Chennai Court October 1915 Judgments
K. Ramaswami Naicker Vs. A. Seenimakayya Veluchami Naicker
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.594
1. This suit purports to be under Section 55 of Act I of 1908. That section only gives a right to bring the suit to ryots, and the plaintiff according to the finding is not a ryot within the definition of the Act.2. We accept the finding and dismiss the suit with costs throughout....
Tag this Judgment!Kalianna Mudali Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council by the ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad930(2); 31Ind.Cas.982
1. The defendant's own case is that there was, however, an old kuttai or pond fed by two rills. There is now another water-course issuing out of the pond, and the defendant now claims that the rills, the kuttai and the other water-course form a natural stream. If this be so, the evidence clearly points to the plaintiff having acquired an easement to interrupt the flow through the pond by bunding it up so as to store the water. The pond has a stone revetment and even the written statement says that the water which flowed from the pond, flowed through a breach in the kuttai, or, as the evidence shows, through a breach in the stone revetment. Once the easement is shown, it is for Government to show under Section 47 of the Easements Act that it interrupted that easement more than 20 years ago or that the plaintiff rendered its use impossible, and that has not been done. Mere failure on the plaintiff's part to repair the breach would not amount to obstruction by the servient owner or render...
Tag this Judgment!Mayandi Chettiar Vs. Tirumalai Aiyangar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad907; 31Ind.Cas.986
1. The District Munsif passed separate decrees against the 1st defendant and defendants Nos. 2 and 3. The 1st defendant did not appeal against this decree. The plaintiff appealed against the decree in so far as it exonerated defendants Nos. 2 and 3 from liability for a portion of the claim. Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 filed a memorandum of objections. The District Judge held that the 1st defendant was a minor at the time that the mortgage document was executed and dismissed the suit altogether. We are unable to uphold the decree. The memorandum of objections by defendants Nos. 2 and 3 did not proceed on any ground common to them and to the 1st defendant. Consequently as the 1st defendant did not appeal, the decree became final against him. The District Judge was not justified in interfering with the decree against him under Order XLI, Rule 33 of the Civil Procedure Code vide Rangam Lal v. Jhandu 11 Ind. Cas. 640 : 8 A.L.J. 1111 : 34 A.P 32. In so far as the suit is decreed against him, we ...
Tag this Judgment!Thirugnanapal Alias Vaikunta Nadan Vs. Ponnammai Nodathi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.569
Coutts-Trotter, J.1. What has to be determined in this case is the true construction of a document, dated 8th, March 1892, purporting on the face of it to be the Will of one Vaikunta Nadan. Many cases have been cited to us as, embodying the principles which should guide, the Court in construing such documents as the present, and I think the result of these may shortly be summarized as follows: We are to give effect to the intention of the testator as expressed in his words. We are to acquaint ourselves with the circumstances in which he was placed; we are to have regard to the habits of life and thought of the people to which he belonged and to the system of law under which he lived. But when all that is done, our task still remains to construe his language; and we cannot give effect to a supposed intention, however cogently suggested by extrinsic evidence, unless there are words to be found in the document which, on a natural construction, convey it either expressly or by necessary im...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnaswami Naidu Vs. Seethalakshmi Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad1225(2); (1916)ILR39Mad1029; 31Ind.Cas.803
1. Property given for maintenance to the illegitimate son of an undivided deceased co-parcener cannot be treated as the ancestral property of the illegitimate son in which the son of that illegitimate son gets a right by birth. The case of Nagalingam Pillai v. Ramachandra Tevar 24 M.P 429 : 11 M.L.J. 20, quoted by the appellant's learned Vakil was the case of a gift by a father to his son of property which would; have, but for the gift, on such descent, descended to the son and been ancestral: property in the son's hands, the learned Judges holding that a father making such a gift, might be presumed to have intended his son to take it as if the son had inherited it. The case of, Hazarimal Babu v. Abani Nath 18 Ind. Cas. 625 : 17 C.L.J. 38 : 17 C.W.N. 280, was a case of gift again by a father for the maintenance of his sons and sons' descendants.2. Without expressing an opinion as to whether the case of Nagalingam Pillai v. Ramachandra Tevar 24 M.P 429 : 11 M.L.J. 20, was rightly decide...
Tag this Judgment!Sarakki Abdul Rahiman Taragan and anr. Vs. MuhaidIn Pathumal Bivi and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1915
Reported in: (1916)30MLJ104
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. These four connected Second Appeals have arisen out of two connected suits brought by three Mussalman ladies - one of the suits was brought by two sisters against their two step-brothers and their mother for partition of the properties of their father (including the accretions to the said properties) and the other suit was by the mother of the plaintiffs in the first suit against her said step-sons (the same defendants 1 and 2) for her share. The father died in February 1898 and these suits were brought in July 1911.2. The Lower Appellate Court modified the order of the Courts First Instance in the plaintiffs' favour on the plaintiffs' two appeal and dismissed the two appeals of the defendants 1 and 2 preferring to the Lower Appellate Court against those portions of the decrees of the District Munsif which were in the plaintiffs' favour. Hence the defendants have now filed these four second appeals. The step-sisters and the step-mother of the appellants have also f...
Tag this Judgment!The Secretary of State for India in Council Represented by the Collect ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1915
Reported in: (1916)30MLJ163
John Wallis, C.J.1. This appeal was heard in the first instance by Sir Arnold White, Chief Justice, and Mr. Justice Oldfield and after certain questions had been decided, the further hearing was adjourned to await the decision of the Letters Patent Appeal No. 39 of 1913 from the decree in A.S. No. 124 of 1906 in which owing to a difference of opinion between Miller and Sankaran Nair, JJ., the learned Judges who heard the appeal, the decree of the Lower Court was confirmed in accordance with the opinion of Sankaran Nair, J. His decision has since been reversed by Oldfield and Bakewell, JJ., dissentiente Sadasiva Aiyar, J., and the present appeal has now come before this Bench for further argument and disposal.2. The important and difficult questions in these, appeals as to which there has been much difference of opinion, relate to the effect and construction of the. Madras Water Cess Act, VII of 1865 as amended and of the Madras Land Encroachments Act, III of 1905 and have nothing to do...
Tag this Judgment!Adusumilli Krishnayya and anr. Vs. Adusumilli Lakshmipathi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1915
Reported in: (1916)30MLJ265
Seshagiri Aiyar, J.1. The plaintiffs sue as reversioners of one Narasamma to recover possession of the plaint properties. The last male owner was Venkatasubbiah, a boy of 14 years. He was murdered in 1888. Two brothers of the 2nd and 4th plaintiffs were suspected of this murder. They were convicted by the Sessions Court; but acquitted in appeal. On Venkatasubbiah's death, his mother Narasamma inherited the properties. She died in 1908.2. The 1st defendant is the adopted son of Narasamma. Although the factum of adoption was denied in the Court of First Instance, the finding of the Subordinate Judge that the adoption did in fact take place has not been questioned in appeal. The 2nd defendant is an alienee from the adopted son. She is the daughter of the 3rd defendant and grand daughter of Narasamma. The case for the defendants is that the adoption of the 1st defendant by Narasamma is valid.3. There are questions both of fact and of law to be considered in deciding whether the adoption wa...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: M. Muthaya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1915
Reported in: (1916)ILR39Mad895
Ayling, J.1. It is argued that petitioner being merely the depot-writer and not the licensee, is not liable to prosecution under Section 56 of the Abkari Act, It has been held by a bench of this Court in an unreported ease--Re Sudalaimuthu (1886) 1 Wei Cr. R. 647--that Sections 64 and 56 must be read together, and that not only the licensee, but the actual offender (in this case the petitioner) is liable to prosecution for an offence under Section 56. Following this, we must reject petitioner's contention.2. No other ground for interference is shown. The petition is dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!In Re: G.G. Jeremiah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad689; (1916)ILR39Mad942
Ayling, J.1. Appellant, a European British subject, has been convicted by the District Magistrate of Bangalore, who is a Justice of the Peace, of an offence under Section 8 of the Municipal by-law after a summary trial under Section 260 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. Mr. Govindaraghava Ayyar argues in his behalf that the Magistrate's proceedings are void under Section 530 of the Code of Criminal Procedure inasmuch as the District Magistrate is not empowered to try a European British subject summarily. This appears to be so.3. The Criminal Procedure Code does not apply primarily to Bangalore, which is no part of British India, and is only in force there by virtue of declarations of the Governor-General in Council in the exercise of powers conferred by the Indian (Foreign Jurisdiction) Order in Council, 1902. The latest declaration is No. 732-D, dated 19th March' 1913, but this provides with reference to the Code of Criminal Procedure. ' Nothing in the Code as applied shall be deem...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »