Chennai Court March 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.
Upadrasta Venkata Sastrulu Vs. Divi Sitaramudu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1914
Reported in: (1914)26MLJ585
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. Plaintiff is the appellant. He is an Inamdar of a village called Billapadu. the Inam grant having been made so long ago as 1748, That village was then a Mouje village, that is, a village in which there were peasant proprietors owning cultivable lands even then. The suit relates to 60 acres out of the 300 acres in that village. For the purposes of this case, it must be taken that these 60 acres were lying as immemorial waste at the time of the Inam grant to plaintiffs ancestors. It is further found by the Lower Appellate Court that these lands were afterwards given by the Inamdar for cultivation from time to time to different sets of tenants without occupancy right. Paragraph 7 of the plaint says ' In Fasli 1317 the plaintiff changed the tenant who was in possession prior to that time and leased the schedule mentioned lands to the defendants for only a year. ' Treating the one year's tenancy as having expired on the 1st of April 1908 the suit was brought to eject th...
In Re: Narayana Nadan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad229; (1915)ILR38Mad1044
Wallis, 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 person unnamed. On 28th October 1912, nearly a month later, the petitioner put in a complaint in which he charged the man he 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 28th October 1912. The police apparently did nothing until the petitioner hud been tried and convicted in the stabbing charge on 13th December 1912. A...
Upadrasta Venkata Sastrulu Vs. Devi Sitaramudu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1914
Reported in: 24Ind.Cas.224
ORDER1. Before disposing of these appeals we consider it desirable to have findings on the following points : (1) Whether the land in question in each of these suits was waste land or' cultivated land at the time of the grant of the inam ?and (2) whether at the time of the letting to the defendant in each suit the Kudivaram over the land in the suit had been acquired by the inamdars?2. Both parties may adduce fresh evidence. The findings should be submitted within three months from the date of receipt of this order in the Court below and the parties will be at liberty to file memoranda of objections to the said findings within seven days after notice of return of the same shall have been posted up in this Court.3. In compliance with the above order the District Judge of Kistna submitted the followingFINDINGS.--These appeals have been remanded to give a finding on the following two issues : 1. Whether the land in question in each of these suits was waste land or cultivated land at the t...
P.S. Narayana Ayyar Vs. N.K. Kunhimoidin
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1914
Reported in: 24Ind.Cas.153
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. These are appeals by the 2nd and 1st accused respectively against the convictions and sentences passed upon them in Sessions Case No. 57 of 1913 on the file of the Sessions Court of South Malabar. The first accused P.S. Narayana Aiyar was the Head Clerk of the Stationary Sub-Magistrate's Court of Manjeri and the 2nd accused was an attender in that Court between November 1911 and June 1912. They were charged, the 1st accused with having fabricated and forged the bail bond, Exhibit A, and the 2nd accused with the fabrication and forgery and also with abetment of those offences.2. The facts are a little complicated. There was a Calendar Case No. 562 of 1911 in that Court in which the prosecution witness No. 6, Unni Mamu, was the accused and in which prosecution witness No. 7, Kutti Rayan, had stood surety for the 6th witness, Unni Mamu. On the 4th November 1911 this Kutti Rayan, P.W. No. 7, executed the genuine bail bond, Exhibit B, to produce the accused Unni Mamu on...
T.R.M.T. Subramaniam Chettiar Vs. Periasami thevar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Mad808; 24Ind.Cas.726
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. Plaintiff and the 2nd defendant are co-sharers of the Melvaram 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. First 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 Melvaram right and the whole of the Kudivaram right. The question is whether the plaintiff who owns the other half share in the Melvaram 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 1s...
S. Chidambaram Pillai Vs. Muthammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad460; (1915)ILR38Mad1042
1. Petitioner sued for a declaration that a sale of his holding held under Section 111 et seq, of the Madras Estates Land Act was legally void and liable to be set aside in consequence of the landholder's failure to apply to the Collector for sale within the period of forty-five days prescribed by Section 115,2. The Munsif held that he had no jurisdiction to try the suit and dismissed it. The District Judge on appeal took the same view.3. It seems clear that a suit of' this nature is maintainable in a Civil Court, in the absence of any statutory bar-vide Dorasamy Pillai v. Muthusamy Mooppan I L.R. 38 (1904) Mad. 94 and Zamindar of Ettayapuram v. Sankarappa Reddiar I L.R. 38 (1904) Mad. 483. Respondent relies on Section 189 of the Estates Land Act. This makes it clear that a suit for damages sustained in consequence of the alleged illegality would He in a Revenue and not in a Civil Court which is also specifically laid down in Section 213(3), But a suit for declaration like the present ...
Palaniandy Chetty (Minor) by His Mother and Next Friend Arukkanni Amma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Mad685(2); 24Ind.Cas.87
1. The question involved in this appeal is whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim a certain lane marked L in the plan prepared by the Commissioner. It was argued before us that we cannot entertain this appeal and Durga Chowdhrani v. Jewahir Singh Chowdhri 18 C. 23 : 17 I.A. 122. was cited to us. The point, as argued before us, however, is that the learned Judge has misconstrued a document on which both parties rely. The misconstruction of a document is a matter which has always been considered as capable of being corrected in second appeal.2. It is argued before us that the document was clearly in favour of the appellant. The relevant portions are paragraphs 5 and 6. The lane seems, no doubt, to be referred to as forming the boundary of the portion which is allotted to the defendants. This fact has been considered by the District Judge. He, however, refers to the fact that the lane is not mentioned in paragraph 6 of the partition deed which specifies the portions of the family prop...
Crompton and Co. Vs. Secretary of State for India in Council
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad421(1); (1914)26MLJ549
Arnold White, Kt., C.J.1. In the course of the Advocate-Generals cross-examination of Mr. Weston certain suggestions were made which Mr. Grant submitted on behalf of Mr. Weston imputed dishonorable, if not dishonest, conduct to Mr. Weston. These suggestions were not substantiated and this being so, Mr. Grant on behalf of his client formally asked the Advocate General to withdraw them. The Advocate-General did not do so. We were asked by the Advocate-General and by Mr. Grant to express our opinion as to whether in the circumstances, the Advocate-General ought to have withdrawn the suggestions. One matter was in connection with the alteration of the date at the foot of Exhibit J 1. There is a pencil entry at the foot of Exhibit J 1, which, obviously, was originally July 26,and which was altered in pencil into July 27. The suggestion as to this was, so far as I understand it that July 26 was altered into July 27 so as to identify the specification which according to the plaintiff's case, ...
Ramalingathudayar Vs. Unnamalai Achi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1914
Reported in: (1915)ILR38Mad791
Wallis, J.1. A suit instituted in forma pauperis was settled out of Court on the terms that if a Court fee were eventually levied, Rs. 250 should be paid by the plaintiff and the balance by the defendant, the present appellant.2. An order was subsequently made by the Court against the present respondent who was the widow of the second plaintiff in that suit, for payment of the Court fee out of the assets in her hands belonging to the deceased first plaintiff and his son, the second plaintiff, and as the Court fee was not paid the property of the first plaintiff in her hands as legal representative of his son, the second plaintiff, was attached in execution of the order. The respondent then filed this suit against the appellant to recover the balance of the Court fee which he failed to pay under the award, and subsequently before trial paid the Court fee. The District Munsif dismissed the suit as premature, but the Subordinate Judge has set aside the decree and remanded the suit. We thi...
Ramalingathudayan Vs. Unnamalai Achi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Mad655; 24Ind.Cas.873
1. A. suit instituted in forma pauperis was settled out of Court on the terms that if a Court-fee wore eventually levied, Rs. 250 should be paid to by the plaintiff and the balance by the defendant, the present appellant.2. An order was subsequently made by the Court against the present respondent, who was the widow of the 2nd plaintiff in that suit, for payment of the Court-fee out of the assets in her hands belonging to the deceased, 1st plaintiff, and his son, the 2nd plaintiff, and as the Court-fee was not paid the property of the 1st plaintiff in her hands as legal representative of his son, the 2nd plaintiff, was attached in execution of the order. The respondent then filed this suit against the appellant to recover the balance of the Court-fee which he failed to pay under the award, and subsequently before trial paid the Court-fee. The District Munsif dismissed the suit as premature, but the Subordinate Judge has set aside the decree and remanded the suit. We think the Subordina...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »