Chennai Court April 1914 Judgments
Chullile Peetikayil Nammad Vs. E. Othenam Nambiar E. Cheela
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1914
Reported in: (1914)27MLJ239
1. We are not prepared to differ from the decision, in Nataraja Aiyar v. The South Indian Bank, Limited I.L.R. (1911) B. 51 : 22 M.L.J. 105 where all the authorities are considered, and are of opinion that the fact of the mortgagee being in possession actual or constructive of the mortgaged property makes no difference. The answer to the first question is in the affirmative. ...
Tag this Judgment!Ranga Ramanujachariar and anr. Vs. Srinivasa Aiyangar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad34; (1914)27MLJ397
ORDER1. The only arguable ground in this revision petition relates to the contention that as defendants 1 and 2 had sold their occupancy rights on lands Nos. 67 and 68 to the 4th defendant in the beginning of Fasli 1321 (1-8-1911) and gave notice of that sale at once to the plaintiff, the defendants 1 and 2 are not liable for the rent of Fasli 1321.2. Both sides admit that the Estates Land Act does not apply to the relations between the parties. So, Section 146 Clause (1) and Section 145 of that Act cannot govern the rights of the parties. Nor can Section 108. Clause (j) of the Transfer of Property Act apply as agricultural tenancies are outside the scope of that Act--(see, Section 117) unless the Local Government notifies to that effect.3. Dr. Rash Behari Ghose in his argument as the Appellant's Advocate in Sasi Bhushun Raha v. Tara Lal Singh Deo Bahadur I.L.R. (1895) C. 494, contended that in the case of a tenant with rights of permanent occupancy the tenant is entitled to sell the h...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Kukati Narasa Reddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad330(2); 25Ind.Cas.629
ORDERMiller, J.1. The District Munsif should have complied with the provisions of Section 481 (2)-of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and though his failure to do so seems to be only an irregularity which may be cured by Section 537 of the Code, yet, in the present case, there is no evidence on the record from which it can be gathered what was the judicial proceeding or what was the stage of that proceeding which was interrupted.2. Moreover, it seems very doubtful whether the evidence established the fact that the noise was intended to be an interruption of the Court.3. I think, in the circumstances, the Sessions Judge's order cannot be said to be clearly wrong or to require interference....
Tag this Judgment!Narasinga Patro Vs. Bhagavan Sabuto
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Mad120; 24Ind.Cas.724
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The plaintiff in this Small Cause Suit is a mortgagee who, as defendant in a previous original suit brought by the mortgagor (the defendant in the present Small Cause Suit) for redemption, was directed to give up possession of the mortgaged land which was in his enjoyment as usufructuary mortgagee.2. In so delivering the possession of the land in execution of that redemption decree to the present defendant, the land was delivered with the crops thereon (raised by the plaintiff) on the 1st day of December 1908. : 3. The plaintiff's present Small Cause Suit is founded on the contention that according to the real rights of the parties as settled by the previous mortgage-decree, the defendant ought to have been given possession of the land without the standing crops thereon, that the defendant should, therefore, be treated as having illegally misappropriated.4. The standing crops belonging to plaintiff and that plaintiff is, therefore, entitled to recover the value the...
Tag this Judgment!Devaguptapu Kameswaramma Vs. Veddadi Venkatasubba Rao and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Mad328; 24Ind.Cas.474; (1914)27MLJ112
Wallis, J.1. In this case the present 2nd defendant obtained a decree for maintenance against the 3rd defendant and recovered in execution Rs. 637 which she was allowed to draw on giving security under Section 253 C.P.C. The surety was the 1st defendant, the father of the plaintiff. The decree was reversed by the High Court, and the 1st defendant as surety was ordered to pay the 3rd defendant the money which had been recovered from him by the 2nd defendant under the decree. The order was made under Section 253 C.P.C. which read with Section 583 C.P.C. was applicable to security for the performance of appellate decrees according to Thirumalai v. Ramayyar. I.L.R. (1889) M. I. This decision has been questioned before us on the ground that it is inconsistent with the later decision in Arunachellam v. Arunachellam I.L.R. (1891) M. 203. decided by the same Judges. In that case the security had been given pending an appeal to the Privy Council, and it was necessary to invoke the aid of Sectio...
Tag this Judgment!Gadiparthi Peda Subbayya and ors. Vs. Chirumamella Lakshmidevamma and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad83(1); 25Ind.Cas.412
Miller, J.1. The nature and extent of the estate taken by Peramma in items 1, 2 and 8 of the schedule to the plaint, the property with which we are concerned, is to be ascertained on a construction of Exhibit A, an instrument by which, on her husband's death, his brother's sons, the 17th and 18th defendants, gave her one-third of his property. I do not think there can be much doubt that on the true construction of that document she became absolutely entitled to the property given to her: the expression neither we nor our heirs will have any objection to your dealing as you please with the one-third share allotted to 'you'--this, 1 think, is a correct, though not a literal, translation of the portion of the instrument --seems to me to show that the 17th and 18th defendants did not intend to retain anything in the nature of a reversion in the property given. That being so, on Peramma's death the property devolved on her two daughters, Adamma and Nagamma, and on Adamma's death, her share ...
Tag this Judgment!Thadi Ramamurthi Vs. Moola Kamiah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Mad68; 24Ind.Cas.667
1. A money decree was obtained against the undivided brother of the first defendant in the suit, and in execution that brother's share was attached on the 26th of December 1908. The judgment-debtor died on the 2nd January 1909, and the defendant, who was his co-parcener, was brought on the record as his representative. Sale was ordered on the 7th April 1909, and the plaintiff purchased the judgment-debtor's interest in the property. The plaintiff now sues for possession. The lower Courts have dismissed the suit on the ground that, as the judgment-debtor, who was an undivided co-parcener, died before the order for sale was made, his interest survived to the defendant and was not available to the plaintiff for sale. In our opinion the question is concluded by authority. In Bailur Krishna Rau v. Lakshmana Shanbhogue, 4 Ma. 302. the question was fully discussed, and following a judgment of the Privy Council reported as Suraj Bunsi Koer v. Sheo Persad Singh, 6 I.A. 88 : 5 C. 148 : 4 C.L.R 2...
Tag this Judgment!Chapalamadugu Pedda Balliah and anr. Vs. Muthiyalu Venkatasami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1914
Reported in: 24Ind.Cas.976a
ORDERMiller, J.1. I think it is admissible to stay the criminal proceedings. The charge comes up by way of defence to the suit, and it seems on the whole batter that the two proceedings should not go on at the same time. Bat the possibility that the civil litigation may be unduly protracted is not to be disregarded, and it would be wrong to stay proceedings by an order made now for all the time that may be necessary to obtain a final decision in the civil suit. It is said that the suit is proceeding under Order XXXVII of the Civil Procedure Code in the District Munsif's Court and if so, it should not take a very long time in that Court. I will stay proceedings until disposal of the suit by the District Munsif or for six months from this date, whichever is earlier, after which if no further order is passed the case in the Magistrate's Court may proceed....
Tag this Judgment!The Hindustan Assurance and Mutual Benefit Society Ltd. Vs. Rail Mulra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad608; (1914)27MLJ645
ORDERTyabji, J.1. This application has been referred to us by Mr. Justice Sankaran Nair sitting in Chambers on the Original Side of the High Court under Rule 177 of Order XV of the Rules of the High Court of Madras. We are therefore sitting as the High Court in its Original Civil Jurisdiction and not in the exercise of the appellate Jurisdiction in appeal from decisions in the exercise of its Original Jurisdiction. 2. The application is that all further proceedings in this suit which has been instituted on the Original Side of this High Court be ' indefinitely stayed under Sections 22, 23, 24 and 151 of Act V of 1908'. The suit is instituted by a limited liability Company for recovering damages for defamation from the editor, printer and publisher of a newspaper in Lahore.3. Section 22 of the Civil Procedure Code refers to cases where a suit may be instituted in any one of two or more courts, and is instituted in one of such courts. In such cases an application may be made by any defen...
Tag this Judgment!N. Subhayya Vs. Bhavani
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Mad665; 24Ind.Cas.390
1. The plaintiff sues for a declaration that he is not bound to provide maintenance for his wife. The defendant has been since 1903 living in her parents' house, and in October 1907, a little less than a year before the suit, she gave birth in that house to a child which is found by the Courts below to be illegitimate, her husband having had no access to her. She has, it is stated, offered to return to her husband's house, but he, we are informed by his Vakil, is unwilling to receive her.2. The second issue framed by the District Munsif is, whether the defendant lives in adultery and the finding on that issue is in the affirmative and is accepted by the Subordinate Judge. But we find ourselves unable to accept this finding, because the judgment of the District Munsif shows that it is based only upon the evidence that the plaintiff is not the father of the defendant's child. There is other evidence in the case, hut the District Munsif seems to have thought it unnecessary to consider it,...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »