Chennai Court November 1915 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.
Thiruvengada Konan Vs. Venkatachala Konan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-1915
Reported in: (1916)30MLJ258
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. Mr. Justice Hannay and myself held in Somiammal v. Vellaya Sethurayan (1915) 29 M.L.J. 233 that where a landlord (A) is under an obligation to put his tenant (B) into khas possession of the leased land, he (A) is entitled to succeed in a suit in ejectment brought against a trespasser even if the suit was brought during the term of B's tenancy.2. In this case, however, the plaintiff had put his tenant (the 3rd defendant,) into possession and hence had discharged his obligation as landlord to let the 3rd defendant into actual possession.3. But the plaintiff has a reversion in the plaint lands and he might be said to have been dispossessed of that reversion when the defendants 1 and 2 took possession of the lands not only adversely to the tenant (the 3rd defendant) but claiming adversely to the plaintiff's reversion.4. In such a case, Sita Ram v. Ram Lal I L.R. 38 (1886) A. 440 decides that the landlord can be put in possession of his reversion by the passing of a dec...
C. Ethirajulu Naidu, Deceased and anr. Vs. C. Govivdarajulu Naidu and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.12
1. The appellant is dead and one of the alienees has been brought on and allowed to support the appeal, which has otherwise abated, as regards the item in which he is interested. That item consists of a hones which was purchased by his father when he was a small boy and, as there was no nucleus of joint family property, must be taken to have been the father's separate property at that time. The question then is, did the father subsequently throw it into the common stock. The burden in such a case is on those who assert this: Mayne, Section 278, and assuming according to the appellant's case that the father lived with his son in the house and supported and married him and carried on business with him elsewhere, and even raised money for the purposes of the business by mortgaging this house, that would not, in our opinion, be enough to discharge the onus, for the father's conduct would be consistent with an intention to retain the house as his separate property, and on the other hand, we...
Tiruvengada Konan Vs. Venkatachala Konan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.198
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. Mr. Justice Hannay and myself held in Somai Ammal v. Vellayya Sethurangam 26 Ind. Cas. 347; 16 M.L.T. 532 that where a landlord (A) is under an obligation to put his tenant (B) into khas possession of the leased land, he (A) is entitled to succeed in a suit in ejectment brought against a trespasser even if the suit was brought during the term of B's tenancy.2. In this case, however, the plaintiff had put his tenant (the 3rd defendant) into possession and hence had discharged his obligation as landlord to let the 3rd defendant into actual possession. But the plaintiff has a reversion in the plaint lands and he might be said to have been dispossessed of that reversion, when the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 took possession of the lands not only adversely to the tenant (the 3rd defendant), but claiming adversely to the plaintiff's reversion.3. In such a case, Sita Ram v. Ram Lal 18 A.G 440 . decides that the landlord can be put in possession of his reversion by the passing ...
Meenakshi Alias Sivakami and ors. Vs. Krishna Royar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.176
Phillips, J.1. Certain land was sold by Minakshinathan, 1st defendant's husband, to one Subbayya, 5th defendant's husband, in 1897 and he re-sold to plaintiff's brother in 1398. On 24th September 1910, plaintiff was dispossessed of 62 cents of the land in execution of a decree, and sues to recover Rs. 147-8-11 for the loss sustained. Defendants Nos. 2 to 4 are in possession of part of Minakshinadan's estate under a Will and are said in the plaint to be living with 1st defendant in a joint family manner. The main question argued in this petition is the question of limitation and it is contended for the petitioners that this being a suit on a breach of covenant for title, the starting point for limitation is the date of the sale-deed in 1897, and that, therefore, the suit is barred. For the respondents it is urged that this is a suit for money paid upon an existing consideration which afterwards fails and that the suit is within time as the failure was on 24th September 1910, when the pl...
Pothi Naickan, Minor by His Next Friend K.N.P.R. Narayanaswami Naicker ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-1915
Reported in: (1916)30MLJ62
John Wallis, C.J.1. This suit was brought by the minor plaintiff to question an alleged partition under Exhibit III between himself and his paternal uncle Subba Naick in the year 1907. The District Judge dismissed the suit and on appeal his decree was affirmed under Section 98(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure in accordance with the judgment of Sankaran Nair, J. and Oldfield, J. differing and being of opinion that at any rate as regards immovable property Exhibit III was inadmissible in evidence for want of registration under Section 49 of the Indian Registration Act.2. The plaintiff appealed under the Letters Patent and after carefully considering the case we agree with Oldfield, J. that Ex. III in the language of Section 17(1) of the Act operates to create a right, title or interest, of the value of one hundred rupees or upwards to or in immovable property. The material portion of the document is as follows: - 'As we have, in the presence of the undermentioned panchayatdars divided, ...
T. Sitharama Chetty Vs. Sir S. Subramania Iyer, K.C.i.E. and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-1915
Reported in: (1916)30MLJ29
John Wallis, C.J.1. These are appeals from a, decree of the Subordinate Judge of Trichinopoly framing a scheme for the management of the temples at Srirangam. The case is one of great importance because this is admittedly the first time a scheme has been framed under what is now Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code for a temple subject to a Temple Committee under Act XX of 1863, In the Lower Court all parties appear to have been willing that a scheme should be framed, but on appeal objection has been taken on behalf of the Committee to the scheme approved by the Court on the ground that it is not open to the Court to frame a scheme of this sort interfering with the statutory management of the Temple Committee. It will be convenient in the first place to consider the position of the Temple Committee under the Statute more especially as the Subordinate. Judge in approving of the introduction of a new governing body known as the Board of Control has been influenced by the fact that in h...
Jeevarathnammal Vs. N. Varada Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.111
Coutts-Trotter, J.1. In spite of all that the learned Counsel for the respondents had urged, he has not persuaded me that the conclusion which I formed on the last occasion on the materials then before me is incorrect. I have been in fact unable to come to any other conclusion. I still feel that even if the Full Bench had not decided that Exhibits XII and XII (a) were relevant, I should come to the conclusion that an adequate case of adverse possession by Doraisani Ammal has been made out, especially after my learned brother has cleared up the obvious mistake which, I think, both the Counsel and the Judges committed at the last trial, namely, that the Will of Rajammal purported to deal with the suit property. I think there can be but one effect given to the recitals in the Will, and that is that they show the knowledge of the ladies that they were not in possession and that they received the rents not on their own behalf, bat on behalf of Doraisani Animal.2. The appeal will be allowed ...
Tholasinga Mudali Vs. Nagalinga Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.265
1. The lower Court has found that Veerasami had actual knowledge that his vendor had only a mortgagee's interest when Veerasami made his purchase in 1893. We cannot say that this finding is wrong and, on the other hand, the circumstantial evidence fully corroborates the oral evidence of the plaintiff and supports the findings of the lower Court. If Veerasami had actual knowledge, he could not have purchased 'in the full belief' [see Radanath Doss v. Gisborne & Co. 14 M.I.A. 1 that his transferor had an absolute interest.2. The further argument of the respondent's learned Counsel was that the change in the language in the Limitation Act of 1908 (Article 134) by the substitution of the words transferred by' for the words purchased from' made the conditions imposed by the decision in Radanath Doss v. Gisborne & Co. 14 M.I.A. 1, on the purchaser who wished to take advantage of the corresponding Article in the older Limitation Act, inapplicable to a transferee who claims the benefit of Arti...
T. Sitharam Chetty and Vs. Sir S. Subramania Aiyer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.211
John Wallis, C.J.1. These are appeals from a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Trichinopoly framing a scheme for the management of the temples at Srirangam. The case is one of great importance, because this is admittedly the first time a scheme has been framed under what is now Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code for a temple subject to a Temple Committee under Act XX of 1863. In the lower Court all parties appear to have been willing that a scheme should be framed, but on appeal objection has been taken on behalf of the Committee to the scheme approved by the Court, on the ground that it is not open to the Court to frame a scheme of this sort interfering with the statutory management of the Temple Committee. It will be convenient in the first place to consider the position of the Temple Committee under the Statute, more especially as the Subordinate Judge in approving of the introduction of a new governing body known as the Board of Control has been influenced by the fact that in ...
Velayudu Kone Vs. Narayana Kone and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-1915
Reported in: 31Ind.Cas.645
ORDERKumaraswami Sastri, J.1. The Magistrate after perusing the Police report passed an order on the 5th February 1915, holding that there was a likelihood of breach of the peace and issued notice to the parties. On the 27th February 1915, the Magistrate without any evidence and without any enquiry held that there was no likelihood of any breach of the peace. It is represented by petitioner's Vakil that his client was ready with evidence to show that he was in possession and that he apprehended that he would be ousted by force. The mere fact that a prior application was dropped by a Magistrate prior to the order passed by the Magistrate on the 5th February 1915, is no ground for refusing an inquiry. In spite of the prior proceedings, the Police reported that there was a likelihood of breach of the peace and the Magistrate was of opinion that a breach of the peace was likely.2. Having come to that conclusion and having issued notice, the Magistrate ought to have held an enquiry as provi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »