Chennai Court December 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.
Murugappa Modaly and ors. Vs. Panaganti Jagannatha Rayanim Garu and an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1914
Reported in: 30Ind.Cas.191
1. So far as the plaintiffs' (respondents') title is concerned, we are not satisfied that the lower Appellate Court misconstrued any documents in arriving at its conclusion that the road A in the plaintiffs' plan is the extreme southern limit of the defendants' hamlet and that the plaintiffs have established that their title-deed covers the plaint land.2. But as regards the question of limitation, though the learned District Judge correctly sets out the point which falls to be decided by him, namely, that the plaintiffs ought to prove possession within 12 years before suit: see Mohima Chunder Mozumdar v. Mohesh Chunder Neoghi 16 C. 473 : 16 I.A. 23 : 5 Sar. P.C.J. 321 he discusses only those facts on which he finds that the defendants' possession arose within 12 years before suit, but fails to find whether at sometime during the remaining portion (which might be called the first portion) of the 12 years, the plaintiffs had proved possession in themselves either directly or by the actua...
Venkatachella Pillai and ors. Vs. Ranga Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1914
Reported in: (1915)28MLJ334
1. The learned District Judge has found mainly on the strength of a document Ex. M which was received in evidence by him on appeal that the plaintiffs (respondents) have proved that they were the nearest reversionary heirs of the deceased Devaraja Pillai. It is contended by Mr. T.V. Venkatarama Iyer for the appellants (who are most of the alienee-defendants) that that document was wrongly admitted in evidence and reliance is placed on Kessowji Issur v. G.I.P. Railway I.L.R. (1907) B. 381 and Knshnamachariar v. Narasimhachariqr I.L.R. (1908) M. 114.2. The decision of their Lordships of the Privy Council in 31 B. 381 was considered in several later cases in this Court. It is necessary however, to refer only to Andiappa Pillai v. Muthukumara Thevan (1912) M.W.N. 450 S.A. No. 819 of 1911 and L.P.A. No. 118 of 1911 and Kamaswarappa v. Chelappathi (1914) M.W.N. 864. In all these cases it was held that when the appellate Court wishes to admit fresh evidence in order to enable it to pronounce ...
Sowcar Lodd Govindass Krishna Doss Varu Vs. Gurran Chinnappa Naidu and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1914
Reported in: (1915)28MLJ136
Napier, J.1. The question that arises in this appeal is whether in the circumstances of this case the Zamindar is entitled to charge enhanced rates for crops grown with the aid of well water. The District Judge has considered the matter solely with reference to Section 13, Clause 3 of the Madras Act I of 1908 and has assumed that that section applies to the improvements made prior to the Act. It has been decided in Rajah Kumara Venkata Perumal v. Ramudu (1914) 28 M.L.J. 81 and that the clause has no retrospective operation. The further point decided in that case was that a valid contract to pay enhanced rates could be presumed where the rate had been paid for a period of 60 years or so. The reasoning of the District Judge cannot therefore be accepted and it has only to be considered whether there was a valid contract in this case, that is to say, whether, although the ryots did in fact dig the wells utilised for irrigating the crop, the landlord did or did not contribute something towa...
Govinda Reddi and anr. Vs. Ravi Kesaval Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1914
Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.1003
1. The learned District Judge erred in holding that the presumption as to the constitution of the india applies only in Revenue Courts. Civil Courts also should presume that it consits in the revenue, not the land, until the contrary is proved. Yeddamapudi Lakshmi Narasimha Row v. Ripalli Sitaramaswami 19 Ind. Cas. 440 : 24 M.L.J. 288; (1913) M.W.N. 282.2. But it does not appear that this mistake influenced his treatment of the evidence materially; and there was clear evidence on which his decision could be founded. In these circumstances we are not prepared to interfere. The second appeal is dismissed with costs....
Gadian Chetti (Died) and ors. Vs. Veerappa Chetti and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad1156; (1915)28MLJ92
1. The only question involved in this appeal is whether the mortgage of the 9th August 1S89 (Exhibit C in the case) in favour of the plaintiff is supported by consideration. Both the lower Courts have found that issue in the affirmative. But it has been argued before us on behalf of the appellants that the decisions of the lower Courts are erroneous in law.2. Mr. Rangachariar argued in the first instance that the lower Courts erred in permitting the plaintiff to prove and rely upon the acknowledgment of receipt of consideration contained in Exhibit C to which document the 2nd defendant was not a party. He relied upon Brajeshware Peskakar v. Budhanuddi I.L.R. (1880) C. 268 Manohar Singh v. Sumitra Kuar (1907) 5 C.L.J. 653 Ghurphekni v. Purmeshar Dayal Dubey I.L.R. (1895) All.428 and Bisheswar Dayal v. Harbans Sahay (1907) Cri.L.J. 659 which decisions, he contended, laid down that a recital of payment, though it may bind a party to the document containing the recital, will not be evidenc...
Peruma Gowndan Vs. Rama Gowndan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-1914
Reported in: (1915)28MLJ115
1. The appellant's first contention is one of limitation. This plea was not taken in either of the Lower Courts or even in the original Second Appeal petition; but only in a memorandum of supplementary grounds of appeal. In such circumstances we should only allow it to be raised, if we are certain that its legitimacy can be determined on the pleadings, and that it depends on no possible question of fact regarding which the party adversely affected might have adduced evidence. The appellant relies on the recent Full Bench ruling reported in Doraisami v. Nondisami Saluvan (1912) 25 M.L.J. 405 and contends that as it is clear from the plaint that the plaintiff's elder brother (3rd defendant) attained majority more than three years before the institution of the suit, Section 7 of the Indian Limitation Act will apply and the plaintiff's suit will be time barred. There is no allegation in the pleadings that the 3rd defendant was the managing member of the family and as such in a position to ...
A.C. Chidambara Mudaliar Vs. N. Krishnaswami Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-1914
Reported in: (1915)28MLJ285
John Edward Power Wallis, Kt., C.J.1. These are appeals from a judgment in two suits which were tried together. One was a suit by Chidambara Mudaliar, one of the executors of the deceased Naga Pillai, on a mortgage for Rs. 6500--executed by the 1st defendant, another of the executors in favour of four persons, who it is alleged transferred it to the plaintiff. The mortgage, as found by the Subordinate Judge was really executed by the 1st defendant, as executor of the deceased under his will, Exhibit OO, benami for the plaintiff in the following circumstances. The plaintiff, though it was unnecessary for him to do so, thought proper to obtain probate of the will Exhibit EE, from the District Court of Trichinopoly and for some time administered the estate under the grant. In January 1901 the 1st defendant, the son of the deceased, who had come of age, presented a petition C.M.P. No. 83 of 1901 for the issue of probate to him along with the plaintiff and alleged therein that the plaintiff...
A.C. Chidambara Mudaliar Vs. N. Krishnasami Pillai and Twelve ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-1914
Reported in: (1916)ILR39Mad365
John Wallis, C.J. 1. These are appeals from a judgment in two suits which were tried together. Ono was a suit by Chidambara Mudaliar, one of the executors of the deceased Naga Pillai, on a mortgage for Ra. 6,500 executed by the first defendant, another of the executors in favour of four persons, who it is alleged transferred it to the plaintiff, The mortgage, as found by the Subordinate Judge was really executed by the first defendant, as executor of the deceased under his will Exhibit OO benami for the plaintiff in the following circumstances: the plaintiff, though it was unnecessary for him to do so, thought proper to obtain probate of the will, Exhibit EE, from the District Court of Trichinopoly and for some time administered the estate under the grant. In January 1901 the first defendant, the son of the deceased who bad come of age, presented a petition (Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 183 of 1901) for the issue of probate to him along with the plaintiff, and alleged therein that ...
Gottukkula Surapa Raju Vs. Gottumkkula Venkayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-1914
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.802
Spencer, J.1. In respect of the alienation of the plaintiff's mother as guardian of her minor sons with which Second Appeal No. 99 of 1913 is concerned and the alienation by the same individual as guardian of her minor sons under Exhibit II in Second Appeal No. 98 of 1913, we find that the matter is governed by the Full Bench decision in Doraisami v. Nondisami Saluvan 21 Ind. Cas. 410: 25 M.L.J. 405; 14 M.L.T. 401; 38 Ma. 118, which decided that limitation begins to run from the date of the elder brother attaining majority.2. With regard to the other alienation under Exhibit I effected by the elder brother after attaining majority and by the mother as guardian of the minor plaintiff, I have had the advantage of perusing the judgment which my learned brother has written and I agree with him in thinking that the sale by the manager of the undivided family which has been found to be for a bona fide family purpose was binding on the family and that the mere fact of the plaintiff's mother j...
Arunachella Ambalam and ors. Vs. R.G. Orr and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-1914
Reported in: (1917)32MLJ407
John Wallis, C.J.1. We have already given judgment as to the boundary question which arose between the villages of Karakudi and Sekkalakottai and have now to deal with so much of the appeals as relates to the claim of the Kottaiyur ryots to the Kudivaram rights in the Sekkalakottai village in which, we have decided, the suit lands are situated.2. It is admitted that the suit village is one of the villages of the Sivaganga Zamindari, and, as such, the Zamindar is entitled to the melwaram rights in the village and it is not now suggested that he has been dispossessed of these melwaram rights. It is said, however, that the onus is on him to show that he was in possession of the Kudivaram rights within 12 years of suit. Now, as will abundantly appear from the Exhibits to which it will be necessary to refer, the suit land was waste land or jungle and mostly forest; and with regard to land of this character in a Zamindari the presumption is that the Zamindair owns the Kudivaram as well as th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »