Chennai Court October 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.
Abbakka Shetthi (Died) and ors. Vs. Seshamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-1914
Reported in: 25Ind.Cas.944
Napier, J.1. It was held by this Court in a case, Karapalu v. Narayana 20 Ind. Cas 930 : 25 M.L.J. 315 : (1913) M.W.N. 655, that as the Transfer of Property Act does not in terms apply to agricultural leases no overt act need be proved by the landlord to entitle' him to succeed in a suit to eject based on an alleged forfeiture by denial of title. Assuming this to be so there is in this case no setting up. the title of a third person against his landlord such as would entail a forfeiture.2. All that the tenants did was, when the 4th defendant in this suit brought a suit against them in respect of items 1 to 8, to compromise the suit after first denying the 4th defendant's title under the mistaken impression that the title was in him. They have never refused to pay the rent due or set up the title of the 4th defendant against the plaintiffs until after the suit was filed. There was, therefore, no cause of action on which the plaintiff could sue and in fact he alleged an entirely differen...
Alamelu Ammal and anr. Vs. Balu Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-1914
Reported in: (1915)28MLJ685
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The plaintiffs are the appellants. They are two out of the three daughters of one Sambasiva Aiyar who died in 1880. The 1st defendant is the daughter and heir of one Subbammal who is now dead and who was also a daughter of Sambasiva Aiyar like the two plaintiffs. The mother of the plaintiffs and of Subbammal died in 1899 having enjoyed a widow's estate in the properties. Shortly before her death however, she executed a will treating the properties as her absolute properties and bequeathing the lands described in the plaint B schedule absolutely to her three daughters namely, the two plaintiffs and Subbammal. The daughters accordingly divided the B schedule properties into 3 equal shares by an oral division, shortly alter their mother's death purporting to take each one-third absolutely according to the will of their mother. Subbammal died in 1908 and her one-third share (the plaint schedule property) was taken possession of by her daughter (the 1st defendant) as he...
In Re: Dharmalinga Mudaly and Fifteen ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-1914
Reported in: (1916)ILR39Mad57
ORDERSadasiva Ayyar, J.1. The Sub-Magistrate discharged the accused because ho held that in pulling down the wall built by the complainant the accused acted in the assertion of a bona fide public right to the site on which the wall was built, that site being a public way.2. The accused was charged under Sections 147, 426 and 447, Indian Penal Code. Section 426 relates to mischief and mischief includes an intent to cause wrongful loss. If the site was a public path and if the complainant obstructed it wrongfully by a wall, the loss caused to him by the members of the public who pull it down in order to exercise their right of way through the site cannot be considered wrongful loss. As regards Section 447, that again depends on the question whether the site was a public path and even if it was not, whether it was in complainant's effective possession. As soon as the complainant began to build and obstruct the path, the accused remonstrated and took steps to have the obstruction removed a...
Arunachalam Chetty, Nagalingam Chetty, Minor by His Mother and Next Fr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad948; (1915)28MLJ118
1. A suit in which the plaintiff in terms prays for a declaratory decree and consequential relief prima facie comes with in Clause 4, Sub-clause (c) of Section 7 of the Court Fees Act, but if at the same time it comes within any of the other classes of suits specified in the section it must be treated as a suit of that description and dealt with accordingly. A suit such as the present for a declaratory decree that a decree passed against the plaintiff is not binding on him and for an injunction restraining the decree-hold-ers from executing it against him cannot be brought within any other part of the section except Clause 4, Sub-clause(c). So too the other class of suits included in the reference, viz., suits to declare a mortgage or sale-deed not binding on the party executing it, cannot be brought within Clause 8 or any other part of the section except Clause 4, Sub-clause (c). As the present suit for a declaration and an injunction comes within Clause 4 (c) the plaintiff is require...
Guruswami Naiken and ors. Vs. Tirumurthi Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-1914
Reported in: 25Ind.Cas.848; (1914)27MLJ629
1. The order which we are asked to revise was passed by the Joint Magistrate of Pollachi Division setting aside on appeal an order of the Stationary Sub-Magistrate of Udumalpet for payment of compensation under Section 250 Criminal Procedure Code. 2. The Sessions Judge of Coimbatore has referred it as illegal on the ground that no notice of the appeal was given to the Public Prosecutor as required by Section 422, Criminal Procedure Code.3. Section 422 of the Criminal Procedure Code directs that notice of appeal should be given 'to such officer as the Local Government may appoint in this behalf:' and a reference to Rule 60 of the Criminal Rules of Practice shows that the only officer who can be held to be appointed to receive notice of an appeal of this kind is, not the Public Prosecutor but the District Magistrate, who is nominated in Clause (1) ' for appeals other than appeals to Courts of Session.' 4. We may remark that as far as our experience goes this clause is very generally disr...
Madar Sahib and anr. Vs. Kader Moideen Sahib and Six ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-1914
Reported in: (1916)ILR39Mad54
1. The plaintiffs and defendants are co-owners of the suit-house. The defendants in 1896 bought an undivided moiety of the house from the father of plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 7, and later in the same year executed a lease to him in respect of the other moiety for a period of three years. That lease expired in 1899 and since that time the defendants have been in possession of the whole house without executing any fresh lease to the plaintiffs or paying them rent. The plaintiffs' suit is for possession of their half of the house after partition and for recovery of arrears of rent and rent subsequent to suit. They have succeeded in both the lower Courts and have been given a decree for partition and possession of a moiety of the house and for rent for six years before suit under Article 120 of the Limitation Act. The only question for determination in this second appeal is whether the lower Courts were right in according arrears of rent for six years. For the appellants it is contended that eit...
Madar Sahib and anr. Vs. Kader Moideen Sahib and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-1914
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.705
1. The plaintiffs and defendants are co-owners of the suit house. The defendants in 1896 bought an undivided moiety of the house from the father of plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 7, and later in the same year executed a lease to him in respect of the other moiety for a period of three years. That lease expired in 1899 and since that time the defendants have been in possession of the whole house without executing any fresh lease to the plaintiffs or paying them rent. The plaintiffs' suit is for possession of their half of the house after partition and for recovery of arrears of rent and rent subsequent to suit. They have succeeded in both the lower Courts, and have been given a decree for partition and possession of, a moiety of the house and for rent for six years before suit under Article 120 of the Limitation Act. The only question for determination in this second appeal is whether the lower Courts were right in according arrears of rent for six years. For the appellants it is contended that e...
A. Chidambara Gurukkal Vs. Sengoda Goundan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad84; 25Ind.Cas.999; (1914)27MLJ587
ORDERKumarasami Sastri, J.1. This is a petition against the order of the Joint Magistrate of Salem passed under Section 147 of the Criminal Procedure Code directing the petitioner not to perform the Kumbhabhi-shekam ceremony till he establishes his claim in a Civil Court : the case for the petitioner was that he as Guru of the Nathi and Vellala Goundars was the only person who was entitled to perform the (sic) ceremony in the Chinnamman temple, that the counter-petitioners were arranging to have the ceremony performed by another person, contrary to mamul and that a dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace exists. He prayed that the counter-petitioners be prevented from entering the temple and performing the ceremony.2. The Joint Magistrate held that the petitioner did not make out his right and directed him not to perform the ceremony until he established his right in a Civil Court.3. The grounds urged by the petitioner are(1) that the right in dispute is not one falling under Sec...
Tanka Gopalan Vs. Tanka Rattamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-1914
Reported in: (1915)28MLJ666
Oldfield, J.1. The appeal has been argued only on the question whether the 5th defendant's purchase was invalid, because it was made pendente lite, and whether the property in his hands could therefore still be made liable for the plaintiff's maintenance at the date of suit.2. The law applicable, Section 316 of the Code of Civil Procedure then in force, provides generally that, so far as regards the parties to the suit, and persons claiming through or under them, the title to property sold, as this was, at court sale shall vest in the purchaser from the date of sale certificate. The Lower Appellate Court has however held that, though the date of the fifth defendant's certificate is subsequent to the date of the plaint, that fact is not decisive against parties to the suit and persons claiming through or under them and (2) the section does not deprive the purchaser of an equitable title, incomplete until, the sale is confirmed, but on confirmation dating back to the date of sale.3. As r...
Para Koothan and ors. Vs. Para Kulla Vandu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-1914
Reported in: 31Ind.Cas.720
1. The District Munsif no doubt found in terms against the plaintiff on issue 1. But we understand the learned Judge as having been unable to accept parts of the judgment as reconcilable with that finding and as having, therefore, thought it necessary to obtain a proper finding after making sure that all material considerations had been dealt with. We are not prepared to hold that he was not entitled to do this in revision.2. The question then is only of the propriety of the order he eventually passed, giving the plaintiff a decree with costs throughout, although the finding (accepted by him), was that the plaintiff was entitled to joint possession with the defendants. In Hari Narain Das v. Elemjan Bibi 23 Ind. Cas. 618 : 19 Cri.L.J. 117 it was held that a Court had no power to give joint possession under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act.3. In Sabapathi Chetti v. Subraya Chetti 3 Ma. 250 the decision was only that a person, whose possession has been partially disturbed, can be rest...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »