Chennai Court July 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.
Karyan Kandy Pattupurail Cheria Chirikandan and ors. Vs. Aylliath Kush ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.391
1. The plaintiffs in this case sue to recover certain land held by defendants Nos. 1 and 2 with arrears of rent. They are the holders of a melcharth from the karnavan of a Mopillah tarwad governed by the Marumakatayam law. At the time of the melcharth, the land was in the possession of 1st and 2nd defendants on a lease for five years granted by the 3rd defendant under a power-of attorney from the karnavan,. Only three years of the lease had expired, but the karnavan, cancelling the power-of-attorney granted to the 3rd defendant, executed a melcharth in plaintiff's favour for a period of five years commencing after the expiration of the previous lease. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 contended that they are now holding under a new lease granted by the 3rd defendant after he became the karnavan and that the melcharth in plaintiff's favour is invalid. The 3rd defendant supports their contention. The District Munsif held that the previous karnavan had no right to grant the melcharth; but, on appea...
The Secretary of State for India in Council Represented by the Collect ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-1912
Reported in: (1913)24MLJ426
1. The right of collecting Tangeda bark from March 1896 till November 1899 in certain forest tracts was put up to auction by Government and was purchased by the grandfather of the plaintiffs and certain other persons. According to the terms of the contract between the lessees and the Government, the amount of Rs 21,000 was payable by the lessees in certain instalments. Some instalments were paid; but default was made in the payment of subsequent instalments. In consequence the Government put up to Auction again the right to collect the bark for the remainder of the period. Subsequently the Government claimed the rights to collect the difference between the amount realized at the second auction and the balance due by the lessees, from the latter, and put in force the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act arid sold certain properties belonging to the plaintiff's grandfather. The properties were purchased at the auction by the 2nd defendant. The suit is for a declaration that Government ...
The Secretary of State for India in Council Represented by the Collect ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-1912
Reported in: (1912)23MLJ181
Sundara Aiyar, J.1. This second appeal must be disposed of on the objection taken by the defendant, the Secretary of State for India in Council, that the suit is not maintainable as no notice of it was given as required by Section 424 of the old code corresponding to Section 80 of Act V. of 1908. The plaint states that the Board of Revenue passed an illegal order that a certain sum of money not due by the plaintiff to Government should be collected from him and that 'on account of the said order the plaintiffs have lost peace of mind and are much troubled.' The plaintiffs ask for a decree granting an injunction restraining the 1st defendant, that is the Secretary of State for India in Council or any of his servants from collecting any amount from the plaintiff. The Subordinate Judge held that no notice was required under Section 424, C.P.C. in such a case. The view he took was that the section applied only to suits for damages. This position is in our opinion entirely untenable. Sectio...
The Secretary of State for India in Council Represented by the Collect ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-1912
Reported in: (1914)ILR37Mad113; 16Ind.Cas.947
Sundara Ayyar, J.1. This second appeal must be disposed of on the objection taken by the defendant, the Secretary of State for India in Council, that the suit is not maintainable as no notice of it was given as required by Section 424 of the old Code corresponding to Section 80 of Act V of 1908. The plaint states that the Board of Revenue passed an illegal order that a certain sum of money not due by the plaintiff to Government should be collected from him and that 'on account of the said order the plaintiffs have lost peace of mind and are much troubled.' The plaintiffs ask for a decree granting an injunction restraining the first defendant, that is, the Secretary of State for India in Council or any of his servants, from collecting any amount from the plaintiff. The Subordinate Judge held that no notice was required under Section 424, Civil Procedure Code, in such a case. The view he took was that the section applied only to suits for damages. This position is in our opinion entirely...
The Secretary of State for India in Council Represented by the Collect ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.6
1. The right of collecting Tangadu bark from March 1896 till November 1899 in certain forest tracts was put up to auction by Government and was purchased by the grandfather of the plaintiffs and certain other persons. According to the terms of the contract between the lessees and the Government, the amount of Rs. 21,009 was payable by the lessees in certain instalments. Some instalments were paid, but default was made in the payment of subsequent instalments. In consequence, the Government put up to auction again the right to collect the bark for the remainder of the period. Subsequently, the Government claimed the right to collect the difference between the amount realised at the second auction and the balance due by the lessees from the latter, and put in force the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act and sold certain properties belonging to the plaintiff's grandfather. The properties were purchased at the auction by the 2nd defendant. The suit is for a declaration that Government ...
V.A. Istoop Vs. K. Ayappen and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.435
1. Both the Courts have found that the 5th defendant is one of the Uralans of the Devaswom. The melcharth sued on was granted by two out of three Uralans without consulting the 5th defendant. They acted in defiance of his rights contending that he was not an Uralan at all. It is now settled law that a demise granted by even a majority of the trustees of Devaswom without consulting the minority is not binding on the temple. See Charavur Teramath v. Urath Lakshmi 6 M. 270 and Kumban v. Moorthi 20 M.L.J. 951. No special reason was alleged in this case for not following this rule.2. It is then argued that, although the melcharth may be regarded as invalid, a decree should be passed in favour of the plaintiffs Nos. 3 to 5 on behalf of the Devaswom, and reliance is placed on Section 91 of the Transfer of Property Act, which lays down that any one of several mortgagors may redeem a mortgage, but the prayer in the plaint was that possession should be delivered to the melcharth holders, 1st and...
Pecheti Swamigadu and anr. Vs. Yerrapragada Ayapparasu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.815
1. The judgment of the Subordinate Judge with regard to items Nos. 1 and 2 cannot be sustained. Assuming it to be proved that the 4th defendant, either by herself or in collusion with some one else, suppressed the Will executed by Gangarazu, the plaintiffs had still to prove that, according to the terms of that Will, they would be entitled to recover one-fourth of his properties. The only evidence adduced to prove the contents of the Will has been disbelieved by the Subordinate Judge. The presumption that the Will would be unfavourable to the 4th (defendant will not justify us in presuming that it gave any specific portion of Gangarazu's property to the legatee through whom the the plaintiffs claim. In fact, we could not make any presumption as to the actual contents of Will. See Venkata Narasimha Naidu v. Bhashyakarlu Naidu 25 M.P 367 : 6 C.W.N. 641 : 29 I.A. 76.2. With regard to item No. 3 there is no question of law for our consideration. The judgments of the Courts below must be se...
Chirukala Nagalakshmamma Vs. Visvanadha Sastri and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-1912
Reported in: (1912)23MLJ289
1. Various circumstances are set out by the District Judge in para 23 of his judgment. We have considered those circumstances in the light of the decisions of this Court in Ilata Shavitri v. Ilata Narayanan Nambudri (1893) 1 M.H.C.R. 373 and Kandasami Pillai v. Murugammal I.L.R. (1891) M. 6 and we are of opinion that these decisions are directly in point. In Kandasami Pillai v. Murugammal 16 C.W.N. 35 the learned Judge considers that an unchaste wife must show that she is a reformed character before she can be entitled to maintenance and the Court held in Ilata Shavitri v. Ilata Narayana Nambudri I.L.R. (1902) C. 218 that a Hindu wife living apart from her husband who has been guilty of adultery cannot recover maintenance unless the adultery is condoned. In this case it is not suggested that the adultery was condoned nor has the wife shown that she is a reformed character. She is therefore not entitled to any maintenance on the authority of these cases.2. We dismiss the Second Appeal w...
Gopalasami Vastad Vs. Govindasami Vastad and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.434
1. This second appeal arises out of a suit for partition instituted by the plaintiff against his brother, the 1st defendant, for a partition of the properties alleged to belong jointly to both. The 2nd defendant is the son of the 1st defendant, and the other defendants are tenants and alienees of some of the properties claiming under the 1st defendant, the 6th defendant being the purchaser of items Nos. 4 to 8 in Schedule A-I, attached to the plaint, and the 14th defendant being the purchaser of a house in Schedule B-II.2. The appeal relates only to three sets of items out of the properties claimed in the suit, namely, item No. 1 in A-I Schedule, items Nos. 4 to 8 in the same Schedule and the house in B-II Schedule.3. The plaintiff had previously instituted a suit (Original Suit No. 35 of 1893) in the Subordinate Court of Tanjore, for a partition of the family properties, while he was a minor, through his mother as his next friend. The suit ended in a compromise (Exhibit I), dated the ...
Kandhanath Alias Karuthadath Alias Parakkatilath and Manager, Narayan ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.375
1. Several objections have been raised to the judgment of the lower Appellate Court by the learned Vakil for the appellant, but it is enough to deal with one of them, as we are of opinion that the appeal mast succeed on that ground. The suit relates to certain rights of way over certain land in the defendant's possession. The defendant, amongst other pleas, contended that the plaintiffs themselves had been in possession of the defendant's land for a very long period, much more than 20 years, up to within a time shorter than 20 years before the institution of the suit, and that, assuming that the plaintiffs had ever possessed the right of easement claimed by them, it was destroyed, as both the dominant and servient tenements were in their own possession for a period of more than 20 years. According to Sections 49 and 51 of the Basements Act, an easement, suspended for more than 20 years, would be destroyed. The Appellate Court was of opinion that the defendant's contention could not be ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »