Chennai Court April 1913 Judgments
Narasappayya Vs. S. Ganapathi Rao and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-10-1913
Reported in: (1915)ILR38Mad280
Miller, J.1. The plaintiff prays for an injunction to prevent the defendants from cutting a channel from a tank from which he waters some of his fields, so as to deprive him of the water. He alleged, inter alia, that the defendants were threatening to construct a dam to prevent the water from flowing to his fields, but this they denied.2. The District Munsif, as I understand him, held that the plaintiff has a right to a supply of water from the pond in question, to the exclusion of the defendants and on that ground issued the injunction prayed for. The District Judge holds that the plaintiff has no right to the water of the pond, though he had been in the habit of taking it through a channel for sometime not exactly determined but less than twenty years. He dismissed the suit.3. In Second Appeal it is contended that on the finding of the District Judge we ought to hold that the plaintiff, though he has not by prescription acquired a right to take the tank water through his channel, is ...
Tag this Judgment!Narasappayya Vs. S. Ganapathy Rao and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-10-1913
Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.255
Miller, J.1. The plaintiff prays for an injunction to prevent the defendants from cutting a channel from a tank, from which he waters some of his fields, so as to deprive him of the water. He alleged, inter alia, that the defendants were threatening to construct a dam to prevent the water from flowing to his fields, but this they denied.2. The District Munsif, as I understand him, held that the plaintiff has a right to a supply of water from the pond in question to the exclusion of the defendants and on that ground issued the injunction prayed for. The District Judge holds that the plaintiff has no right to the water of the pond, though he had been in the habit of taking it through a channel for some time not exactly determined, but less than twenty years. He dismissed the suit.3. In second appeal it is contended that on the finding of the District Judge we ought to hold that the plaintiff, though he has not by prescription acquired a right to take the tank water through his channel, i...
Tag this Judgment!R.M.P.V. Muthia Chettiar Vs. S.R.M.A.R. Ramasami Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-1913
Reported in: 20Ind.Cas.689; (1913)25MLJ205
Sundara Aiyar, J. 1. This is a suit by a landholder in the Zemindary of Sivaganga against a ryot for rent for fasli years 1315,1316 and 1317. The principal contention raised by the defendant so far as they relate to this second appeal are:(1) that the suit is not maintainable as pattas had not been tendered by the land-holder prior to the institution of the suit;(2) that rent for Angami cowle land was payable only at Rs. 6 a Kurukkam and not at Rs. 16 a Kurukkam the rate claimed by the plaintiff;(3) that the defendant was not bound to pay more than Rs. 1-14-0 for all the trees in his holding and;(4) that plaintiff was not entitled to recover the cess known as Chittu Nottam.2. Both the Lower Courts held that, according to the Estates Land Act I of 1908, which was in force at the time of the institution of the suit, tender of patta was not essential to entitle the land-lord to maintain a suit for rent. This question has been already decided by this Court in several cases. See Sri Baja Sa...
Tag this Judgment!P.H. Parameswara Pattar and anr. Vs. Viyathen Sreedevi and 5 ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-1913
Reported in: 20Ind.Cas.637; (1913)25MLJ51
Sundara Aiyar, J.1. The learned vakil for the defendants contends that there is no clear finding in the judgment of the District Court that the amount stated in Exhibit F-the settlement of accounts between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant-was, as a matter of fact, due by him to the plaintiff. The District Judge lays down the law correctly when he observes that ' Liability must of course be proved against the surety in the same way as against the principal debtor'. He does not appear to have proceeded on the footing that it was enough to prove that the 1st defendant admitted his liability to the plaintiff under Exhibit F. The lower appellate Court proceeds to say, ' It is difficult to see how under the circumstances of the case plaintiff could have proved the liability of defendants 2 and 3 who in fact guaranteed to identify plaintiff for any sums appropriated by 1st defendant while employed as Kariastan in any other way. ' It is argued that this amounts to a finding that in the circ...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Hande Vs. Padmanabha Hande and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-1913
Reported in: (1913)25MLJ442
1. These appeals are against orders passed on applications made to execute a decree for partition. The plaintiff who obtained the decree died after it was passed: He left 5 sons. The eldest of them was the 27th defendant in the suit. His minor brother was the 32nd defendant. The other sons were the defendants Nos. 28 to 31. Two application were put in for execution owing to dissensions between the sons,-one by the 27th defendant on behalf of himself and his brother, and the other by the defendants Nos, 28 to 31. The Subordinate Judge allowed execution to issue in favour of the defendants Nos. 28 to 31 on behalf of themselves and the defendants Nos. 27 and 32, whose application was rejected; but directed that the money realized in execution' 1. should be paid to all the sons of the plaintiff in shares if they could not agree to act together. The 1st defendant who was directed by the decree to pay until partition and delivery of possession, a certain quantity of paddy every year on accou...
Tag this Judgment!Khan Sahib Bangi Abdul Khader Sahib (Deceased) and ors. Vs. the Offici ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-1913
Reported in: 20Ind.Cas.482; (1913)25MLJ320
1. The order against which the present appeal is brought is an order made on the application of the Official Assignee under Section 56 of the Insolvency Act setting aside a transaction as a fraudulent preference. The appellant is the father-in-law of the insolvent who is now dead. On May 9, 1910 the insolvent made a transfer of his stock in trade to persons carrying on business under the name of Abdul Latheef. Sahib and Co. This was the act of insolvency on which on May 18, 1910 the order of adjudication was made on a creditor's petition. There was no appeal against this order, and the Official Assignee took possession of the stock transferred to Abdul Latheef and Co. There were various proceedings in the insolvency with a view to establish the insolvent's right to these goods and there was also a suit for the same purpose which was dismissed by Wallis J. on the ground that an order made by the Court in insolvency exercising a jurisdiction under Section 7 of the Act should not be set a...
Tag this Judgment!Veerappa Chetty Alias Vellian Chetty and ors. Vs. Kadiresan Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-1913
Reported in: 20Ind.Cas.385; (1913)24MLJ664
1. The important question of law argued in this second appeal is whether the hypothecation bond on which the plaintiff instituted the suit to recover the amount due thereon is invalid in law and inadmissible in evidence on the ground that its registration by the Sub-Registrar of Devakota was illegal. The document was executed by the first defendant to one Palaniappa Chetti. The plaintiff is the assignee of the bond from Palaniappa Chetti, and the 2nd and 3rd defendants are the step brothers of the 1st defendant and members of an undivided Hindu family, of which K the 1st defendant is the manager. The mortgaged property is situated in the village of Alagapuri. The defendants' contention is that Alagapuri is a hamlet of Kallangudi attached to the Tirupattur Registration Office. It is clear, however, that it was sometimes regarded by the people of the place as a hamlet of Kandanur attached to the Devakota Registration District. The Subordinate Judge who tried the suit observes that docume...
Tag this Judgment!Kaliba Mavulvija Muhammad UsaIn Kadir Abttan Sahib and anr. Vs. Saran ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-1913
Reported in: (1915)28MLJ347
Miller, J.1. The question we have to decide is one of limitation and it is not quite simple. The 1st appellant was in 1893 appointed by the District Judge as trustee or manager of an endowed mosque during the minority of the defendants, an expression which has been in a former suit held to imply the termination of his trusteeship on the date on which the eldest of the defendants attained the age of majority. That date was the 27th February 1900. The 1st defendant thereafter sued to recover possession from the appellant and obtained a decree on the 26th of April 1902, and it is conceded that, though the appellant did not actually surrender possession before 1905, we may take the date of the decree as the latest date on which he can be held to have had a right to retain possession.2. The appellant's contention is that he has a period of limitation of 12 years under article 132 or at the least a period of 6 years under Article 120 of the 2nd Schedule of the Limitation Act within which to ...
Tag this Judgment!Kaliba Movulvija Muhammad Usan Kadiri Abkan Sahib and anr. Vs. Soran B ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-1913
Reported in: (1915)ILR38Mad260
Miller, J.1. The question we have to decide is one of limitation and it is not quite simple. The first appellant was in 1893 appointed by the District Judge as trustee or manager of an endowed mosque during the minority of the defendants'; an expression which has been in a former suit held to imply the termination of his trusteeship on the date on which the eldest of the defendants attained the age of majority. That date was the 27th of February 1900. The first defendant thereafter sued to recover possession from the appellant and obtained a decree on the 26th of April 1902, and it is conceded that, though the appellant did not actually surrender possession before 1905, we may take the date of the decree as the latest date on which he can be held to have had a right to retain possession.2. The appellant's contention is that he has a period of limitation of twelve years under Article 132 or at the least a period of six years under Article 120 of the second schedule of the Limitation Act...
Tag this Judgment!Narasamma Hegadthi Vs. Billa Kesu Pujari and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-1913
Reported in: 31Ind.Cas.543; (1913)25MLJ637
1. The principal question in this case relates to the construction of the document Exhibit A in the case. It was executed by one Mainda Hegade in favour of his wife, Ummakke, in 1864. It purported to be a deed of sale. But both the Courts have found that it was in reality a deed of gift, and that finding is binding upon us. In fact the finding has not been impeached by either party in this Court. In 1903 Ummakke executed a deed of gift (Exhibit B) of the properties comprised in Exhibit A in favour of the plaintiff. This suit by the plaintiff is to recover the property leased to defendants Nos. 1 and 2 on chalgeni lease by Ummakke. The contention of the tenants, defendants Nos. 1 and 2, is that they surrendered possession to the 3rd defendant, a son of Ummakke, and that the rent sued for was also paid to him. The plaintiff's answer to this contention is that the property in question belongs to herself alone under Exhibit B, and that she is entitled to recover it from defendants Nos. 1 a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »