Chennai Court January 1914 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Churiya Kurnum Vs. Thakarie Chiruthan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-1914
Reported in: (1914)26MLJ183
1. The question for decision is whether the defendants, tenants, holding under the mortgagor the 1st defendant, are entitled to get the value of improvements made by them on eviction by the purchaser in execution of the mortgage decree obtained by the plaintiff. We proceed on the footing that the lease to the defendants is subsequent to the creation of the mortgage. The plaintiff's case is that it was not open to a mortgagor to create any right in derogation of his mortgage. The defendants claim the value of the improvements under the Madras Act I of 1908. Section 5 of that Act declares the right of every tenant to receive compensation for improvements on ejectment. It is argued that this section entitles the tenant to receive compensation only from his lessor. There is no such restriction in the section itself. The definition of the term, (See Section 3) shows that it includes persons other than those included in the word as defined in the Transfer of Property Act and includes persons...
Lingam Krishna Bhoopathi Deo Garu Vs. the Honourable Sri Mirza Sri Pus ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-1914
Reported in: (1914)26MLJ185
Spencer, J.1. Two grounds of appeal are pressed. It is contended (1) that the order of the District Court recognising the transfer of the decree by the Manager and agent of the estate of the Maharajah of Vizianagaram in favour of the 2nd respondent and allowing the latter to execute the decree was an order made without jurisdiction, the proper Court which should pass such an order in a case, which had gone up to the Privy Council in appeal from a decree of the High Court which confirmed the Original decree of the District Court, being the High Court;2. That Mr. Fowler as Attorney of the Maharajah was not expressly authorized under the Power, namely Exhibit A, to transfer decrees obtained by his principal for less or indeed for any amounts.3. No direct authority has been quoted in support of the first proposition. It is sought to be inferred from the language of Order 45, Rules 15 and 16 read along with Sections 38, 39 and 42 Civil Procedure Code. Reference has also been made in the arg...
L. Krishna Bhoopathi Deo Garu Vs. the Hon'ble Mr. Sri Mirza Sri Pasupa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-1914
Reported in: (1915)ILR38Mad832
Spencer, J.1. Two grounds of appeal are pressed. It is contended (1) that the order of the District Court recognising the transfer of the decree by the Manager and Agent of the estate of the Maharaja, of Vizianagaram in favour of the second respondent and allowing the latter to execute the decree was an order made without, jurisdiction, the proper Court which should pass such an order in a case, which had gone up to the Privy Council in appeal from a decree of the High Court which confirmed the original decree of the District Court, being the High Court; (2) that Mr. Fowler as Attorney of the Maharaja was not expressly authorised under the Power, which is Exhibit A, to transfer decrees obtained by his principal for less or indeed for any amounts.2. No direct authority has been quoted in support of the first proposition. It is sought to be inferred from the language of Order XLV, Rules 15 and 1G read along with Sections 38, 39 and 12, Civil Procedure Code. Reference has also been made i...
Churiyayi Kanaran Vs. Mattarai Chirutha and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-1914
Reported in: (1915)ILR38Mad954
1. The question for decision is whether the defend ants, tenants holding under the mortgagor the first defendant are entitled to get the value of improvements made by them on eviction by the purchaser in execution of the mortgage decree obtained by the plaintiff. We proceed on the footing that the lease to the defendants is subsequent to the creation of the mortgage. The plaintiff's case is that it was not open to a mortgagor to create any right in derogation of the mortgage The defendants claim the value of improvements under the Madras Act I of 1900. Section 5 of that Act declares the right of every tenant to receive compensation for improvements on ejectment. It is argued that this section entitles the tenant to receive compensation only from his lessor. There is no such restriction in the section itself. The definition of the term (see Section 3) shows that it includes persons other than those included in the word as defined in the Transfer of Property Act and includes persons who ...
Rallabamdi Subbiah and ors. Vs. Sri Rajah Venkataramiah Appa Rao Bahad ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Mad488(2); (1914)26MLJ217
Ayling, J.1. The District Munsif does not appear to have considered the legal effect of his finding on the third issue, that defendants had no notice of plaintiffs' intention to demand a higher rent for the suit faslis. It is in evidence that the suit lands had been cultivated with wet crops for at least 15 years (according to defendants, 24 or 25 years), and that during the whole of that time cist was collected only at the rate of 15 annas 10 pies per acre. In the absence of intimation to the contrary the tenants were justified in inferring that they would be allowed to cultivate on the same terms for the suit fastis, which expired on 30th June 1909. Plaintiffs gave them no notice of their intention to make higher claim, but in 1910 filed suit for rent at a higher rate. If the tenants had received notice, they might have elected to raise dry crops only and thus escape the higher demand. It appears to me that in these circumstances plaintiffs are estopped from demanding the higher rent...
Sivagnana Desika Gnanasambhanda Pandarasannadhi Vs. the Hon'ble the Ad ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-1914
Reported in: (1915)28MLJ174
Spencer, J.1. The suit was brought by the Advocate General under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the Petitioner's predecessor in office and one of the reliefs asked for was the settlement of a scheme for the efficient management of the Devastanams and the appointment of a committee of supervision as a check upon the trustee.2. I am satisfied that in making the petitioner a party to the suit the lower Court committed no illegality or material irregularity and that there was no defective exercise of jurisdiction in its order so as to call for our interference in revision. It is further clear from paragraph 3 of the plaintiff's statement of 20-8-11 and from paragraphs 8, 9, 13 (g), 15, 20 and 22 of the plaint that this suit was not brought solely on account of the personal mis-management of the petitioner's predecessor.3. The petition is dismissed with costs.Seshagiri Aiyar, J.4. I agree: Before dealing with the question raised by Mr. T. Rangachariar that the cause of ac...
Madurai Pillai Vs. T. Muthu Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Mad287; 22Ind.Cas.775; (1914)26MLJ227
Charles Arnold White, Kt., C.J.1. The question which has been referred to us in this case is,--'Whether Order XLI, Rule 2 of the Presidency Small Cause Court Rules is ultra vires.'' The rule provides that no application (for a new trial) shall be entertained unless the applicant at the time of presenting the application either deposits in Court the amount due from him under the decree or order or gives security to the satisfaction of the Court or the Registrar, for the performance of the decree or order in respect of which the application is made. The power to grant a new trial in a suit in the Presidency Small Cause Court is regulated by Section 38 which provides ' where a suit is contested, the Small Cause Court may on the application of either party made within eight days from the date of the decree or order in the suit, order a new trial to be held, or alter, set aside or reverse the decree or order upon such terms as it thinks reasonable.'' The Rules of the Presidency Small Cause ...
Swaminatha Aiyar Vs. S. Sivagurunatha Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-04-1914
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.990
1. The only irregularity in publishing or conducting of the sale proved in this case was that in the sale proclamation fixing the sale for 16th April 1914, about 30 acres were by mistake included in the lands mentioned in the first of the four lots advertised for sale, whereas those 30 acres should have been entered in the second of the four lots. But the sale was conducted rightly of only the remaining 56 acres as exhausting the first lot. Strictly speaking, no doubt, there should have been a fresh proclamation in respect of the sale of the first lot. But the correction was made at the instance of the appellant himself and he did not insist on a fresh proclamation and did not ask for an adjournment of the sale of lands in the first lot as corrected at his instance. To allow a party who stands by when an irregularity is committed within his knowledge and in his presence to afterwards take advantage of that irregularity in support of his application to set aside a Court auction sale has...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›