Chennai Court February 1914 Judgments
Rajavelukoti Muthukrishna Yajendra Bahadur Varu Zamindar of Tirupasur, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1914
Reported in: 24Ind.Cas.865
1. The suits were for ejectment under Section153 of the Madras Estates Land Act.2. Section 153 of the Madras Estates Land Act applies only to non-occupancy ryots, and the question for decision is whether the respondents (defendants) are non-occupancy ryots.3. They are ryots who were in possession of their holdings at the commencement of the Act and are, therefore, occupancy ryots, unless they come within some provision of the Act to the contrary, It is contended by Mr. L. A. Govinda Raghava Iyer that the defendants are tenants who were let into possession in 1907 under leases for a definite period of one year and that, therefore, they are non-occupancy tenants, and he relies upon the proviso to Section 153 to the effect that nothing in that section shall affect the liability of a non-oconpancy ryot to be ejected on the ground of the expiry of the term, of a lease granted before that Act.4. Sections 151 and 152 of the Madras Estates Land Act refer to suits for ejectment of occupancy ryo...
Tag this Judgment!Chundra Guruviah and anr. Vs. Guggilam Kotiah and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1914
Reported in: 24Ind.Cas.462; (1914)26MLJ366
1. The defendants carried on business in Cheerala and at Madras and in the beginning of 1912 found themselves in difficulties. Five or six persons representing the Madras creditors went to the defendants at Cheerala, looked into their accounts, ascertained what assets they had and proposed a means of paying off their liabilities. It was arranged that certain assets shall be set apart to satisfy the claims of the Madras creditors and certain other assets should go to the mofussil creditors. An agreement, Exhibit I dated the 21st May 1912, was drawn up to which all the Madras creditors were made parties, and in a list of the same persons, Exhibit II, the details of their claims and the total amount are set out.2. The persons who arranged this agreement were evidently under the impression that if they did the best they could for their fellow-merchants, the latter would be sensible enough to fall in with the arrangement. They seem to have taken no steps before they left Madras to obtain th...
Tag this Judgment!Gontla Venkata Pitchayya Vs. Sowdagar Mahomed Abdul Kareem Beg Saheb a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Mad216; (1914)26MLJ368
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The first defendant is the petitioner in revision. An ex parte decree was obtained by the plaintiff against the petitioner for specific performance of an unregistered written agreement by which the defendants agreed to execute a registered rent deed in favour of the plaintiff. This ex parte decree was passed on the 16th August 1910. The first defendant was not personally served with the defendant's summons in the suit. His permanent residence was Bezwada and the suit was brought in the Bezwada Munsif's Court. When the process server went to serve him with the summons on 2nd July 1910, 1st defendant's gumastah said that the 1st defendant had gone to Tirupathi and so the duplicate summons was affixed to the outer door of his house. The process-server was solemmly affirmed on the 5th July 1910 and deposed to the truth of his return to the above effect. The District Munsif treated the service by affixture as service duly made and after examining one witness for the pla...
Tag this Judgment!Cheruvalath Kunhanari Valakkathala Ereehan Alias Kuttappa and ors. Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad414(1); 25Ind.Cas.50
1. We overrule the preliminary objection that no second appeal lies.2. On the merits we are bound by a uniform course of decisions of this Court to hold that where a decree directs the defendants to pay money to the plaintiff within a certain time and sale of mortgaged property in default, the decree is not only an ordinary mortgage-decree under Section 88 of the Transfer of Property Act (Order XXXIV, Rule 4, of the Code of Civil Procedure), but is also a decree for money, which may be executed against the other properties of the defendant. Any further order or decree under Order XXXIV, Rule 6, of the Code of Civil Procedure is unnecessary. The decree now in question may, therefore, be executed as a money-decree. On this ground we set aside the orders of the Courts below and direct the District Munsif to restore the petition to his file and dispose of it according to law.3. Costs hitherto incurred will abide the result....
Tag this Judgment!Sooriyan Muthirian Vs. Natesam Pillai Alias Marudai Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1914
Reported in: 25Ind.Cas.44
Seshagiri Aiyar, J.1. The defendant's case is that this suit is not maintainable on the Small Cause side. The suit is on a contract between the plaintiff and the defendant ant. The defendant agreed to allow the plaintiff to drain the water from his field into defendant's land, and received Rs. 3 as consideration for the permission and the defendant broke the contract and refused to allow the water of the plaintiff to be taken into defendant's lands. Article 35 (i) has no application to such a case. This is not a case of easement nor is it a case of diverting the water-course. It is a pure case of contract which has been broken by the, action of the defendant and he is bound to pay damages. The petitioner's Vakil does not question the quantum of damages awarded in this case. I dismiss the petition with costs....
Tag this Judgment!The Assistant Sessions Judge of N. Arcot Vs. Ramaswami Asari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Mad830; (1914)26MLJ235
ORDERSpencer, J.1. I think that the Assistant Sessions Judge is mistaken in supposing that the Deputy Magistrate had no jurisdiction to commit the accused for trial before him for want of a certificate under Section 188 Crl. P.C The complainant is alleged to have entrusted certain jewels at Vellore to the accused a Native Indian subject of His Majesty, for sale on commission for him and the accused is alleged to have dishonestly converted the jewels concerned with the first two counts to his own use by pledging them at Bangalore City and to have dishonestly misappropriated the jewels concerned in the third count at Madras. It was apparently part of the arrangement that the accused should account for the jewels to the complainant at Vellore, or return them or their price at Vellore. His failure to account for the property was a part of the offence, acts including illegal omissions. The loss which was the consequence which ensued occurred at Vellore and this is sufficient under Section 1...
Tag this Judgment!Subramanian Patter Kariakar's son Sivaram Patter Kariakar Vs. Edathil ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-1914
Reported in: (1914)26MLJ307
1. We think this appeal must be allowed. We are bound by the Full Bench decision in Veeramma v. Abbiah I.L.R. (1893) 18 M. 99 and the decision in Appa Ran Savayi Asiva Ran v. Krishna Murthi I.L.R. (1896) M. 249 which followed it, to deal with the case on the footing that the provisions of the Limitation Act are inapplicable to the suit provided for by Section 77 of the Registration Act.2. But apart from that Act it would be reasonable on general principles to hold that, when the plaintiff cannot, owing to the Court being closed, present his plaint on a particular day, on which it ought to be presented, he should not be allowed to suffer if he presents it at the earliest possible opportunity thereafter. That principle has been recognised by the legislature in Section 10 of the General Clauses Act of 1897 and in this Court in Aravamudu Aiyangar v. Samiyappa Nadan I.L.R. (1897) M. 385. Sambasiva Chari v. Bamasami Beddi I.L.R. (1898) M. 179. Haji Ismail Sait v. Trustees of the Harbour Madr...
Tag this Judgment!Athalur Malakondiah Vs. Thatha Lakshminarasimhalu Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Mad646; (1914)26MLJ312
Charles Arnold White, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from a decree dismissing a suit brought by a party who was a legatee and annuitant under the will of a deceased person of which the defendant was the executor. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that it was obligatory on the learned Judge to proceed with the case and to hear the evidence and that the plaintiff if the allegations in the plaint were established, was entitled to claim, as of right, a general administration decree. A written statement was put in and, after the written statement; the defendant paid into court the amount of the legacy and a sum sufficient to secure the payment of the annuity. I think the learned Judge had a discretion to adopt the course which he took. See Halsbury's Laws of England Vol. XIV, paragraph 798 and the cases which are there cited. No doubt the cases cited are instances where the Court has acted under Order 55, Rule 10 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of England. But with the exception o...
Tag this Judgment!Muthusami Chetty Vs. Chinnammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Mad118(1); (1914)26MLJ517
1. It has been repeatedly decided by this Court, that attachment alone without an order for sale precludes the accrual of the title by survivorship in the event of the death of the judgment-debtor after attachment and before the order for sale B. Krishna Rau v. Laksmana Shanbhogue I.L.R. (1879) M.802 It is true that an attachment before Judgment has been declared not to have that effect in the event of the judgment debtor dying before decree Rmayya v. Rangappayya I.L.R. (1893) M. 144 The reason is that the attachment before Judgment is only intended to protect the property from alienation. But when a decree is passed subsequently it is unnecessary to attach the property again and the prior attachment renders the property available for sale in execution. An attachment followed by a decree therefore precludes the accrual of the title by survivorship for the same reasons as an attachment after decree. For these reasons we reverse the orders of the Courts below, direct the Munsif to restor...
Tag this Judgment!Muthttsami Chetty Vs. Chunammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1914
Reported in: 24Ind.Cas.320
1. It has been repeatedly decided by this Court, that attachment alone without an order for sale precludes the accrual of the title, by survivorship in the event of the death of the judgment-debtor after attachment and before the order for sale : Bailur Krishna Rau v. Lakshmana Shanbhogue 4 M.(sic) at p. 307. It is true that an attachment before judgment has been declared not to have that effect in the event of the judgment-debtor dying before decree : Ramanayya v. Rangappayya 17 M. 44. The reason is that the attachment before judgment is only intended to protect the property from alienation. But when a decree is passed subsequently it is unnecessary to attach the property again and the prior attachment renders the property available for sale in execution. An attachment followed by a decree, therefore, precludes the accrual of the title by survivorship for the same reasons as an attachment after the decree. For these reasons we reverse the orders of the Courts below, direct the Munsif ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »