Chennai Court September 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.
Dasari Venkata and ors. Vs. Reddy Sanjeevi Reddy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad337(1); 25Ind.Cas.627
ORDERSadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The District Magistrate was not justified in ordering further inquiry into the trivial incident disclosed in the Sub-Magistrate's judgment His action in not giving, notice to accused was also very irregular, though order was not bad on that account alone. Alagiriswami Naidu v. Balakrishna Mudaliar 26 M. 418.2. I set aside the District Magistrate's order and direct all further proceedings to be dropped....
In Re: V. Desikachari and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad81; 25Ind.Cas.989
ORDERSadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The members of the Vedaparayanam party, to which the petitioners belong, have a prima facie right as worshippers to join in the recital of the Prabandham (after the Thodakkam is pronounced by the officeholder) and I see nothing substantial on the records which negatives that right.2. There is also no evidence worth the name that the petitioners are likely to commit a breach of the peace. That the opposite party is likely to commit acts of rowdyism if the petitioners' party insists on their rights, is no sufficient ground to call upon the petitioners to execute bonds to keep the peace under Section 107 See Feroze Ali Mullick v. Emperor 7 Cri.L.J. 504 : 12 C.W.N. 703 .I set aside the order of the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate so far as the petitioners are concerned....
Rajammal and anr. Vs. Madhava Yogi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad33(2); 25Ind.Cas.657; (1914)27MLJ445
1. Plaintiff (Respondent) sued for possession of a house which he purchased from a widow Balasundari Animal (deceased before suit) by a registered sale deed (Exhibit B). Appellants were the contesting defendants (Nos. 2 and 3). They impugned Balasundari Ammal's right to alienate the property and further contended that the sale by (Exhibit B) was a purely nominal transaction.2. The District Munsif found that Balasundari Ammal had only a widow's estate in the property; and further (Ex. B.) did not evidence a real sale and plaintiff obtained no title to the property under it. He therefore dismissed the suit.3. The Subordinate Judge on appeal set aside the dismissal and gave plaintiff a decree. He found (therein agreeing with the Munsif) that an adoption set up by appellant was invalid and that, they were not the reversioners to Balasundari's husband. He therefore held that it was not open to them to question the alienation (Ex. B.) and its consideration.4. In so far as the transaction was...
Arunachella Aiyar and ors. Vs. T. Ramaswami Iyer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1914
Reported in: (1914)27MLJ517
1. The learned District Judge has reversed the decision of the District Munsiff who granted a decree for money against the 1st defendant personally. The District Judge held that the suit of the plaintiff (the vendee) so far as it prayed for recovery of compensation from the 1st defendant (the vendor) for the breach of the covenants for title and possession was barred by limitation, the 'period being three years under Article 62 or 97 of the Limitation Act. The learned District Judge relied on Kovuri Basivi Beddi v. Tallapragada Nagamma I.L.R. (1910) M. 39 in support of his decision.2. It is contended before us that as the sale-deed in this case was executed in 1904 long after the Transfer of Property Act came into force, the proper article to be applied in respect of a suit claiming compensation for breach of an express or implied covenant of title and quiet enjoyment is Article 116 which allows a period of six years. We think that this contention must be upheld. It has been decided in...
Arunachala Aiyar and Two ors. Vs. T. Ramasami Aiyar and Three ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad742; (1915)ILR38Mad1171
1. The learned District Judge has reversed the decision of the District Munsif who granted a decree for money against the first defendant personally. The District Judge held that the suit of the plaintiff (the vendee) so far as it prayed for recovery of compensation from the first defendant (the vendor) for the breach of the covenants for title and possession was barred by limitation, the period being three years under Article 62 or 97 of the Limitation Act. The learned District Judge relied on Kovvuri Basivi Reddi v. Tallapragada Nagamma I.L.R. (1912) Mad. 39 in support of his decision.2. It is contended before us that, as the sale-deed in this case was executed in 1904 long after the Transfer of Property Act came into force, the proper article to be applied in respect of a suit; claiming compensation for breach of an express or implied covenant of title and quiet enjoyment is Article 116 which allows a period of six years. We think that this contention must be upheld. It has been dec...
Arunachala Aiyar and ors. Vs. T. Ramasami Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1914
Reported in: 25Ind.Cas.618
1. The learned District Judge has reversed the decision of the District Munsif who granted a decree for money against the 1st defendant personally. The District Judge held that the suit of the plaintiff (the vendee) so far as it prayed for recovery of compensation from the 1st defendant (the vendor) for the breach of the covenants for title and possession, was barred by limitation, the period being three years under Article 62 or 97 of the Limitation Act. The learned District Judge relied on Kowuri Basivireddy v. Tallapaparagada Nagamma 8 Ind. Cas. 1087 : 35 M. 39 : (1910) M.W.N. 827 : 9 M.L.T. 467 in support of his decision.2. It is contended before us that as the sale-deed in this case was executed in 1904 long after the Transfer of Property Act came into force, the proper Article to be applied in respect of a suit claiming compensation for breach of an express or implied covenant of title and quiet enjoyment is Article 116 which allows a period of six years. We think that this conte...
Srinivasa Aiyangar and ors. Vs. Rangasami Aiyangar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad717; 25Ind.Cas.812
1. In this case the plaintiffs, who are the trustees of a temple, sued for the rent for five faslis of certain lands which were leased to the defendants Nos. 1 to 4. The procedure adopted by the trustees was to auction the lease and one Srinivasa Aiyengar, the sixth witness for the plaintiffs in this case, was the successful bidder at the first auction. Under the conditions of the auction he was bound to execute an agreement in favour of the trustees on certain terms. He did execute an agreement in favour of the trustees and got it registered and according to the well-known decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Syed Ajavi Sahib v. Meenatchi Devastanam 8 Ind. Cas. 668 : 35 M. 95 : (1910) M.W.N. 766 : 8 M.L.T. 437 : 21 M.L.J. 202, by which we are bound, this registered agreement -by the lessee was a registered lease within the meaning of the Transfer of Property Act so as to render the lease effectual. However, the majority of the trustees were not satisfied with the terms of this ...
Krishna Iyer Vs. Ramaswami Iyer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad71; 25Ind.Cas.669; (1914)27MLJ447
1. The question raised in this second appeal is, whether the defendants, managers of a chit fund, were entitled to refuse certain security offered by the plaintiff in respect of his purchase of a second instalment. The amount for which he was liable to give security was Rs. 2,700. The lower appellate Court has valued the security at Rs. 3,000 and holding that the defendants acted as reasonable men in the position of tfustees in declining to accept the security, dismissed the suil. The suit was to recover from the defendants personally interest on the chit amount at the rate of 3 per cent. per mensem. The amount itself was deposited in Court with the written statement and the security accepted as by that time the liability of the plaintiff had been decreased and the defendants were therefore then prepared to accept the security as sufficient.2. In his able argument before us Mr. T. R. Venkatrama Sastri put the case as one in which under the agreement the only requisite was that the secu...
Chipurapalli Appayya Vs. Sri Raja Kakarlapudi Ramachandra Raju Bahadur ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad685; (1914)27MLJ490
John Edward Power, Wallis Offg. C.J.1. For the purposes of our decision the facts in A.S. No. 277 of 1911 and S.A. 1508 of 1912 may be considered to be the same. Both were suits in ejectment brought by the alienees of part of a village in the Uratla Estate, and the question is whether the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts is not barred under the provisions of the Madras Estates Land Act. The Uratla Estate is admittedly an estate within the meaning of the definition in Section 3(2) of the Act, while the portion of a village alienated to the plaintiff does not itself form an estate within the meaning of the Act as it does not come within any of the descriptions, in Sub-clause (a) to (c). The District Munsiff and District Judge' in the one case and the Subordinate Judge in the others are all agreed on this point, and are so far clearly right. They have however drawn the inference that because the land alienated to the plaintiff does not itself form an-estate within the definition, it is ou...
Siva Sankara Reddy Vs. Muthusami Konan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad336; 25Ind.Cas.603
1. On a perusal of paragraphs 8 and 9 of the plaint (the plaintiff referring in paragraph 9 to a petition which he gave to the Deputy Tahsildar, a Revenue Officer whose duty is to look after public paths running through Porambokes) and of the judgment of the lower Appellate Court, we have no doubt that the path in question is a public path.2. It is clear law that an individual member of the public has no cause of action to bring a separate suit in respect of an obstruction to a public way without both alleging and proving special damage of a substantial character. The allegation of damage in the plaint is very vague and indefinite and is wholly insufficient to sustain a separate suit. See Khaji Sayyad Hussain Sahib v. Ediga Narasimhappa 16 Ind. Cas. 962 : 12 M.L.T. 491 : (1913) M.W.N. 991 : 23 M.L.J. 539 and Kandasawmy Kovundan v. Karupanna Kovundan 21 Ind. Cas. 601 : (1913) M.W.N. 1001 : 14 M.L.T. 509 .3. The second appeal is dismissed with costs...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »