Chennai Court July 1913 Judgments
Gopisetti Narayanasami Naidu Garu, Receiver of Madur Estate Vs. Nambur ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-1913
Reported in: (1913)25MLJ451
1. There is nothing on the record to show that the address of the respondent given by the appellant was not the correct address. 2. Order 9 Rule 5 gives the plaintiff one year's time to apply for the issue of fresh summons, the time to be calculated from the non-service return. This order is applicable to proceedings in appeals (See Order XLI Rule 14). Ordinarily we would not interfere with the discretion of the judges of the Lower Courts in connection with orders passed with a view to the proper despatch of the business coming before those courts, but we do not see our way to get over Order 9 Rule 5. 3. The appeal is allowed, and the Lower Appellate Court will receive a fresh application from the Appellant for issue of process to the Respondent and continue the proceedings before it in due course of law. 4. The costs of this Second Appeal will be costs in the cause....
Tag this Judgment!The Chairman, Municipal Council Vs. Subba Pandithar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1913
Reported in: (1913)25MLJ297
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The Lower Courts in considering the question of possession have proceeded on the footing that the plaintiff should have had adverse possession for 30 years before suit before he could acquire title to the street space encroached upon against the Municipality of Srirangam. It is clear that if he had had possession for 19 years before the Limitation Amendment Act of 1900 came into force, that possession was sufficient to have given him a clear title as against the Municipality.2. On the question whether under Section 168 of the District Municipalities Act the Municipal Council was entitled to remove the projections and encroachments, even though the plaintiff had acquired full title to them and to the site on which the encroachment show, I have had serious doubts. In the case of Basawaswara Swami v. Bellary Municipal Council : (1912)23MLJ479 the Government was a party to the suit and their title was not lost. Further. the adverse title established there did not relat...
Tag this Judgment!J.S. Battie Vs. G.E. Brown Falsely Called G.E. Battie
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1913
Reported in: (1915)ILR38Mad452
Wallis, J.1. This is a case of a very unusual character in which the petitioner seeks a declaration of the nullity of the marriage which he contracted with the respondent in the year 1891, on the ground that the marriage was null and void as having been contracted within 9ix months of the date on which a decree absolute had been passed dissolving the earlier marriage of the respondent. Now I may observe that this marriage was performed by 'license.' I do not know if the authorities issuing the license were aware that the previous marriage of the respondent had been so recently dissolved, but if they were so aware, clearly the license ought not to have been issued, and this case illustrates the necessity that the licensing authority, when it is brought to its notice that the marriage of one of the parties has been dissolved, should satisfy itself, before issuing the license, that the marriage had been dissolved by a decree absolute six months before the celebration of the new marriage; ...
Tag this Judgment!J.S. Battie Vs. G.E. Brown, Falsely Called G.E. Battie
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1913
Reported in: 30Ind.Cas.413
Wallis, J.1. This is a case of a very unusual character, in which the petitioner seeks a declaration of the nullity of the marriage which he contracted with the respondent in the year 1891, on the ground that the marriage was null and void as having been contracted within six months of the date on which a decree absolute had been passed dissolving the earlier marriage of the respondent. Now I may observe that this marriage was performed by license.' 1 do not know if the authorities issuing the license were aware that the previous marriage of the respondent had been so recently dissolved, but if they were so aware, clearly the license ought not to have been issued, and this case illustrates the necessity that the licensing authority, when it is brought to its notice that the marriage of one of the parties has been dissolved, should satisfy itself, before issuing the license, that the marriage had been dissolved by a decree absolute six months before the celebration of the new marriage; ...
Tag this Judgment!S. Tiruvenkatachariar Vs. Venkatachariar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-25-1913
Reported in: AIR1914Mad634; (1914)26MLJ218
1. The learned District Judge in considering the evidence in the case has proceeded upon the ground that the burden of proving that the 3rd defendant's purchase from the 2nd defendant was made with notice of the prior contract to sell alleged to have been made with the plaintiff by defendants Nos. 1 and 2,lay on the plaintiff. The case of Himmat Lal Moti Lal v. Vasudev Ganesh I.L.R. (1912) B. 446 decides that the burden of proving (a) that the subsequent purchaser paid valuable consideration (b) that he acted bona fide and (c) that he had no notice lies on that purchaser, assuming, of course, that the plaintiff has established the prior agreement to sell, alleged in his plaint. Further the District Judge has not at all considered several circumstances mentioned by the Munsif as pointing to mala fides on the defendant's part; see paras 31 to 33 of the Munsif's judgment.2. Lastly, the District Judge is clearly wrong in saying that, even after his findings in favour of the 3rd defendant, ...
Tag this Judgment!P. Kathir Vs. C. Maremadissa and Two ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-25-1913
Reported in: (1915)ILR38Mad450
1. Munsif, on remand by the Subordinate Judge, held that the plaintiff, who had obtained an assignment of the rights of one Kotta Athan, was bound by the decision in Original Suit No. 414 of 1907 (Exhibit VI). In that decision it was held that the land referred to in the plaint belonged to the second defendant and not to the said Athan. The plaintiff obtained from Athan the assignment on which he relies in January 1908 during the pendency of the said suit. Applying the doctrine of Us pendens the Munsif held that the plaintiff could not set up a title to the said land as against the second defendant. The Subordinate Judge on appeal refused to consider the plea of Us pendens because it was not raised specifically by the defendants in their written statement, and the Munsif by the remand order was directed to decide the case on the merits irrespective of the effect of the doctrine of lis pendens.2. The argument based on the doctrine of Us pendens had evidently been argued before the Munsi...
Tag this Judgment!Korapalu and anr. Vs. Narayana Alias Naranappayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1913
Reported in: 20Ind.Cas.930; (1913)25MLJ315
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The defendants No. 2 and 3 are the appellants. The 6th and 7th defendants own the other half under an alienation by the 5th defendant, who was the former owner of that other half. The defendants appellants were mulgeni tenants under a lease executed by the plaintiff and the 5th defendant jointly in 1889. The lease deed contained a forfeiture clause for non-payment of rent. The plaintiff gave notice in July 1.909 to the defendants to give up the lands, as they had incurred forfeiture by non-payment of rent; and the suit was brought in September 1909 by the plaintiff on behalf of himself and the fifth defendant (whose alienees are defendants No. 6 and 7) to eject the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 from the entire lands. The Lower Appellate Court decreed the suit so far as the plaintiff's half share was concerned on the following grounds.(a) Though the original letting of 1889 was jointly by the plaintiff and the 5th defendant the plaintiff had become separately entitled to ...
Tag this Judgment!Vidyapurna Thirthaswamiar Vs. Rangappayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1913
Reported in: (1913)25MLJ486
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant before us. The defendants Nos. 2 to 7, 9, 10, 13 to 21 and 23 to 38 have been made respondents in this second appeal. The suit was for ejecting the defendants from the plaint lands on the ground that the principal defendants have forfeited their rights as Mulgeni tenants according to the terms of the original lease deed of 1863.2. The Lower Court refused to give a decree for possession in the plaintiff's favor on the ground that some overt act should have been done by the plaintiff (landlord) showing an intention to determine the tenancy required by Section III of the Transfer of Property Act and by the ruling reported in Venkatramana Bhatta v. Gundaraya : (1912)23MLJ715 , before the plaintiff acquired a legal right to eject the defendants. The case in Venkataramanu Bhatta v. Gundaraya : (1912)23MLJ715 , however proceeded on the ground that the Transfer of Property Act applied to the lease in question in that case. That this assumptio...
Tag this Judgment!S. Ranganatham Chetty Alias Narayanaswamy Chetty Vs. S. Lakshmiammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1913
Reported in: (1913)25MLJ379
Arnold White, C.J.1. In this case the suit was dismissed by Mr. Justice Bakewell on the ground that the plaintiff's claim was barred as res judicata by reason, of the decision in a suit which was brought in 1902 in the City Civil Court. The plaintiff appeals. The question arises in this way. In 1902 a man who had obtained a decree against the present plaintiff and the present plaintiff's father in the Small Cause Court brought a suit in which the present plaintiff's father was the 1st defendant, and the present plaintiff's step-mother was the third defendant. In that suit he claimed two relie'fs. The main relief claimed was a declaration that a certain deed of sale which had been executed by the present plaintiff's father and which purported to be in favour of the present plaintiff and the present defendant was in fraud of creditors. He claimed by way of alternative relief that, if the deed of sale was held to be good, it should be declared that a quarter share of a certain house that ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramakrishna Pillai Vs. C. Karunakara Menon
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1913
Reported in: (1913)25MLJ476
Wallis, J.1. The plaintiff in this case was the Editor and Managing proprietor of the Swadeshabhirnani a tri-weekly newspaper published in Malayalam in Trivandrum and the defendant is the Proprietor and Editor of the ' Indian Patriot', a daily newspaper published in English in Madras. On the 26th September' 1910 His Highness the Maharajah of Travancore issued a proclamation, in which it was stated His Highness was satisfied that in the public interests the Swadeshabhimani should he suppressed and the plaintiff deported and orders were given to that effect. The action of the Travancore Government was the subject of discussion in the Press and was supported by the defendant's paper on the ground that the plaintiff had brought it on himself by the articles published in his ' paper during the preceding three years. The present suit is brought in respect of five articles which appeared in the Indian Patriot in the months of September and October 1910 which are alleged to be defamatory of th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »