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.
Muthammal Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council Through the ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-09-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad106; (1914)27MLJ529
John Edward Power Wallis, Kt. Officiating C.J.1. In this case the plaintiff sued to recover certain lands which she alleged to form part of her Mitta and to have been wrongfully taken possession of by Government, and in the alternative for a reduction of the peishcush paid by her for Fasil 1317 proportionate to the extent of the lands which had been taken fr6m her. The boundaries of the mitta and the adjoining Government lands were delineated under the Boundaries Act XXVIII of 1860 in the year 1880, when the Boundary Settlement Officer found that the lands in question had never formed part of the area of the Mitta and accordingly excluded them. The proprietor of the Mitta did not contest this decision by filing a suit under Section 25 of the Act as he might have done. In this circumstance the decision of the Boundary Settlement Officer that the lands in question did. not form part of the Zemindary is res judicata according to the decision of the Full Bench in Kama Raju v. The Secretary...
Subbaraya Pillai Vs. Krishnaswami Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-09-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad334; 25Ind.Cas.627a
ORDERKumaraswamy Sastri, J.1. The petitioner filed a complaint against the counter-petitioner (who was the 3rd accused) and others charging them under Section 426 of the Indian Penal Code with having intentionally driven their cattle into, and thrashed before the produce was harvested, the crops on his field. The Stationary Magistrate of Nannilam convicted the accused and sentenced them to pay a fine of Rs. 10 each.2. On appeal the Sub-Divisional Magistrate reversed the conviction on the ground that the 3rd accused thought that he had a perfectly genuine claim to the land and the crops. Reading the judgment as a whole, there can be little doubt that he agreed with the Stationary Magistrate in thinking that mischief was caused. His finding that there was malice can only be reconciled with the view that he found that mischief was caused.3. A revision petition was filed by the present petitioner (Criminal Revision Case No. 475 of 1913) against the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, a...
Annasawmy Aiyangar Vs. Muthukumara Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-09-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad83(2); 25Ind.Cas.991
ORDERSadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate ought to arrive at his own finding as to which of the parties was in possession under Clause (4) of Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Subordinate Judge's order gives a charge in favour of the petitioner in Criminal Revision Case No. 271 of 4914 and finds that his sale-deed did not pass title to him as owner. The question of possession as between the present two parties was not fought out between them, in the Civil proceedings and if there is any finding about possession in, those proceedings, the Magistrate might take it into consideration in arriving at his own conclusion on the question of possession. The Magistrate's order of attachment is set aside and he is requested to pass fresh orders according to law with reference to the above remarks....
In Re: D. Suryanarayana Row and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-09-1914
Reported in: 25Ind.Cas.1008a
ORDERSadasiva Aiyar, J.1. I see no reason to interfere with the convictions and I don't agree with the case of Sahib Singh v. Emperor 38 P.R. 1905 Cr. : 115 P.L.R. 1905 : 2 Cri.L.J. 694, which decides that because it is illegal to try two persons for two distinct offences committed by them, the Appellate Court has no power to convict one of two persons tried for a certain offence of another offence found done on the facts.2. As regards the sentence on the first accused who is a young man affected by the evil influence of his elder brother, I reduce it to the term of imprisonment already undergone by him. The case as regards the other accused is dismissed....
Chambozil MoidIn Kutti Vs. Achutambal Kunhi Koyan Muth Haji and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad650; (1914)27MLJ691
1. It is found that there was no family necessity to justify the melcharath Exhibit. B ; and we must hold that this transaction is not binding on the successor of the Karnavan who executed it whether the latter did or did not survive the expiry of the prior Kanom. The appeal is dismissed with costs....
S. Veeraraghava Aiyar Vs. J.D. Muga Seit
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-06-1914
Reported in: (1914)27MLJ535
John Wallis, Kt. Officiating C.J.1. The learned Judges have differed on the question whether the District Munsif was right in refusing to execute the decree of the Cochin Court, as to which a notification has been issued pursuant to Section 44 C.P.C. on the ground that it was passed without jurisdiction. It was not disputed that in the circumstances which were similar to those in the Faridkote case the Cochin Court must be considered to have had no jurisdiction, but it was contended that a British Court was bound under the terms of the section to execute it, as-if it has been passed by a Court of British India, and that it would not now be open to a Court in British India to refuse to execute the decree of another Court in British India for want of jurisdiction. I do not think it necessary to consider the second proposition, because I agree generally with the Judgment of Sundara Aiyar J. that Section 44 has not the effect contended for, and that a British Court ought not to execute a d...
Umade Rajah Raji Damara Kumara Chinna Venkatappa Nayanim Bahadur Varu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-06-1914
Reported in: (1914)27MLJ656
Spencer, J.1. The first defendant in these suits is the present Zamindar of Kalahasti, an impartible estate. The 1st plaintiff in O.S. No. 9 of 1910 and the sole plaintiff in O.S. No. 17 of 1910 are brothers of the 1st defendant. The 2nd plaintiff in O.S. No. 9 of 1910, is the minor adopted son of the 1st plaintiff. They brought these suits for a declaration of their rights to maintenance at the rate of Rs. 650 per mensem and for recovery of the same with arrears and interest as a charge upon the estate. They also claimed priority over the mortgage rights of certain mortgagees who were made parties to the suit and thus raised questions which need not now be considered as they are not pressed in these appeals. The 1st defendant acknowledged that the plaintiffs were entitled to be maintained out of the estate but pleaded that the financial condition of the estate was such that he could not afford to give his brothers more than Rs. 400 per mensem which was in fact the amount that they wer...
S. Veeraraghava Ayyar Vs. J.D. Muga Sait
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-06-1914
Reported in: (1916)ILR39Mad24
John Wallis, Kt., Officiating C.J.1. The learned Judges have differed on the question whether the District Munsif was right in refusing to execute the decree of the Cochin Court, as to which a notification has been issued pursuant to Section 44, Civil Procedure Code, on the ground that it was passed without jurisdiction. It was not disputed that in the circumstances which were similar to those in the Faridkote case the Cochin Court must be considered to have had no jurisdiction, but it was contended that a British Court was bound under the terms of the section to execute it, as if it had been passed by a Court of British India, and that it would not now be open to a Court in British India to refuse to execute the decree of another Court in British India for want of jurisdiction. I do not think it necessary to consider the second proposition because I agree generally with the judgment of Sundara Ayyar, J,, that Section 44 has not the effect contended for, and that a British Court ought ...
Nallappa Reddi Vs. Vridhachala Reddi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-06-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad36; 25Ind.Cas.888
1. The question raised in this case is one of some importance. The second defendant had agreed, while the plaintiff was a minor, to manage the plaintiff's properties and to hand 'over possession to him after his attainment of majority. One of the duties that the second defendant undertook to perform was the payment of interest due on the debts. He did not pay the interest on one of the debts and in consequence the creditor instituted a suit (Original Suit No. 521 of 1897) in the Kulittalai District Munsif'a Court. The plaintiff and the second defendant were both parties to that suit, the second defendant being the third defendant there. He contended in that suit that he had paid up the interest, but failed to adduce evidence to prove his contention. The plaintiff subsequently paid the amount to the creditor, and instituted this suit to recover the damages sustained by him in consequence of the second defendant's failure to pay.2. The lower Appellate Court has held that the second defen...
Pumpaliya Vengalia Chellattan Kelu Kurut Vs. Kunhamina and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-06-1914
Reported in: 25Ind.Cas.704
1. Article 108 of the Limitation Act becomes applicable only if a suit is brought by the landlord for recovery of the value of trees cat down by his lessee.' In this case the plaintiff does not sue for recovery of any such value, but only claims that in the taking of the accounts as between himself and his kuzhi kanom tenants the value of the trees wrongfully cut down by the latter should be debited against the tenants who want to get credit for the value of the improvements made by them.2. The pleadings in the suit make it reasonably clear that the defendants (the tenants) did not deny the right of the landlord to have the value of trees wrongfully cut by them deducted from the value of the improvements due to them (the tenants) and there was no issue raised on the plea of limitation. We are of opinion that under the Malabar Common Law governing the mutual rights between landlords and their kuzhi kanom tenants, a right to deduct the value of trees wrongfully cut by the tenants during ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »