Chennai Court September 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.
In Re: Kollipara Venkamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.391
1. The petitioner who was plaintiff before the District Munsif's Court could have appealed to the District Court against the Munsif's decision, if she considered that decision was legally wrong. If she had done so, and if she failed even in appeal, she could have come up in second appeal to this Court, in a suit relating to a claim for maintenance.2. Instead of doing so, she has put in this revision petition under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, 225 days after District Munsif's decision. This is not a case in which 'No appeal lies' to the High Court and hence Section 115 cannot apply. There is no question of jurisdiction, perversely illegal decision, or material irregularity of procedure involved but only a question whether the District Munsif committed an error of law in allowing the plaintiff's Vakil's consent to bind the plaintiff in the decision of the suit. It is admitted that the Vakil's vakalat empowered him to compromise the suit but the contention is that without a sp...
Bhagavatula Subramanya Sastri and ors. Vs. Bhagavatula Lakshminara Sim ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.893
1. This second appeal relates to the plaintiff's right to repair certain walls by going on the defendant's land. We shall take each of these in order. The first wall is W1. With respect to this, the Subordinate Judge allowed the plaintiff the right to go on the land 0 belonging to the defendant in order to repair the wall oil the defendant's side. The plaintiff has eaves projecting 2 inches over the defendant's ground. It is unnecessary to consider whether this by itself would give him the right to go on the defendant's land to repair the wall. Admittedly, there was a mud wall standing on the site of W1 before the partition between the parties and the plot Al, including the wall fell to the plaintiff's share. The plaintiff was, undoubtedly, entitled under the partition instrument to enjoy the wall. The repair of the wall is reasonably necessary for its enjoyment. We must, therefore, regard the right to go to the defendant's side of the wall to repair W1 as a necessary easement. Plaster...
Kanumoory Niladri Razu Vs. Kasa Subbiah and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.278
1. The District Munsif reports that the allegations in the affidavit are substantially true. The evidence was taken by one Munsif who also heard the arguments of Vakils and reserved judgment. One of his successors read the evidence and, without hearing the parties or giving them notice, delivered his judgment. The first contention is that the Munsif may be entitled to deal with the evidence taken by his predecessor but he should have heard the Vakils on the evidence before pronouncing his judgment, and Jagramdas v. Narain Lal (1885) A.W.N. 285 is relied upon. I do not think this is necessary, under Order XVIII, Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. The next contention is that under Order XX, Rule 1, notice of the date of pronouncing the judgment should have been given. This contention is valid and its omission is a serious irregularity, if not an illegality. It is unnecessary to consider whether, if it is only an irregularity, this Court should interfere with the decree on that acc...
Basaweswara Swami Vs. the Bellary Municipal Council and the Secretary ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-1912
Reported in: (1912)23MLJ479
Sundara Aiyar J.1. This is a suit by the owner of a house in Bellary for a declaration of his right to a pial and for restraining the Municipal Council of the town from removing it. At the instance of the Municipal Council the Secretary of State for India in Council was made a party to the suit. The plaintiff's case was that the pial belonged to him and that the municipal council had therefore no right to remove it as it threatened to do. The Council denied the plaintiff's right to the site of the pial and the Government set up its ownership to the site. The issues framed in the suit raised the questions, how long the suit pial was in existence, whether the plaintiff acquired a prescriptive; title to the site of the pial if he was not the original owner and whether the Municipality was entitled to demolish it.2. Both courts have found that the street was dedicated to the public by the Government. The houses were built on sites originally belonging to Government which it gave to the peo...
In Re: B. Runga Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-1912
Reported in: (1912)23MLJ371
1. This is a petition to restore to the file Criminal Revision Petition 499 of 12 and Cr. M.P. 326 of 1912. Criminal Revision Petition 499 of 12 was a petition to this Court to revise an order of the Sessions Judge of Bellary in Criminal Appeal No. 38 of 12 in which he ordered a re-trial of the case before him. The petition came before this Court and the order passed on it was 'Dismissed for default.' The present petition is to restore it. It is clearly laid down in Referred Trial No. 40 of 05 of this Court that the High Court has no power to review its judgment in a referred trial. Their Lordships the Chief Justice and Moore J. considered the question as beyond argument. The same view has been taken by the Calcutta High Court in In the matter of Gibbons1 and by the Bombay High Court in Queen-Empress v. Bimappa Bin Ramanna. I.L.R. (1894) B. 732 The language of Section 369 of the Criminal Procedure Code has been considered and the words have been treated as referring to the power of rev...
Basaweswaraswami by Dharmakartha A. Panchappa and anr. Vs. the Bellary ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-1912
Reported in: (1915)ILR38Mad6
Sundara Ayyar, J.1. This is a suit by the owner of a house in Bellary for a declaration of his right to a pial and for restraining the Municipal Council of the town from removing it. At the instance of the Municipal Council the Secretary of State for India in Council was made a party to the suit. The plaintiff's case was that the pial belonged to him and that the Municipal Council had therefore no right to remove it as it threatened to do. The Council denied the plaintiff's right to the site of the pial, and the Government set up its ownership to the site. The issues framed in the suit raised the questions, how long the suit pial was in existence, whether the plaintiff acquired a prescriptive title to the site of the pial if he was not the original owner, and whether the Municipality was entitled to demolish it.2. Both Courts have found that the street was dedicated to the public by the Government. The houses were built on sites originally belonging to Government which it gave to the p...
Ambuja Ammal Vs. Appadurai Mudali and Four ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-1912
Reported in: (1915)ILR38Mad414
Sundara Ayyar, J.1. In this case, there is no ground for interference in Second Appeal unless we are prepared to adopt the appellant's contention that the Subordinate Judge acted illegally in admitting certain additional documents in evidence in appeal. The appeal was first heard on the 14th September 1910. The Subordinate Judge then observed: 'I think it is necessary to have the documents described as 1 and 2 in the list attached to the petition, and also the will of the original mortgagee before the Court to enable it satisfactorily to pronounce its judgment.' On that ground, he allowed the additional evidence to be received. It is contended that in doing so he acted in excess of his powers. The appellate Court's right to receive additional evidence in appeal is restricted by Order XLI, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The rule is in substantially the same terms as Section 568 of the repealed Civil Procedure Code. It runs as follows: 'The parties to an appeal shall not b...
Ponnaya Tirumalai Vandaya thevar and ors. Vs. Kandasami Vendaya thevar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.136
1. We are of opinion that the judgment of the Appellate Court in this case is right. The plaintiff claimed to recover the properties in question as the reversioners of one Ramasami Tevar, a zemindar, who held an impartible estate. At the time of his death, he left a widow, Parvati, a brother, the 1st defendant in the suit, and two illegitimate sons, the 1st plaintiff and the father of the plaintiffs Nos. 2 and 3, It was established in a previous litigation that the zemindari fell to the 1st defendant. Subsequently, Original Suit No. 25 of 1892 was instituted by the 1st plaintiff against the 1st defendant, in which the father of plaintiffs Nos. 2 and 3 was made a party defendant. The claim in that case related to the private property of the deceased zemindar, Ramasami Thevar. It was held in that suit that the plaintiff there, that is the 1st plaintiff, was entitled to a one-fourth share and the father of plaintiffs Nos. 2 and 3 to another one-fourth share, the widow Parvati being entitl...
Basaveswaraswami, by Dharmakartha Aspalli Panchappa and Vs. the Bellar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.158
Sundara Aiyar, J.1. This is a suit by the owner of a house in Bellary for a declaration of his right, to a pial and for restraining the Municipal Council of the town from removing it. At the instance of the Municipal Council, the Secretary of State for India in Council was made a party to the suit. The plaintiff's case was that the pial belonged to him and that the Municipal Council had, therefore, no right to remove it as it threatened to do. The Council denied the plaintiff's right to the site of the pial and the Government set up its ownership to the site. The issues framed in suit raised the questions, how long the suit pial was in existence, whether the plaintiff acquired a prescriptive title to the site of the pial, If he was not the original owner, and whether the Municipality was entitled to demolish it.2. Both Courts have found that the street was dedicated to the public by the Government. The houses were built on sites originally belonging to Government, which it gave to the ...
Veluthemana alias Pallikat alias Cheerakushi Illoth, karnavan and Mana ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.131
1. In this case, the plaintiff obtained a decree against the defendant for recovery of certain land. The defendant was entitled to compensation for improvements made by him according to the provisions of the Malabar Tenancy Improvements Act, I of 1900. Section 15 of the Act empowers the Local Government to prepare tables to regulate the manner in which the value of improvements should be computed. Clause 2 of the section provides that the tables prepared under the section shall, on publication, be receivable in evidence and that the rates and the amounts therein specified shall be presumed to be the proper rate and amounts until the contrary is proved.' The compensation due to the defendants was decided by the District Munsif by the appointment of a Commissioner for the purpose. The defendant appealed against the Munsif's judgment. After the judgment of the Munsif and before the presentation of the appeal, the Local Government prepared certain tables under Section 15 of the Act. The Ap...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »