Chennai Court March 1913 Judgments
The Secretary of State for India in Council Represented by the Collect ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1913
Reported in: (1913)25MLJ411
1. This is an appeal arising out of the claim of the Secretary of State for India in Council that a decree may be passed ordering the defendant to make over to him the properties mentioned in the Schedules A and B annexed to the plaint and for payments of mesne profits of the immoveable properties mentioned therein from 1900 to the 31st March 1909. The claim was made on the footing that the last owner of these properties, one Chandranna alias Pandyapparasa Binnani (to whom we shall refer hereafter as 'the deceased') died without leaving any heirs and that, according to the law and custom applicable to his estate, the whole of it escheated to the. Government.2. The learned Subordinate Judge who tried the case came to the conclusion that the defendant had established that the deceased did not die without leaving any heirs, and that the defendant was his heir and was entitled to succeed to his property. The decision of this point depends upon the determination of two questions viz., first...
Tag this Judgment!Kayarohana Pathan Vs. Subbaraya thevan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-1913
Reported in: 19Ind.Cas.690; (1913)25MLJ251
1. The question for decision in this Second Appeal is whether the defendant is disentitled to inherit his paternal uncle's son's estate by reason of his suffering from leprosy. The plaintiff is the sister's son of the deceased owner. The medical evidence is that the defendant is suffering from the anaesthetic form of leprosy and that it is in the medium stage. The District Munsif decided against the defendant on the ground that according to the opinion of the medical witness the disease was incurable. The Subordinate Judge held that the defendant was not excluded because the disease was not the sanious or ulcerous type and was not virulent and he was not regarded as unfit for association by his castemen. The Mitakshara, which is the predominent authority applicable in this presidency, does not expressly mention leprosy as a ground of exclusion from inheritance. It states ' an impotent person, an out-caste, and his sons, one lame, a mad man, an idiot, a blind man, and persons afflicted ...
Tag this Judgment!Katragaddha Radakrishnayya Naidu Vs. the Secretary of State for India ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-1913
Reported in: (1913)24MLJ678
1. The Lower Courts are in error in holding that the Government can, under no circumstances, be bound not to interfere with the usual supply of government water to the plaintiff's lands, unless there was an express engagement with the Government. They are right in saying that an agreement between the Collector and the plaintiff will not bind the Government. But an implied engagement can be proved by the course of conduct followed for long by the Government officers and by the plaintiff, and the Subordinate Judge was in error in stopping the plaintiff from letting in the whole of his evidence. In Chidambara Rao v. The Seretary of State for India in Council I.L.R. (1902) M. 66 it was held that the Government were bound not to interfere with the facilities enjoyed by the Inamdar for irrigating the extent of land mentioned in his Inam pattah as mamool wet. In Kandahuri Mahalaksh-mammagaru v. The Secretary of State for India I.L.R. (1902) M. 295 it is suggested that ' the admissions of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Sivasubramania Mudaliar and ors. Vs. A.R.A.R.S.M. Somasundaram Chettia ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1913
Reported in: (1913)25MLJ422
1. We agree with the learned District Judge in holding that under the agreement between Arunachellam Chettiar and the 1st defendant the plaintiff is entitled to recover the costs of the litigation against Mahadeva Aiyar. We are unable to accept Mr. Ramesam's argument that the plaintiff had no right to sue the defendants for the interest due on the amount of Rs. 2,500 in the hands of Messrs. Parry and Co., which was transferred to Arunachellam before recovering the principal amount from Messrs. Parry and Co., or Mahadeva Aiyar. The claim for interest due for the 3 years prior to the institution of the suit is clearly not barred by limitation. The second appeal must therefore be dismissed with costs. The claim in the plaintiff's memorandum of objections to interest prior to the period for which it was allowed by the lower Court cannot be sustained as it is barred by limitation. But with respect to the costs of the litigation against' Mahadeva Aiyar, we think that the learned judge is wro...
Tag this Judgment!Sayed Siliman Saib and anr. Vs. Bontala Hasson and Four ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1913
Reported in: (1915)ILR38Mad247
1. This suit for possession of certain lands is dismissed on the ground that it is barred by the institution of a prior suit, Original Suit No. 208 of 1907. In that suit, which was brought by the same plaintiffs against the same defendants, the plaintiffs prayed only for a declaration of title. It was dismissed because the plaintiffs were found entitled to possession.2. The title alleged by the plaintiffs in both the suits is undoubtedly the same. The first suit for declaration was brought on the ground that it was necessary to remove some cloud on the plaintiff's title. The facts which it is necessary for a plaintiff to allege in a suit for declaration are not the same as those in a claim for possession. In the declaratory suit there was no interference with possession alleged, and it was not necessary to allege the same. In the suit before us title and deprivation of possession are alleged. The causes of action in the two suits are different. To determine whether the suit is barred a...
Tag this Judgment!Khan Sahib Bangi Abdul Khadar Sahib and ors. Vs. the Official Assignee ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1913
Reported in: 20Ind.Cas.485; (1913)25MLJ308
Arnold White, C.J.1. This is an appeal against an order made in the insolvency of a man who carried on business in the name of Mahomed Oosman Sahib & Co. He was adjudicated an insolvent on a creditor's petition on the 18th May 1910. The order which is appealed against is an order dated the 29th August 1911. By that order the court declared the sale by the insolvent to one Abdul Kadhir Sahib who is the appellant before us, of certain houses and lands at Ambur belonging to the insolvent on the 5th January 1910, for the sum of Rs. 7,000, was void as against the Official Assignee and ordered that the said Abdul Sahib should deliver to the Official Assignee, possession of the property in question. The circumstances in which this order came to be made, so far as I can gather, appear to be these. On the 29th March 1911, a report was made by the Official Assignee in this insolvency. The only observation with reference to the report which I think it is necessary to make for the purposes of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Adusumalli Suryanarayana Vs. Vallurapalli Sriramulu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1913
Reported in: 20Ind.Cas.825; (1913)25MLJ16
1. The facts found are that there was a decree for Rs. 750 on a mortgage against the interests of two persons in the mortgaged property Nagabhusanam and Punnamma. The plaintiff took a transfer of the decree from the decree-holder for Rs. 324. Afterwards the equity of redemption in the property of Nagabhushanam t1 and Punnamma passed by transfers respectively to the defendant and the plaintiff. The plaintiff claimed to recover half the amount of the mortgage on the security of Nagabhushanam's share in the hands of the defendant. The defendant pleaded that the plaintiff was entitled to recover only half the sum that he actually paid for purchasing the decree and not half the amount of the decree.2. The lower Courts uphold this contention but we think that they were wrong in doing so. The case is not one where one of two mortgagors discharges an encumbrance binding on both. In that case the mortgagor doing so could not recover from his co-mortgagor more than a proportionate shave of the a...
Tag this Judgment!Ramasami Chetti Vs. Ramanathan Chetti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1913
Reported in: (1913)25MLJ354
1. The District Judge is wrong in holding that the appeal to his court was out of time. Stamp papers for a copy of the order of the first Court applied for by the appellant were called for on the 1st of July 1911 and were supplied on the 3rd but the applicant could not deposit the stamps on the 2nd as it was a Sunday. Again the copy applied for was ready on the 15th July and was taken out only on the 17th, but the Kith was a Sunday; the copy could not therefore be taken out on that day. Both the 2nd and 16th of July therefore must be excluded in the time requisite for obtaining the copy. See Bechi v. Ahsan Ullah Khan I.L.R. (1890) A. 461. Deducting the two days, the appeal was presented on the 30th day after the order of the 1st Court and was, therefore not barred by limitation. We reverse the order of the lower appellate Court and remand the appeal for disposal according to law. The cost of this second appeal will abide the result....
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Mare Gowd
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1913
Reported in: AIR1914Mad613; (1913)25MLJ459
Arnold White, C.J.1. I have had the advantage of reading the judgment which has been written by Sankaran Nair J., and I agree with the onclusion at which he has arrived.2. I think the view taken by the Full Bench of the Calcutta High. Court in Nabu Sardar v. Emperor I.L.R. (1907) C. 1, was right.3. I am of opinion that the Magistrate was wrong in holding that ' he had no power to entertain the petition,' and I would answer the question which has been referred to us in the negative.Sankaran Nair, J.4. The question for consideration is whether a bond to keep the peace executed by a person in pursuance of an qrder of a First Class Magistrate under Sections 107 and 118, Criminal Procedure Code, can be cancelled by the District Magistrate under Section 125, Criminal Procedure Code, on the sole ground that the evidence before the Magistrate did not justify him in passing such an order.5. An order under Sections 107 and 118 is passed to prevent any person from committing a breach of the peace...
Tag this Judgment!Velusami Naicker and anr. Vs. Bommachi Naicker
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1913
Reported in: (1913)25MLJ324
1. The appellants in this case were the defendants in O.S. No. 21 of 1903 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Madura West. The respondent, who was the plaintiff in that suit, obtained a decree against the Appellants for certain lands together with mesne profits from the date of the suit to the delivery of possession. The respondent obtained possession in execution as well as mesne profits from the 30th July 1903 (date of the plaint) to the 13th December 1904. The decree in O.S. No. 21 was reversed by this Court on appeal. The appellant obtained re-delivery of the properties in question and re-payment of the amount he had paid as mesne profits. The present application is for the mesne profits during the time that the respondent was in possession, that is, from the 13th December 1904 to the 9th November 1910. ' The dispute relates to the profits of items Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, 7 and 8. The Subordinate Judge disallowed any profits for items Nos. 1, 6 and 7 on the ground that they were unculti...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »