Chennai Court February 1913 Judgments
Darbha Lingayya Vs. Darbha Kanakamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1913
Reported in: (1915)28MLJ260
1. The plaintiff, a Hindu widow, instituted the suit which has given rise to this second appeal for maintenance against the defendant, her husband's brother. Both the lower Courts have found that the defendant is in possession of family property yielding about Rs. 100 a year. The plaintiff has private property out of which she could get Rs. 40 or 50 a year The lower Courts have awarded to the plaintiff Rs. 20 a year. Mr. Ramesam for the plaintiff contends in second appeal that the income of the family property being small, and the plaintiff having independent means of maintenance is not entitled to get maintenance out of her deceased husband's estate. His argument is that a widow who is able to maintain herself out of other property has no right to claim out of her husband's estate anything for that purpose. In our opinion this view cannot be supported. It is based on an entirely wrong conception of the right sought to be enforced. The wives of the male coparceners in a Hindu family ar...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: K. Bali Reddi and Four ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1913
Reported in: (1914)ILR37Mad119
1. In this case the five accused were charged with rioting armed with deadly weapons and with having murdered one Chinna Grangayya on the 15th May last, offences punishable under Sections 148 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The Sessions Judge found the accused not guilty of those offences, but guilty of simple rioting and of culpable homicide not amounting to murder (sections 147 and 304 of the Indian Penal Code). The accused appeal against their conviction and this Court, as a Court of Revision, has given them notice to show cause why they should not be convicted of murder and be sentenced for that offence.2. There cannot, we think, be the slightest doubt that the accused are guilty of rioting and in the course of it killed Chinna Gaugayya, as found by the Sessions Judge.3. [Their Lordships here discussed the evidence and continued:] We agree with the Sessions Judge that the five accused killed Chinna Gangayya. We are, however, quite unable to accept his view that the offence was no...
Tag this Judgment!Muthammal Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council Through the ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-1913
Reported in: 19Ind.Cas.68; (1913)24MLJ405
Charles Arnold White, C.J.1. The Subordinate Judge has held that the plaintiff's claim to recover possession of the land, which the plaintiff says forms part of the Vallam Mitta sold to his predecessor-in-title in about 1867, is barred by limitation. On appeal Mr. Govindaraghava Aiyar has not contested this finding.2. The only question we have to consider is whether, in the events which have happened, the plaintiff is entitled to a refund of a portion of t he amount paid by him as one year's peishcush, and a declaration that he is only liable to pay peishcush to the amount of Rs. 535 odd and not Rs. 823 odd.3. The plaintiffs case is that Rs. 823 is the assessment on the mitta sold to his predecessor-in-title, which included certain lands which are now in the possession of Government. The defendant's case is that these lands were not included in the mitta and that the assessment was fixed with reference only to the lands now in the possession of the plaintiff.4. In the view taken by the...
Tag this Judgment!Penukonda Venkiah Vs. Sanka Krishnamoorthi, Minor by His Next Friend S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-1913
Reported in: 19Ind.Cas.80; (1913)24MLJ552
Charles Arnold White, C.J.1. In this case the plaintiff claimed among other things that he was entitled as owner of a house which we will call No. 67 to the use of a passage to a latrine Kris in his house the passage in question forming part of a house which we will call No. 11 - the property of the defendant. The two houses are practically adjacent. The learned Judge granted him this declaration. The Judge was of opinion that he was not entitled to the right which he claimed under Section 13 of the Easements Act or on the ground that it amounted to an easement of necessity. But on a construction of the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff the Judge held that the words of the conveyance were wide enough to pass by express grant the right over the defendant's passage. Now before considering the law it is desirable to state the precise findings with reference to this passage and the use of it. The learned judge found on the evidence that the plaintiff's scavenger always 'entered the latr...
Tag this Judgment!Sankarappa Naicker and ors. Vs. Rani Nachiar and anr. and Kondama Naik ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-1913
Reported in: (1913)25MLJ276
1. The plaintiffs and defendants are conterminous landholders engaged in agriculture, the former owning the upper, and the latter the lower land. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants, who are the owners of the adjacent lower land, have erected a bund or wall which has the effect of preventing the water that fell on his (that is the plaintiffs') land from flowing to the defendants' land as it has been doing from time immemorial. The Subordinate Judge was of opinion that he was bound to dismiss the plaintiffs' claim in accordance with the rulings in Mahamahopadhyaya Bangachariar v. The Municipal Council of Kunbakonam I.L.R. (1906) M. 539 and Sangana Beddiar v. Perumal Reddiar (1910) M.W.N. 545. He pointed out, however, that ' these rulings are real impediments to punjah cultivation which would be impossible if the adjoining owners put up ridges and pen back water on to a man's punjah The configuration of punjahs in the country have not provided every man's punjah with an odai or wat...
Tag this Judgment!Ramalinga Chetty Vs. P.B. Ananthachariar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.722
1. The suit which has given rise to this second appeal was instituted to set aside a distraint made for arrears of rent for Fasli 1318 under the Madras Estates Land Act I of 1908. The defendant who made the attachment is the agent of, and was put into possession of the melvaram right in the land in question by, the Official Assignee of Madras, in whom was vested the estate of the person entitled to rent as land-holder in consequence of his being adjudicated an insolvent. The plaintiff's allegation is that no rent was due to the insolvent for Fasli 1318 in consequence of an arrangement, between the insolvent and himself, that the rent due by him should be applied in discharge of a debt due to him by the insolvent, and that he had, accordingly, so applied it. The suit has been dismissed by the lower Courts on the ground that, under Section 17 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, III of 1909, the suit was not maintainable without the leave of the Official Assignee. This view is clearly...
Tag this Judgment!A.M. Ross Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-1913
Reported in: (1914)ILR37Mad55; 19Ind.Cas.353; (1913)24MLJ429
Wallis, J.1. This is a suit brought by the plaintiff, Mr. A.M. Ross, to recover damages from the Secretary of State for India in Council in respect of two orders made by the Collector of Ganjam, by one of which a local agent working under the Assam Labour and Emigration Act, 1901, was suspended and the dop6t maintained by him closed to recruiting, while by the other the local agent was dismissed; and also for alleged defamation of. the plaintiff by the Governor of Madras in Council in a Government Order passed on the appeal, of the plaintiff and other interested parties against the Collector's orders above referred to.2. Under part IV of the aforesaid Act of 1901, as amended in 1908, recruiters known as garden sirdars are sent by employers in Assam to recruit labourers in Ganjam and other places under a license issued by the authorities in Assam and counter-signed by the authorities of the district in which the recruiting is to be carried on. They are under a statutory duty to provide ...
Tag this Judgment!Mahommud Ayyab Sahib Vs. G.P. Gunnis and Co., Merchants Carrying on Bu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-1913
Reported in: AIR1914Mad687; 19Ind.Cas.19; (1913)24MLJ562
Arnold White, C.J.1. This case comes before us, the appellant being one T. Mahomed Ayyab Sahib, by way of appeal from an order of Mr. Justice Bakewell sitting in Insolvency giving leave to the petitioning creditor to amend his petition. The petition was presented in March 1912 against four persons of whom the appellant is one, and the petitioner alleges that the appellant and these other persons carried on business as partners under the name of T. Noordeen Saheb and Co. and T. Abdul Kareem Saheb and Co. On March 22nd an order of adjudication was made against these four persons. This order was not served upon the appellant and no order for substituted service was applied for or made. On the 4th May the petitioning creditor applied to the Court by motion for an order under Rule 18 of the 2nd schedule of the Insolvency Act. That rule relates to the taking of accounts of mortgaged property and their sale. The next step in the proceedings was an application on August 22nd made by the appell...
Tag this Judgment!G.P. Gunnis and Co. Vs. T. Mahomad Ayyub Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-1913
Reported in: (1914)ILR37Mad555
Charles Arnold White, C.J. 1. This case comes before us, the appellant being one T. Mahomed Ayyub Sahib, by way of appeal from an order of Bakewell, J., sitting in Insolvency, giving leave to the petitioning creditor to amend his petition. The petition was presented in March 1912 against four persons, of whom the appellant is one, and the petitioner alleges that the appellant and three other persons carried on business as partners under the name of T. Noordeen Sahib & Co. and T. Abdul Kareem Sahib & Co. On March 22nd an order of adjudication was made against these four persons. This order was not served upon the appellant and no order for substituted service was applied for or made. On the 4th May the petitioning creditor applied to the Court by motion for an order under Rule 18 of the second schedule of the Insolvency Act. That rule relates to the taking of accounts of mortgaged property and their sale. The next step in the proceedings was an application on August 22nd made by the app...
Tag this Judgment!Suikeena Katum Sahiba Vs. Hajee Mahomed Abdul Azeez Badsha Sahib Bahad ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-1913
Reported in: (1915)ILR38Mad221
1. Four applications have bean made by four judgment-creditors of the plaintiff in this suit for payment to them of a fund to the credit of the suit, which was paid into Court; by the defendant in satisfaction of the decree.2. The dates of the decrees of the several creditors and of attachments of the fund are as follows:26th October 1911, attachment before judgment in Suit No. 315 of 1911;15th October 1912, decree;6th November 1912, decree in Suit No. 381 of 1912; 9th November 1912, attachment.30th August 1912, decree in Suit No. 11931 of 1912 on the file of Court of Small Causes of Madras;12th September 1912, attachment;16th September 1912, decree in Suit No. 12787 of 1912 of the same Court;27th September 1912, attachment.3. It has been argued firstly that the applicants are entitled to adduce evidence that the decrees obtained by their rivals are fraudulent and void, and secondly, that their respective attachments are entitled to priority.4. On the first point, two decisions In re S...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »