Chennai Court November 1914 Judgments
Nachiappa Gounden, Minor by His Guardian Nallammal Vs. Rangasami Gound ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad1088; (1915)28MLJ1
John Edward Power Wallis, Kt., Officiating C.J.1. I agree with the learned Judges as to the rest of the case and will only deal with the point on which they differed. The question is as to certain alienations made by the mother of the last male owner in 1893 by Exhibit 1 in favour of Ramasami Gounden who was at that time the nearest reversioner. He predeceased the lady, and on his death his two nephews, the 1st defendant and a brother since deceased, and the present plaintiff, a dayadi of theirs, became the next reversioners; and in this state of things in 1896 the present plaintiff purchased from the 1st defendant and his brother two of the items which had been conveyed to Ramasami Gounden under Exhibit I, and advanced Rs. 8,000 to them on a mortgage Exhibit III of a third item, which the 1st defendant sold in 1907 by Exhibit IV to the 3rd defendant from whom as recited in Exhibit IV he had borrowed money on mortgage to pay off the plaintiff's mortgage. The defendants pleaded among ot...
Tag this Judgment!Sreemanthu Raja Yarlagadda Mallikharjuna Nayadu Bahadur, Zamindar Garu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-1914
Reported in: (1914)27MLJ718
John Edward Power Wallis, C.J.1. This case raises a question of considerable importance as to what constitutes private land under the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908. The Subordinate Judge has decided the question very largely with reference to speeches made while the Bill was passing through the Council, in which private lands were said to represent lands which were granted free of assessment by the Mahomedan Government to the Zamindars as part of their remuneration for their services. However this may be, what the Court has to see is whether the land in question comes within the definition in Section 3(10) of the Act, where private land is said to mean 'the domain or home farm land of a landholder by whatever designation known such as Kambattam Khas Seri, or Pannai.'2. Here it may be well to note that the word domain in this connection is explained by Webster citing Shantore as meaning ' the land about the mansion home of a Lord and in his immediate occupancy'. Section 185 prescribed c...
Tag this Judgment!Sreemanthu Raja Yarlagadda Mallikarjuna Nayudu Bahadur, Zamindar Garu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-1914
Reported in: (1916)ILR39Mad341
John Wallis, C.J. 1. This case raises a question of considerable importance as to what consitutes private land under the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908. The Subordinate Judge has decided the question very largely with reference to speeches made while the Bill was passing through the Council, in which private lands were said to represent lands which were granted free of assessment by the Muhammadan Government to the zamindars as part of their remuneration for their services. However this may be, what the Court has to see is whether the land in question comes within the definition in Section 3(10) of the Act, where private land is said to mean 'the domain or home farm land of a landholder by whatever designation known such as kambattam, khas, seri or pannai.'2. Here it may be well to note that the word 'domain' in this connection is explained by Webster citing Shemtore as meaning 'the land about the mansion-home of a lord and in his immediate occupancy.' Section 185 prescribes certain rul...
Tag this Judgment!Hattikudur NaraIn Rao and ors. Vs. Andar Sayad Abbas Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad1085; (1915)28MLJ44
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The plaintiffs represent the interests of the mulgeni tenants who obtained a mulgeni lease in 1862 from the predecessor-in-title of the defendant who is the purchaser from the purchaser of the mul right from the original landlord. The lands leased to the plaintiff's father consisted of several items. The small extent now in dispute is alleged by the plaintiffs to be a part of the lands leased on mulgeni right while the defendant denies it. The defendant obtained this small extent of land now in dispute on dharkast grant from the Government in 1911 and is in possession of it. The first plaintiff's contention is that he and his father had been in possession of it along with the other mulgeni lands till September 1911 and that the defendant on the strength of the dharkast grant dispossessed the plaintiff in 1911. The defendant's case is that the plaint lands were not included in the mulgeni grant and that in any view, the lands having belonged to the Government, the d...
Tag this Judgment!Srinivasa Ranga Rao Pantulu, by the Official Assignee, High Court Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1914
Reported in: (1915)28MLJ67
Oldfield, J.1. I have had the advantage of reading the judgment which my learned brother is about to deliver and I agree with him that the learned Judge's dismissal of the appeal cannot be supported on its merits and that the order he should have passed under Rule 75 of the Appellate Side Rules was to direct the posting of the appeal before a Bench of two Judges for disposal or orders under Order 41, Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. But when the learned Judge took the mistaken course of himself dismissing the appeal, the appellant did not at once appeal against that dismissal and obtain the decision of a Bench under the Letters Patent, but chose instead to apply under Order 41, Rule 19. Then the learned Judge could consider only whether it was proved that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from making the necessary deposit, and, as he did not find sufficient cause established, he could only dismiss the application. We also, dealing with an appeal against his order...
Tag this Judgment!Chavali Subbamma Alias Subbarayadu and ors. Vs. Tulluru Venkatrayudu a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1914
Reported in: (1915)28MLJ361
1. We must accept the Subordinate Judge's finding that the sales in 1st plaintiffs favour were real transactions and that the first plaintiff was not the benamidar of any other person.2. As regards the lands (items 1 and 2), we think that the Subordinate Judge (on appeal) intended to accept and did accept the evidence of the first plaintiff and his witnesses that the 1st plaintiff directly enjoyed the lands till ten years before suit. The decision of the question whether there was an oral lease afterwards of the lands to the defendants becomes unnecessary.3. Coming to the house site item 3, the Subordinate Judge accepts the evidence of P.W. 7 which proves that the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the 1st plaintiff and Venkanna in about 1892. Oral evidence to prove such relationship is admissible even if the rental agreement is not admissible in evidence and even if the terms of the tenancy (such as the period, the rate of rent, the covenants of the lease, etc.) canno...
Tag this Judgment!Nagaraja Pillai and anr. Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Counc ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad1113; (1916)ILR39Mad304
Oldfield, J.1. The plaintiffs, the appellants, hold survey fields Nos. 46, 63 and 64 of Tirumananjeri village. Of the defendants, the respondents in the two second appeals, the first to ninth and eleventh defendants are ryots, whose alleged interest in the irrigation, the subject of dispute, the Secretary of State, the tenth defendant has protected by the issue of orders in the Revenue Department. It is admitted that the channel immediately adjacent to the plaintiffs' lands is the Mylan channel, belonging to the Cauvery system. But, as the plan, (Exhibit A) shows, there is a short distance to the west the Mangudi Channel in the Vikramanar system. The plaintiffs contended that they were entitled to take water by a kanni or subsidiary channel, running east from Mangudi to Mylan and so to their fields, though they would obviously affect the supply from the former, on which first to ninth and eleventh defendants depend, by doing so. The channels are artificial and there is therefore no que...
Tag this Judgment!K. Muthukaruppa Pillai Vs. Sellathammal Alias Kanakammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad475; (1916)ILR39Mad298
Seshagiri Ayyar, J.1. The property in dispute was given to the first defendant by her father in 1898 before she was married to the plaintiff: she sold the property to the third defendant in 1912. The plaintiff sues for a declaration that the sale is invalid. The Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit.2. There can be no question that if this property is Saudayika, the first defendant was entitled to deal with it at her pleasure. The main argument, therefore, was directed to showing that the term Saudayika does not include gifts prior to marriage. The nature of stridhanam property and its classification with reference to inheritance have given rise to conflicting views. In the Benares School, Courts may be spared a great deal of discussion if the view of the Mitakshara is fully accepted. Vignaneswara commenting on Yagnavalkya's text in Chapter 2, Section 11, paragraph 2, says: 'That which was given by the father, by the mother, by the husband or by a brother; and that which was presented b...
Tag this Judgment!Chowakkaran Keloth Makki Keyi Vs. Karuvalote Parkum Ponnam-bath Koomul ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-1914
Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.559
1. We think that this appeal must be allowed, since the learned Subordinate Judge made two mistakes in his disposal.2. Firstly, he held that the appellant's cause of action was the same in this and the previous suit. In fact in the previous suit it was the 1st defendant's holding prior to it. That holding was terminated by the decree in it, and the holding after decree constituted a fresh ijause of action.3. Next, though compensation for improvements was awarded by the previous decree, the learned Subordinate Judge did not keep in mind the provisions of Section 5 of Act I of 1900, and the fact that a tenant continuing in possession pending receipt of compensation holds subject to the terms of his previous lease, that is, holds as a tenant. Kummatha Vittil Kunhi Kuthalai Hagi v. Antoni Goveas 19 Ind. Cas. 563 : (1913) M.W.N. 339 : 13 M.L.T. 350 : 24 M.L.J. 472. It follows that the 1st defendant must have held as a tenant after the decree against him, and that the learned Subordinate Jud...
Tag this Judgment!Muniandi Servai Vs. Ramasami, Minor by Next Friend Mookkayi Alias Karu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1914
Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.586
1.Exhibit VI, mour opinion, is valueless as evidence and the omission of the learned District Judge to refer to it is wholly immaterial.2. As regards the alleged payment to one of the heirs of the original mortgagee, the Subordinate Judge finds that the alleged payment was a sham. The District Judge's judgment is obscure on that point. The Full Bench case in Mannava Annapurnamma v. Uppala Akkayya 19. Ind. Cas. 12 : 36 M. 544 : 13 M.L.T. 268 : (1913) M.W.N. 328 : 24 M.L.J. 333 only decides the the payment to one of the several joint promisees in a contract is binding on the others, and it does not decide the question whether payment to one of the several heirs of a single deceased promisee is binding on the other heirs. On the other hand, two at least of the three opinions incline against the view that such payment is binding.3. The second appeal is dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »