Chennai Court February 1914 Judgments
Prati Appala Raju Vs. Muthuraju Surapa Raju
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad504; 25Ind.Cas.628; (1914)27MLJ676
ORDER1. The accused was a tenant in possession of lands of which the complainant is said to be the landholder, His father was in possession before him. The landlord sued him in ejectment and a decree for possession was passed in his favour before the Estates Land Act came into force on the ground that the tenant had no occupancy right and that his right to possession had been determined by notice to quit. He is now prosecuted and convicted under Section 212 of the Estates Land Act for being in possession of the land without the landlord's consent. Section 212 of the Estates Land Act would apply only if the decree could be treated as one passed under Section 163. It could not be so treated in this case as the accused is not a person who occupies the land otherwise than by inheritance. The conviction cannot therefore be sustained. The conviction and sentence are set aside and the fine if levied will be refunded....
Tag this Judgment!Lakshmiammal Vs. Sundararaja Aiyangar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-1914
Reported in: (1915)ILR38Mad788
Oldfield, J.1. The case was tried and has been argued here with reference only to Exhibit I and not to the alleged agreement of May 1908; and the first point taken is that plaintiff who was not a party to Exhibit I cannot sue on it.2. Schedule E of Exhibit I, a partition-deed in plaintiff's family, contains the arrangements made for the performance of her nuptial marriage. It is headed 'amount due to plaintiff' and sets out that Rs. 100 is to be given by each of the branches, between which the property is to be divided, defendants Nos. 1 and 2 taking one share and two sons of first defendant by his first wife the other two.3. Plaintiff's right to sue is denied mainly on the grounds given for the decision in Iswaram Pillai v. Taregan I.L.R. (1915) Mad. 758; 26 M.L.J. 127. But that case can be distinguished from the present in two ways: Firstly, there was no question in it of a family settlement. In Rajagopalaraju v. Radhayya : (1912)22MLJ159 , one was in question and it was held that a ...
Tag this Judgment!Jamna Das and ors. Vs. Uma Shanker and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-1914
Reported in: 25Ind.Cas.158
1. This is a suit on a simple mortgage executed on 13th November 1907 by Lal Muhammad. The suit is defended by the mortgages under a second mortgage of the same property executed by Lal Muhammad and his wife, Zahnran, in February 1908. Money was left with the mortgage's under this deed to pay off the prior mortgage in .suit, but the mortgages did not pay it but brought a suit on their mortgage without imp leading the plaintiff, the prior mortgage.2. The Court of first instance decreed the suit holding that Lal Muhammad was the de facto owner of the property and that even if he was not, Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act applied .3. The lower Appellate Court reversed the decree on the ground that the real owners of the property were not Lal Muhammad but his father-in-law, Muhammad Bakhsh, and after him his wife, Zahuran, and that Section 41 did not apply. The plaintiff: comes here in second appeal. As regards the first point, vie., who was the real owner of the property, 1 prefe...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Nandamuri Anandayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad812; 25Ind.Cas.630
Ayling, J.1. Appellant has been convicted of an offence under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code in respect of a statement, Exhibit B, given by him to the Head Constable in charge of Grudivada Police Station (Prosecution Witness No. 2) on 5th May 1912. In this statement he charges five persons (Prosecution Witnesses Nos. 5 to 9) with having robbed him of jewels and committed dacoity,2. We see no reason to distrust the evidence of Prosecution Witness No. 2; and we are satisfied that the statement, Exhibit B was given by appellant, and given with a fall knowledge of its purport and probable consequences. It is not suggested that the statements it contains as to the alleged dacoity are true and we have no doubt they are false.3. It has been argued, however, on various grounds that the conviction is bad in law and with these arguments we proceed to deal.4. The first contention is that the statements in Exhibit B cannot constitute an offence under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code, bec...
Tag this Judgment!Sundararaja Aiyangar and anr. Vs. Lakshmiammal (Minor) Through Her Hus ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Mad95; 24Ind.Cas.943
Oldfield, J1. The case was tried and has been argued here with reference only to Exhibit I and not to the alleged agreement of May 1908, and the first point taken is that plaintiff who was not a party to Exhibit I cannot sue on it.2. Schedule E of Exhibit 1, a partition-deed in plaintiff's family, contains the arrangement made for the performance of her nuptial marriage. It is headed amount due to plaintiff' and sets out that Rs. 100 is to be given by each of the branches between which the property is to be divided, defendants Nos. 1 and 2 taking one share and two sons of 1st defendant by his first wife ,the other two.3. Plaintiff's right to sue is denied mainly on the grounds given for the decision in Iswaram Pillai v. Taregan 23 Ind. Cas. 951 : 26 M.L.J. 127. But that case can be distinguished from the present in two ways. Firstly, there was no question in it of a family settlement. In Kosun Bajagopal Raja v. Datla Radhayya 13 Ind. Cas. 205 : 22 M.L.J. 159 : 11 M.L.T. 14: (1912) M.W....
Tag this Judgment!In Re : Authoor Valappil Syed Ahmad Musaliyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Mad144(2); 24Ind.Cas.976
1. Following Queen-Empress v. Umrao Lal 23 Aa. 84. [see also Mokand Lal v. Emperor 26 P.R. 1001 Cr. and Mayne's Criminal Law, paragraph 608], we set aside the conviction and sentence under Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code, as the prisoner was the person who abetted the forgery of the document sought to be used by him as genuine. On the facts we uphold the conviction under Sections 467 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code. We reduce the sentence under the circumstances to one of eighteen months' rigorous imprisonment....
Tag this Judgment!Murza Hyder Alli Sahib Vs. Syed HussaIn Raza Sahib and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad444; 24Ind.Cas.316
Bakewell, J.1. The plaint in this suit recites a decree of this Court in Original Suit No. 392 of 1878 under which a committee was constituted 'to supervise the management and conduct of the charity known as the Abbasi Aushoor Khana or Thousand Lights' by the managers under the scheme provided by the decree in Original Suit No. 198 of 1868, and alleges that the plaintiff has been validly appointed a member of the Committee in accordance with the provisions of the first mentioned decree : and prays for a declaration that the plaintiff is a duly appointed member of the Committee of Management and is entitled to participate with the other members of the Committee, that, if necessary, the defendants may be directed to give the plaintiff joint possession of the charities and its endowments, and for an injunction, pendents lite, restraining the defendants from interfering with the existing management of the charity without the concurrence of the plaintiff. Paragraph 7 of the plaint estimates...
Tag this Judgment!P. Ramasami Naidu Vs. Venkataramanjulu Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Mad301; (1914)26MLJ467
1. This was a proceeding in ejectment under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Court Act: Defendant executed a rental agreement on the 14th June 1897 agreeing to occupy the site for 15 years , by building a house on it. The agreement provides ' In case you require the aforesaid land if you give me 6 months' previous notice after the aforesaid 15 years, I shall accordingly vacate the land, remove the superstructure I had built thereon and put you in possession of it,' Plaintiff gave two notices, one in October 1911, and another on the 13th December 1913 claiming possession on the 31st of that month : plaintiff's case is that the tenancy came to an end by efflux of time on the 14th June 1912 and that as he gave notice in October 1911, defendant was bound to vacate the premises : Defendant contended that the first notice was bad as it was before the 15 years were over, that the second notice did not terminate the tenancy as it did not allow 6 months' time to vacate, and that the Sma...
Tag this Judgment!M. Subbayya Vs. M. Rachayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad362; (1914)ILR37Mad477
ORDERSeshagiri Ayyar, J.1. The District Munsif of Madanapalle passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff in Original Suit No. 299 of 1910 on the 30th of March 1911. The contract which gave rise to the litigation was made in Kadiri which was at the time of the suit within the jurisdiction of the Madanapalle District Munsif. The scheme for the redistribution of districts came into force on the 1st of April 1911, by which Kadiri was added to the jurisdiction of the District Munsif of Penukonda. From Madanapalle appeals lie to the District Judge of Cuddapah; from Penukonda to the District Judge of Bellary. The defendant filed the appeal in the District Court of Bellary on the 26th of June 1911 against the decision in Original Suit No. 299 of 1910. The District Judge held that the appeal lay to the Cuddapah District Court, and returned it for presentation accordingly. The District Judge of Cuddapah on the appeal being presented to him came to the conclusion that he had no jurisdiction. This...
Tag this Judgment!Subbaroya Reddiar Vs. Rajagopala Reddiar and Two ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1914
Reported in: (1915)ILR38Mad887
Seshagiri Ayyar, J.1. The facts of this case are not in dispute. One Subbaroya Reddiar was the original owner of the properties conveyed to the plaintiff. At Subbaroya's death, his widow Kanthammal took possession of the properties of her husband; Gnanammal, the mother of Subbaroya Reddiar, executed in 1892 a deed of release of her claims in favour of Kanthammal. On the 23rd August 1900 Kanthammal executed a release of her rights in favour of the father of defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and the third defendant: they are said to be the reversioners to the estate of Subbaroya Reddiar. In this release deed executed by Kanthammal reference is made to the release obtained by her from her mother-in-law. The father of defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and the third defendant by his guardian executed on the same day a sale deed to the plaintiff. Plaintiff was put in possession. Kanthammal died in 1904. In 1910 Gnanammal brought a suit to recover possession of the properties from the plaintiff on the ground tha...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »