Reported in: (1913)ILR36Mad557
1. We find ourselves unable to differ from the conclusion of the District Judge on the facts. We think the plaintiff is bound by the lease evidenced by Exhibit G. By that document the lessees are to hold for such time as they require, or wish, and it is argued that the contract is thus expressed to be a tenancy at the will of the lessee and so by implication of law a tenancy at the will of the lessor also. This contention is supported by reference to 'Coke on Littleton,' page 55(a), and is in accordance with the law of England as laid down in 18 'Halsbury,' page 434.2. We agree that the lease is expressed as creating a tenancy at the will of the lessees and We have not been shown sufficient reasons for refusing to adopt the English law on the point. We think therefore that the plaintiff was entitled to terminate the tenancy, and he has done so.3. The District Judge's decision must be modified and the plaintiff must have a decree for recovery of possession of the market in addition to t...
Tag this Judgment!Chintala Raghava Reddy and anr. Vs. Chintala Krishna Reddy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1912
Reported in: (1912)23MLJ193
1. The plaintiffs sued to recover damages from the defendant on the ground that he removed the wood of certain trees on the bund of a bank. The plaintiff's claim is that they are entitled to the trees as Desabandam Inamdar. The defendant who is a ryot claims that the plaintiffs are not exclusively entitled. The prayer in the plaint is that the defendant should pay Rs. 250 damages being the value of the trees. The value of the suit in the Munsiff's ' Court is less than Rs. 500. It is objected by the respondent that no second appeal lies. The contention seems to us to be obviously right. Mr. Muthukrishna Aiyar for the appellant relies on Sitab Rai v. Dubai Nagesia (1907) 6 C.L.J. 238 decided by Holmwood and Sharfuddin JJ. The judgment in that case is based on the ground that in the written statement the defendant claimed title to the tees cut by them and the question raised on appeal was also one that related to title. This is not a sufficient ground for holding that a suit which is of t...
Tag this Judgment!Gazzala Veerayya, Minor by Mother and Next Friend Narakka Vs. Gazzala ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1912
Reported in: (1912)23MLJ269
1. The plaintiff in this suit sued as a Hindu reversioner to declare an alienation made by the 1st defendant invalid as against his reversionary interest. The 1st defendant is the daughter of the plaintiff's senior paternal uncle. The plaintiff's case was that the property alienated was given to her for maintenance. This was denied on the part of the defendants. The District Munsif found that it was not proved to have been given for maintenance but he however, took the estate held by the 1st defend-anf to be a limited one. He also held that the suit was not barred by limitation and gave the plaintiff the declaration asked for. On appeal the District Judge begins his judgment by saying that the only point argued is one of limitation. In considering that point the Judge goes on to say that the Munsif having found that the grant was not for maintenance it must be presumed that it was an absolute gift to 1st defendant with full powers of alienation. If the 1st defendant had an absolute est...
Tag this Judgment!Kandasami Pillai Vs. Rangasami Nainar (Died) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1912
Reported in: (1912)23MLJ301
Sundara Aiyar, J.1. The suit in this case is for restraining first defendant from interfering 11th the plaintiffs enjoyment of certain lands. The plaintiff obtained a sale of it from the 2nd defendant in 1906. Prior to the sale the land had been sold in execution of a decree against the 2nd defendant in a Small Cause Suit. The 1st defendant was the auction purchaser. The auction sale took place in June 1904. Admittedly the land previously belonged to the 2nd defendant. The plaintiff's case is that the auction purchase was really for the benefit of the 2nd defendant and that the 1st defendant was only a benamidar. This plea has been upheld by both the courts. The 1st defendant set up his own title to the land as the real purchaser and contended that Section 317 of Civil Procedure Code was a bar to the plaintiff's suit. Both the Lower Courts held that Section 317. was not applicable in the circumstances of the case. There was an issue raised as to whether the 1st defendant was estopped b...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »