Chennai Court December 1913 Judgments
Naragam Kristaya Vs. Penumudi Bhadratta
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-28-1913
Reported in: 25Ind.Cas.42
1. The privileges enjoyed by the plaintiff are limited by the terms of the license issued to him: and it is admitted that one clause of this license prohibited the assignment of those privileges without the previous consent of the Collector. We can find no basis for the contention that this condition is ultra vires, whether on the ground that it was not inserted under the orders of the Governor-in-Council or in exercise of powers delegated by the Governor-in-Council or for any other reason. Under Section 114, illustration (e), of the Indian Evidence Act, it may be presumed that the license issued by this Collector was validly issued: and this presumption has not been rebutted, 'We may also refer to the statutory provisions of Section 22 of the Madras Abkari Act of 1886 which specifically forbid the exercise by an assignee of any rights without receipt of a license in his own name.2. The second appeal is dismissed with posts....
Tag this Judgment!Naduvil Edom Kelu Achan Vs. Ayya Pattar's son Varadaraja Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-23-1913
Reported in: AIR1914Mad692; 24Ind.Cas.481; (1914)26MLJ283
Miller, J.1. The question is whether the Jenmi is entitled to recover six years arrears of rent from the assignee of the Kanom or only arrears for three years. The original Kanom is not for a term of years expressed, but is in writing and registered, and the assignment was also it is said in writing and registered, and the assignee obtained a decree against the Jenmi for a renewal deed, which it is stated, has not yet been executed. For the petitioner it is contended that Article 116 of the 1st schedule of the Limitation Act is applicable because the assignee has impliedly contracted with the Kanomdar to pay the rent to the Jenmi, and the Jenmi can sue on the contract which is for his benefit. Reliance is placed on Krishnan Nambiar v. Kannan I.L.R. (1897) M. 8 and some cases which have accepted the same view, for the position when a covenant is implied by law in a contract of transfer, if the deed effecting the transfer is registered, Article 116 of the Limitation Act will apply to a b...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnammal and anr. Vs. M. Soundararaja Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-23-1913
Reported in: 1914AIHC465; (1915)ILR38Mad698
Sankaran Nair, J.1. The question is whether the suits is barred by Order II, Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code. The plaintiff obtained a decree in his favour for the execution of the deed of sale in accordance with an agreement to sell property to him. Having obtained the sale deed in execution of the decree he now sues for possession on the strength of the sale-deed. The defendant's contention is that having failed to claim possession also in the previous suit, the present suit is barred and they rely on Narayana Kavirayan v. Kandasami Goundan I.L.R., (1898) Mad., 24. It is true that it was open to the plaintiff to sue not only for the execution of a deed of sale but also for possession in the previous suit. But was he bound to do so? At the time he brought that suit the right to possession was not vested in him. He would acquire that right only on the execution of the deed of conveyance. Possession is not merely an incident or subsidiary to the sale-deed. In a suit for a specific pe...
Tag this Judgment!C. Karunakara Menon Vs. Dr. T.M. Nair
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-23-1913
Reported in: AIR1914Mad141(1); 24Ind.Cas.974
1. The point of the defamation complained of lies in the imputation that Dr. Nair was in different, not to the opinion of his opponents, but to the sufferings of the inhabitants of Tondiarpet. The question is whether the article complained conveys this imputation. The wording is somewhat ambiguous, but on the whole we do not think the more sinister interpretation should be put upon it. We do not think its desirable that private conversation of this kind should be reported in an account of the proceedings of public bodies, but we are not satisfied that the criminal offence of defamation has been committed and we set aside the conviction and sentence. The fine, if-paid, will be refunded....
Tag this Judgment!Veduruvada Venkanna and ors. Vs. Receiver, Medur and Nidadavole Estate ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-23-1913
Reported in: 24Ind.Cas.786
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. These six second appeals raise the question as to the proper rate of money rent into which the rent in paddy grain produce, which has been till now paid by certain tenants in the village of Mondur in the Nidadavole and Medur Estates, should be commuted. The suits out of which these second appeals have arisen were brought by the tenants for such commutation of the grain rents into money rents. In their plaints they were prepared to pay money rents according to the quality of the lands from Rs. 4-4-0 to Rs. 7-8-0 per acre. The entire area in each holding had always been treated as consisting of wet lands in the accounts from fasli 1303. When grain rents were being received by the landlord, the tenants seem to have been in the habit of letting some fraction of the entire area in some of the holdings lie fallow or to be cultivated with dry produce. The zemindar used to receive : a share of the wet produce raised from the cultivated wet area. Although the records do not...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Kadir Rowther and anr. Vs. Krishna Malamal Nair Karnavan and Man ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1913
Reported in: AIR1914Mad384; (1914)26MLJ433
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. Unless the oral application for an adjournment of the hearing of a previous execution petition, made by the decree-holder on the 7th August 1908 is held to be an application to take a step in aid of execution, the present execution application of 3rd July 1911 is clearly barred by limitation. The question is not free from difficulty. In Kartick Nath Pandey v. Jaggannath Ram Marwari I.L.R. (1899) C. 285 there is an obiter dictum showing that an application for adjournment to enable the decree-holder to conduct his petition further with effect is not an application to take a step in aid of execution. A different view was taken in Mowar Narasingh Dayal Singh v. Mowar Kalicharan Singh (1910) 14 C.W.N. 486 where the point directly arose.2. The learned vakil for the judgment-debtors (appellants before us) sought to distingush Mowar Narasingh Dayal Singh v. Moivar Kalicharan Singh (1910) 14 C.W.N. 486 from the present case on two grounds.(a) That the application for adjou...
Tag this Judgment!K.K. Narayanan Nambudripad Vs. M.K. Krishna Patter and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1913
Reported in: AIR1914Mad225; 22Ind.Cas.515; (1914)26MLJ348
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The Kanom mortgagee while he is also a lessee (See S.A. 786 of 1912) has as lessee even higher rights than an ordinary lessee (Vasudevan Nambudripad v. Valia Chathu Achan I.L.R. (1896) M. 47 2. Following second appeal 786 of 1912 I would hold that paddy plants raised by a Kanom mortgagee judgment-debtor are improvements and if the respondents (mortgagee-judgment-debtors) had only the rights given them by the Malabar Improvements Act, they would be entitled to claim 3/4 of the value of the plants if they were ' sold by public auction to be cut and carried away.'3. But the principle embodied in Section 108 Clause (i) of the Transfer of Property Act which principle so far as my knowledge goes is also the common law of this country, allows to a lessee whose lease of uncertain duration determines by any means except the fault of the lessee, a right to carry away all the crops planted or sown by him. In the present case the decree sought to be executed does not fix a cer...
Tag this Judgment!T.R. Ganesh Row Alias Venkat Row Vs. T.V. Tulja Ram Row and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1913
Reported in: (1914)26MLJ460
Wallis, J.1. In this case the Privy Council have given the plaintiff a declaration that the compromise entered into by his father in C. S. No. 266 of 1886 was not binding on him for want of sanction under Section 462 C.P.C. and that he ought to be remitted to his original rights under that decree. They have also remitted the suit under appeal 194 of 1906 to this Court in order, in the words of the Orders in Council, ' that the other questions arising between the parties and covered by the issues Nos. 6 and 7 may be disposed of.' The 6th issue is ' Is the plaintiff in any event entitled to recover more than a moiety of the amount sued for?' It is not seriously contended that the compromise entered into by the plaintiff's father did not bind his own share in the property of the joint family which consisted at the time of the plaintiff and his father, or that the compromise must not in this suit be considered an alienation made by the father for consideration. It is consequently binding o...
Tag this Judgment!T.R. Ganesh Row Alias Venkat Row Vs. T.V. Tulga Ram Row and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1913
Reported in: AIR1914Mad91; 24Ind.Cas.696
Wallis, J1. In this case the Privy Council have given the plaintiff a declaration that the compromise entered into by his father in Civil Suit No. 266 of 1886 was not binding on him for want of sanction under Section 432, Civil Procedure Code, and that he ought to be remitted to his original rights under that decree. They have also remitted the suit under Appeal 194 of 1903 to this Court in order, in the words of the Orders in Council, that the other questions arising between the parties and covered by the issues Nos. 6 and 7 may be disposed of. The 6th issue is : 'Is the plaintiff in any event entitled to recover more than a moiety of the amount sued for?' It is not seriously contended that the compromise entered into by the plaintiff's father did not bind his own share in the property of the joint family which consisted at the time of the plaintiff and his father, or that the compromise must not in this suit be considered an alienation made by the father for consideration. It is cons...
Tag this Judgment!Subbammal Alias Pichu Ammal Vs. Krishna Aiyar, Minor, Through His Fath ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1913
Reported in: AIR1914Mad327; 22Ind.Cas.399; (1914)26MLJ479
1. The first question arising in this Letters Patent appeal is whether when two female heirs A and B inheriting life interests in properties belonging to a male pro-positus divide the said properties not for mere convenience of enjoyment but under a contract containing terms which indicate that each of the female heirs intends to give up in presenti her life interest in the properties which fell to the share of the other female heir, such a complete relinquishment is valid so as to prevent the heir (A or B) from claiming those properties if she happens to surrive her Co-heir (B or A).2. That question has been answered by this Court in the affirmative in Sudalai Ammal v. Gomathi Ammal : (1912)23MLJ355 following similar answers given in several previous cases beginning with Ramakkal v. Ramasami Naicken I.L.R. (1899) M. 5223. Mr. T.V. Seshagiri Aiyar ingeniously argued (if I understood him right) that such a relinquishment of the whole life interest by A involves a relinquishment of the r...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »