Chennai Court March 1914 Judgments
Muniappa Chouduri Vs. Singaravelu Mudali and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1914
Reported in: 24Ind.Cas.611
Tyabji, J.1. It is argued before me that the District Munsif went in contravention of the cases Lukhee Kant Doss Chowdhry v. Sumeerooddi Tustar 21 W.R. 208 : 13 B.L.R. 243. and Surendra Narain Singh v. Bhai Lal Thakur 22 C. 752. inasmuch as he permitted the plaintiff to succeed on the basis of claiming profits for use and occupation, whereas the case for the plaintiff as set forth in the plaint was founded on an agreement in the terms similar to those contained in a muchilika for the preceding fasli. The agreement alleged in the plaint however is an oral agreement, and it seems to me that the District Munsif used his discretion rightly in allowing the claim on the basis that he did. He evidently considered that, though the plaintiff was unable to prove the agreement to the full extent that he alleged, yet there was permission on the part of the plaintiff to allow the defendant to be in occupation of the land and that under the circumstances, the proper rent to be charged was not what t...
Tag this Judgment!Jaldu Venkata Subba Rao Vs. Asiatic Steam Navigation Co. of Calcutta
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1914
Reported in: 24Ind.Cas.676
1. The question involved in this petition is whether Article 31 or Article 49 of the Limitation Act applies. The learned Judge has proceeded on the basis that the former article applies and accordingly has dismissed the suit as being barred by limitation.2. His decision is in accordance with the view taken in Haji Ajam v. Bombay and Persia Steam Navigation Co, 26 Ba. 562 : 4 Bom.L.R. 447, and in Great Indian Peninsula Railway Co. v. Raisett Chand-mull 19 B 165,. It is true that Farran, J., previous to the amendment of the Act was inclined to follow the decisions which had held that Section 115 applied. But this was not Farran, J.'s own opinion. He says 'had the question been res integra I should have felt much difficulty in concurring in that view'. Then he says : 'Having regard, however, to the current of decisions in the other High Courts I feel constrained to say that the learned Judge below could not have decided differently upon this branch of the case, and I think that now it is ...
Tag this Judgment!P.L.V.R.M. Ramanathan Chetty Vs. Mallaka Anjappan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Mad67; 24Ind.Cas.813
1. We agree with the view of the lower Court that the suit is liable to dismissal for misjoinder of parties and causes of action (issue No. 1).2. The cause of action as set out in the plaint is the denial of plaintiff's title as landlord implied in the unauthorized removal of crops by the tenants. This removal of crops is the individual act of each tenant, and appears from the plaint to have been spread over the space of a month. There is no definite allegation of conspiracy and admittedly no evidence of conspiracy or collusion on the part of the various tenants impleaded as defendants. In our opinion the case cannot be held, to be covered by the wording of Order I, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure.3. The cases which are relied on by appellant's Vakil, Ishan Chunder Hazra v. Rameswar Mondal 24 C. 831. and Umabai v. Vithal 33 B. 293 : 11 Bom. L R. 34. relate to suits by reversioners, in which the right to recovery is based on a single event, the death of the last holder : and can b...
Tag this Judgment!Kunhambi and 6 ors. Vs. Kalanthar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad711; (1914)27MLJ156
Tyabji, J.1. The question on which the parties to this appeal are at issue is whether they are governed by Muhammadan Law or Marurnakkathayam Law. They are Mappillas of North Malabar. Both the lower Courts have decided that the Mahomedan Law is applicable. The learned District Munsif proceeded on the basis that 'a custom varying Mahomedan Law, to be recognised as valid, must satisfy the essentials of peaceableness and consistency, 'These elements' he added 'appear to be wanting in this case.' In appeal the Subordinate Judge came the same conclusion--on the ground apparently that the general presumption that the parties follow the law of their religion. He stated, however, that no authority was quoted for the proposition that Mappillas in North Malabar follow the Marumakkathayam Law. In conclusion he said:--'I do not think, for the reasons pointed out by the District Munsif, that the form of evidence, which the law demands to prove a custom, is present in this case.2. It is argued befor...
Tag this Judgment!The President, Vakils' Association, High Court Vs. A Vakil of the High ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Mad635; (1914)26MLJ429
ORDER1. This matter comes before us on a resolution of the Council of the Vakils' Association with reference to a letter written on the 23rd July 1912 by a Vakil of this Court. By direction of this Court the matter was inquired into by the Council of the Vakils' Association and the Vakil was asked by the Council to submit an explanation that he might have in connection with the writing of this letter. At a meeting of the Council of the Association held on the 22nd February 1913 the following resolution was passed: 'Resolved that taking all the facts in the explanation to be true, this council is of opinion that the Vakil is guilty of grave professional misconduct in writing the letter dated 23rd July 1912 to S. Madhuvaier, private Vakil, Kumbakonam. It is therefore requested that this Honourable Court may be graciously pleased to take action against the said Vakil under Section 10 of the Letters Patent'.2. In dealing with this case we proceed on the same assumption as that adopted by t...
Tag this Judgment!Godavarthi Peria Alias, Ethirajayya Minor by Mother and Next Friend Ma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Mad304; 24Ind.Cas.96
Tyabji, J.1. The question is whether the order of the High Court of 9th August 1912 which is in the following words the costs will abide the result' left the District Judge any discretion in awarding costs. Fani Bhusan Roy Chowdhury v. Bama Sundari Debi 4 C.W.N. 343. is cited.to show that no discretion was left.2. The words 'costs would abide the result' do not mean, in my opinion, the costs will follow the result. The order of the High Court of the 9th August 1912 did not, in my opinion, deprive the lower Court of the discretion ordinarily vested in any Court to decide how the costs shall be borne.3. The lower Court, therefore, had in its discretion to award costs as it seemed most proper. I do it see any ground to interfere with the exercise of the discretion which, so far as I can judge, was not wrongly exercised. It may well have appeared to the learned Judge (1) that the respondents having been appointed trustees had not done-anything to, be mulcted in costs, (2) that the testator...
Tag this Judgment!Vavuttu Naicken Vs. Venkata Sesha Aiyar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Mad119(1); 24Ind.Cas.806
1. We think that the plaintiffs, who are some of the trustees of the Devastanam and are in management of some of the Devastanam properties and have granted leases as such managers, are not entitled to sue the tenants without making the other, managers parties. See K. P. Kunna Pisharody v. V. M. Narayanan Somayajipad 3 Ma. 234. As pointed out in that case, when a tenant has dealt with a co-owner as sole landlord he may, by so dealing, be estopped from denying the title of the person who let him into possession. If the decision in Raja Ram v. Ram Roy 18 Ind. Cas. 77 : 24 M.L.J. 75 : 13 M.L.T. 106 : (1913) M.W.N. 176. goes further than this, we are unable with great respect to agree with it. No estoppel arises in the present cast :. We must, therefore, allow the appeal and remand the case to the Court of first instance with a direction that the plaintiffs may be afforded an opportunity of joining such of the other trustees as are willing as co-plaintiffs and the rest as defendants.2. Cost...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Rajah Vadrevu Ranganayakamma Garu Zamindarni of Vegayammapeta Esta ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1914
Reported in: 24Ind.Cas.741; (1915)28MLJ297
1. The plaintiff the proprietrix of the permanently settled estate of Vegayammapet instituted the suit against the Secretary of State for India in Council for a declaration that a certain definite extent in each of a number of her villages is not liable to the payment of water-cess under Act VII of 1865 to Government and to recover the amount paid by her under protest on account of water tax for the Fasli year 1314. The defendant denied the right to the exemption claimed. The suit was dismissed by the Subordinate Judge of Cocanada and the plaintiff has preferred this appeal. The plaintiff alleged in her plaint that prior to the introduction of the anicut system of irrigation by Government the villages mentioned in the plaint were cultivated with wet crops by means of old and in-dependent sources of irrigation, that these were interrupted and rendered unfit for irrigation by the construction of river embankments and other works connected with the anicut system by Government and that Gov...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Narayana Nadar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1914
Reported in: (1914)26MLJ486
ORDERWallis, J. 1. The petitioner has been convicted of stabbing a certain person about sunset on 28th September 1912 in the course of a dispute about cattle. On that day, his father-in-law sent a telegram to the police at Tuticorin to say that the petitioner's house had been dacoited by some persons unnamed, in the absence of the petitioner though this is not expressly stated. On 20th October 1912, nearly a month later, the petitioner put in a complaint in which he' charged the man who has since been convicted of stabbing and others of having committed the dacoity while he was away at a distant village, and named nine witnesses. The Sub-Magistrate examined the complainant and doubting the truth of the complaint which was put in very late and appeared to be intended as a counter charge to the charge of stabbing which was then pending against the complainant referred it to the police for investigation and report on the 26th October 1912. The police apparently did nothing until the petit...
Tag this Judgment!T.R.M.T. Subramanian Chettiar Vs. Periasami thevar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1914
Reported in: (1914)26MLJ435
Sadasiva Aiyar, J. 1.Plaintiff and the 2nd defendants are co-sharers of the melwaram right in the plaint land according to the plaint allegations. As the suit has been dismissed on a preliminary point, we have to accept only the plaint allegations with any facts admitted on both sides in order to see whether the dismissal is legally sustainable. 1st defendant was the occupancy tenant of the plaint land. It is not denied that he had sold the land to the 2nd defendant a few days before the suit was instituted in the Court of the Special Deputy Collector of Ramnad. Thus on the date of the suit, the 2nd defendant owned a half share in the melwaram right and the whole of the Kudivaram right. The question is whether the plaintiff who owns the other half share in the melwaram right, can maintain this suit in the Revenue Court for ejectment and obtain a decree for possession of the land on behalf of himself and the 2nd defendant.2. The suit as framed was, no doubt, for the ejectment of the 1st...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »