Chennai Court May 1913 Judgments
Kariadan Kumber Vs. the British India Steam Navigation Company Limited ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-02-1913
Reported in: 20Ind.Cas.546; (1913)25MLJ162
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. Though my learned brother has prepared a separate 'judgment dealing fully with the facts and the law, I thought that I should add a judgment of my own as the questions raised are important and as I am differing from the conclusions arrived at by the majority of the Full Bench in Sheik Mahomed Ravuther v. The British India Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. I.L.R. (1908) M. 95. The defendant in this case is the powerful company well known as the British India Steam Navigation Co. The legal questions we have to consider are: --(a) whether they are common carriers,(b) whether the English common law relating to carriers by sea applies to them or the provisions of the Indian Contract Act relating to bailees,(c) if the English common law applies to them, whether the defendants are wholly absolved from liability for the loss caused by the negligence of their agents employed to carry in boats the goods of the plaintiff (consignee) from the mooring place of the steamer to the plaint...
Tag this Judgment!Appavu Chettiar Vs. Nanjappa Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-02-1913
Reported in: 20Ind.Cas.792; (1913)25MLJ329
Sadasiva Aiyar, C.J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant before us. The allegations on which he brought the suit are:(a) The plaintiff's assignor and the 10th defendant were coobligees under the mortgage bond (Exhibit I), dated 1895, executed by the 1st defendant, and each was entitled to one-half of the mortgage amount lent under it.(b) 'The plaintiff understands that the 10th defendant has collected the amount due for her half share in the mortgage-deed.'(c) As the original of the plaint-mentioned mortgage bond (Exhibit I) is with the 10th defendant and as she refuses to give it to the plaintiff, this suit is brought on a registration copy (Exhibit A).2. The plaintiff sued for recovery of Rs. 750 (half of the principal sum mentioned in Exhibit I) with interest, Rs. 2,152-8-0 (about three times the principal), by sale of the mortgaged properties. The defendants Nos. 2 and 7 (subsequent alienees of the mortgaged properties) pleaded among other defences that, in April 1896 itself, their pr...
Tag this Judgment!K. Venkatasubbiah and ors. Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Cou ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-02-1913
Reported in: 30Ind.Cas.425
Sundara Aiyar, J.1. The District Judge has found that in Original Suit No. 211 of 1894 the plaintiffs' right to one-fourth of the water flowing through Yellareddi Kalva into the Anumakondapallem Tank was established; but he has held that the question of the plaintiffs' liability for the payment of the water-tax complained of in this suit is not barred as res judicata. He is, no doubt, right in saying that in Original Suit No. 211 of 1894 the liability of the plaintiffs to pay water-cess was not in question. But their exemption from liability must be held to follow from the right that was established in their favour in that suit. Their claim there was that they were absolutely entitled to a fourth of the water irrespective of the use that they made of it, and not merely to water necessary for irrigating any particular lands belonging to them. They complained of the opening of a vent which affected their right to a fourth of the water of the tank. The Government admitted their right to t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›