Chennai Court July 1914 Judgments
Samu Alias Anantajstabayana Pattar Vs. Swaminatha Iyer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad330(1); 25Ind.Cas.221
1. A father fully represents the whole family consisting of himself and his undivided sons, in a litigation which he conducts in the interests of the family. Unless the decree in such a litigation was passed owing to the fraud or collusion on his part directed against his sons that decree and the findings in that suit in which that decree was passed are binding on the sons.2. An agreement by the father in the previous litigation to be bound by an oath taken under the Oaths Act cannot, by the mere fact that it is based on the special provisions of the Oaths Act, be said to be an agreement made to defraud the sons. Of course, a tort committed by the father is not necessarily one committed on behalf of his sons also and is not binding on the sons, and that is the ground of the decision in Appa Row v. Sankara Venkatadri 17 M.L.J. 197 : 2 M.L.T. 86 quoted by the appellants' learned Vakil.3. The judgment in Keshava v. Budram 3 M. 259 which held that the decision of an issue of fact based on ...
Tag this Judgment!thekka Thottum Mukkath Raran and ors. Vs. Natukkandy Chekkuti and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-1914
Reported in: 25Ind.Cas.623
1. The Subordinate Judge's finding is that the building for which compensation is claimed by the appellant under the Malabar Compensation for Tenants' Improvements Act (Madras Act I of 1900) is a shop and not a dwelling house, that it was not meant for the purposes of habitation ' and that the shop in question is unsuitable to the holding and inconsistent with the purpose for which the property was let.'2. We see no sufficient reasons for not accepting this finding, though the learned Subordinate Judge has referred in his judgment to some irrelevant matters such as the present dismantled and damaged state of the shop.3. It is clear that under the Act the appellant is not entitled to compensation for a building which is unsuitable to the holding.4. The contention that the appellants' right to compensation for a shop building exists independently of the Act was not raised in the lower Courts and even if it could be raised now, we have not been referred to any clear authority which entiti...
Tag this Judgment!Choragudi China Kotayya Vs. Sri Raja Varadaraja Appa Row Bahadur Zamin ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1914
Reported in: 25Ind.Cas.388; (1914)27MLJ244
1. The question raised in this Revision Petition is whether plaintiff (appellant) can be permitted by the appellate Court to withdraw from his appeal with liberty to bring a fresh suit, his suit having been dismissed in the lower Court and his appeal having been against that dismissal. The District Judge of Kistna states in his judgment that on the hearing of the appeal, the appellant wished to file a number of fresh documents, that he declined to give him permission and that, then, the appellant made the application referred to, which application was granted by the court on payment of costs. It is contended before us that the lower appellate Court had no power to allow him to do so.2. The question turns on the construction of O. XXIII, Rule 1 and the respondent who was appellant in the lower Court relies, on Section 107 C.P. C, as vesting this power in the appellate Court. Admittedly, this power has frequently been exercised and we are referred to two cases, one Tirupati v. Muttu I.L....
Tag this Judgment!Vellachami Chetty Vs. Muthu Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad287; 25Ind.Cas.383
1. Both the lower Courts have found(a) that the continuous easement in question in this suit did not cease to be enjoyed as such for an unbroken period of twenty years' by the plaintiff;(b) that 'its enjoyment was' not 'obstructed by the servient owners' though the latter cultivated certain portions of the bed of the channel, it being possible notwithstanding such intermittent cultivation for water to flow through the channel at times of flood;(c) that the dominant owners did not do any act which made it impossible for them to enjoy the easement; and(d) that they did not abandon the easement though they might not have used it.2. We have heard nothing in the arguments which should induce us to hold that the lower Appellate Court committed any error of law (such as the misconstruction of any document or the basing of a finding on a total absence of evidence) in arriving at conclusions (a), (6) and (c). As regards the finding (d) it is argued that non-user by the dominant owners need not ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Thayyanayaki Achi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad336(2); 25Ind.Cas.602
Oldfield, J.1. It is, no doubt, a general rule that one party should not be appointed a Receiver without the other's consent. But departure from that rule may be justified by the special circumstances of the case. Such special circumstances have, in my opinion, been shown by the lower Court to exist; and I may also refer to the fact that the estate is comparatively small and can ill-afford the, cost of a paid Receiver. Appellant contends that the respectable person nominated by her should be appointed without payment. I am not, however, prepared to hold that the lower Court used its discretion wrongly in refusing his services, since the Court's control over an honorary Receiver must always be small.2. It is further contended that no appointment is necessary because it will not be advantageous to call in some of the debts in question, which represent profitable investments and should not be terminated. It will be open to appellant to move the lower Court with reference to these items to...
Tag this Judgment!Adyapadi Ramanna Udpa and ors. Vs. Krishna Udpa and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1914
Reported in: 25Ind.Cas.450; (1914)27MLJ167
Oldfield, J.1. It is contended that the District Judge's decision should be set aside in revision, because he has dealt with this case without reference to the position of petitioners as minors litigating by their guardian.2. The question is whether the point was entitled to consideration by the Lower Courts in dealing with the question before them, one raised under Order IX, Rule 9(1) or whether they were limited, to enquiry whether 'sufficient cause' for the absence of the minors' guardian was established. It is conceded that minority is not in itself covered by the description 'sufficient cause.3. Reliance has been placed for petitioners on Kesho Pershad v. Hirday Narain (1880) 6 Cal. L.R. 69 a case directly in point. Other decisions against the restriction of the justification for restoration of a case to 'sufficient cause' are Somavya v. Subbamma I.L.R. (1908) M. 599 Gopal Row v. Maria Susaya Pillai I.L.R. (1906) M. 274. The former of these cases refers explicitly to the case of a...
Tag this Judgment!Srimath Kidambi Jagannathacharyulu Ayyavarlu Vs. Pidipiti Kutumbarayad ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad738; 25Ind.Cas.891; (1914)27MLJ233
1. The learned Subordinate Judge has held that the plaintiff an agraharamdar should have sued to eject his tenants, the defendants, in a Revenue Court, not before the District Munsif, on the ground that the suit village is an estate. The Appeal has been argued on the grounds that (1) burden of proof regarding the character of the suit village was imposed on the plaintiff wrongly (2) there was, in any case, a failure to consider material evidence.2. The plaintiff does not rely on Section 8, Estates Land Act; and the question therefore is only whether this village is an estate within the meaning of Section 3(2)(d); that is whether (1) the land revenue alone has been granted in inam (2) the grantee was a person not owning the kudivaram. Now if the nature of his tenure were under consideration with direct reference only to his right to sue in ejectment, there is no doubt that the authorities cited by the lower court would have been in point and its conclusion correct. But the dispute at pr...
Tag this Judgment!Bhimavarapu Buchi Reddi and ors. Vs. the President of the Taluk Board ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad647; (1914)27MLJ284
1. The first point argued on behalf of the appellants is that the 2nd respondent was invested only with the power of superintendence originally possessed by the Board of Revenue under Regulation VII of 1817, and was not entitled to bring this suit. Section 51 of the Local Board's Act, V of 1884, is identical with Section 26 of the District Municipalities Act IV of 1884 and the ruling in The Chairman, Municipal Council of Rajahmundry v. Susurla Venkateswaralu I.L.R. (1907) M.11 is clear authority for the proposition that the local body to which the powers of the Board of Revenue were transferred was invested with the rights of management as well as superintendence and that the former include the right to sue for the recovery of trust property. It is suggested that even the Board cannot sue over the heads of trustees but we consider that Ex. C. is a valid resignation of their posts by such trustees, as held office at the date of its execution and it is not suggested that any other truste...
Tag this Judgment!Srimath Kadambi Jagannatha Charyulu Ayyavarlu Vs. Pidikiti Kutumbarayu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1914
Reported in: (1916)ILR39Mad21
1. The learned Subordinate Judge has held that the plaintiff, an agraharamdar, should have sued to eject his tenant the defendants, in a Revenue Court, not before the District Munsif, on the ground that the suit village is an estate. The appeal has been argued on the grounds that (1) the burden of proof regarding the character of the suit village was imposed on the plaintiff wrongly, (2) there was, in any case, a failure to consider material evidence.2. The plaintiff does not rely on Section 8, Estates Land Act; and the question therefore is only whether his village is an estate within the meaning of Section 3(2)(d); that is whether (1) the land revenue alone has been granted in inam, (2) the grantee was a person not owning the kudivaram. Now, if the nature of his tenure were under consideration with direct reference only to his right to sue in ejectment, there is no doubt that the authorities cited by the lower Court would have been in point and its conclusion correct. But the dispute...
Tag this Judgment!Nagar Damodhara Shanghog Vs. Ramappaya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad32; 25Ind.Cas.398
1. The first question that arises for decision is, whether the Subordinate Judge is right in holding that the properties in suit are subject to a charge of 1400 paras.2. It is found by the Subordinate Judge that the family owns the temple and that the daily pooja and the ceremonies are conducted out of the income of the family property. It is also found that 1400 paras at least is necessary to carry on the worship and the ceremonies. It is argued before us that as no specific property has been set apart, there is no endowment and the Subordinate Judge is, therefore, wrong in holding that there was a trust of charge for that amount in favour of the temple. It is not necessary that any specific property should be set apart. A share of the income derivable from the family properties may be dedicated. The family properties will then become subject to a charge for that amount and whoever takes the family properties by partition or alienation, will take it subject to that charge. Whether the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »