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.
K.S.R.M. Ramanathan Chetti and ors. Vs. T.K.V. Ramasawmi Chetti (Decea ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-1915
Reported in: (1916)30MLJ1
John Wallis, C.J.1. In this case the parties by an unregistered agreement Exhibit B, dated 4th March 1908, agreed for mutual convenience to an exchange of certain plots of land forming part of their adjoining house sites. Exhibit B shows that the agreement was come to in the presence of mediators, and the effect of the oral evidence is that it was these mediators who settled the amount of the cash payment to be made by the first defendant to the first plaintiff to equalise matters, but Exhibit B is in terms an agreement signed by the party and we see no sufficient reason for treating it as the Subordinate Judge has done, as an award or for considering whether as such it is exempt from the provisions of the Registration Act. It is therefore necessary to deal with rate Plaintiff's claim that owing to this want of registration he is entitled to recover back the land given by him in exchange to the defendant even though the defendant has erected on the land one of the walls of his new hous...
K.S. Rm. Ramanathan Chetty and ors. Vs. T.K.V. Ramasami Chetty and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad627(2); 32Ind.Cas.5
John Wallis, C.J.1. In this ease, the parties by an unregistered agreement, Exhibit B, dated 4th March 1908, agreed for mutual convenience to an exchange of certain plots of land, forming part of their adjoining house sites. Exhibit B shows that the agreement was come to in the presence of mediators, and the effect of the oral evidence is that it was these mediators who settled the amount of the cash payment to be made by the 1st defendant to the 1st plaintiff to equalize matters, but Exhibit B is in terms an agreement signed by the parties and we see no sufficient reason for treating it, as the Subordinate Judge has done, as an award or proceeding and as such, it is exempt from the provisions of the Registration Act. It is therefore, necessary to deal with the plaintiff's claim, that owing to this want of registration, he is entitled to recover back the land given by him in exchange to the defendant, even though the defendant has erected on the land one of the walls of his new house w...
Paru Amma and ors. and Vs. Itticheri Amma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.459
Coutts-Trotter, J.1. I have had the advantage of perusing the judgment which my brother is about to deliver, and as I entirely agree with it, no useful purpose would be served by my going over the same ground twice. I have considered very carefully the Full Bench decisions in Kunhacha Umma v. Kutti Mammi Hajee 2 M.L.J. 226 and Chakkara Kannan v. Varayalankandi Kunhi Pokker 30 Ind. Cas. 755 and I have come to the conclusion that the principles of construction they lay down do not compel me to treat Exhibit IV as being other than what it purports to be on the face of it, a devise of an absolute estate to the 1st defendant. Its language is to me quite inconsistent with its being intended as a putravakanam gift. The argument that the donee's position as manager of a tavazhi raises a presumption that the intention was to benefit the tavazhi, loses all its force from the fact that it is not contended that the gift was to the whole tavazhi of which he was the manager, but only to the sub-tava...
The Secretary of State for India in Council Vs. Cherukara Narayananunn ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad820; 31Ind.Cas.799
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. Order XXI, Rule 99, Civil Procedure Code, says that where the obstruction was by a person claiming in good faith to be in(possession on his own account, the Court 'shall' make an order dismissing the application (that is, the application under Order XXI, Rule 97). Here the Government is found to have obstructed delivery because it claimed the land to be river poramboke belonging to them. There can be no doubt that the claim was a claim made in good faith.2. By an almost culpable carelessness, the counter-petition signed by the Acting Collector of Malabar, does not expressly state that the Government is in possession or claims possession in good faith, and it only states that the Government obstructed delivery because it is the owner of the land.3. But I think it is clear that their possession was not denied, as the respondent wanted to get possession after removing their obstruction.4. Order XXI, Rule 98, gives jurisdiction to the Court to direct possession only if...
Adapaka Bapanna Vs. Sri Raja Inuganti Rajagopala Rao Bahadur Garu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad644; 31Ind.Cas.813
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. Section 4 of Regulation XXV of 1802 is very awkwardly worded. It speaks of articles of revenue included...under the several heads of' (among other heads) '...' 'all other lands paying only favourable quit rents' and excludes those articles of revenue from consideration in fixing the permanent assessment on the basis of the true income of the zemindar. That what was excluded was not the jodi payable to the zemindar by an inamdar but the difference between the jodi and the proper assessment claimable from the lands if they had not been granted in inam, seems to be clear. The Government was concerned only with and, therefore, reserved its powers to deal with this difference and not with the jodi itself. The argument of Mr. Somayya that in Sobhanadri Appa Rao v. Gopalkristnamma 16 M.P 34 the learned Judges decided upon the construction of the particular permanent sanad put forward in that case and not upon the construction of Section 4 of the Regulation, cannot be acce...
Namasivaya Kurukkal Vs. Subramania Ayyan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-1915
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.927
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The District Munsif was clearly in error in holding that the nine conditions applicable to ganja licenses' (see page 4 of Exhibit B) are the only conditions applicable thereto and that none of the general conditions applicable to all abkari and opium licenses ' applies, even when such a condition, by its terms, is not restricted to liquor or opium licenses. 'Abkari ' is defined in Section 3, Clause (1), of the Madras Abkari Act so as to include all the liquors and intoxicating drugs referred to in the provisions of that Act. Intoxicating drug' is defined (in Clause 13) to include ganja and bhang but not to- include opium as defined in the Indian Opium Act of 1878. Hence abkari does not include ' opium' but it includes all other intoxicating drinks and substances including ganja. The thirty-eight general conditions, therefore, are said to apply to all abkari and opium licenses, instead of merely to abkari license, because opium is not included in abkari. The second ...
Secretary of State for India in Council Represented by the Collector o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-1915
Reported in: (1916)30MLJ456
1. These suits arise out of certain appointments to karnamships made by the Court Receiver of the Nidadavole Estate and reported to. the Revenue Divisional Officer under Section 16 of Act II of 1894 (Vide Ex. P. Q. and R. dated 9-3-1910). These appointments have to be made by the 'proprietor' of the estate. The term proprietor is denned in Section 4 of the Act, and includes any person who is in lawful management of the estates otherwise than as agent or servant of the proprietor or as mortgagee or lessee.2. The first question for determination is whether the Receiver of the Nidadavole estate comes within this definition. Both the Lower Courts have answered this question in the affirmative : and in our opinion rightly, subject to certain remarks which we shall come to presently.3. The powers of a Receiver appointed by a civil court under Order 40 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code (as in the present case) are entirely conditioned by the terms of his appointment, subject to any subsequen...
Pandiri Veeranna Vs. Mandavilli Subba Row and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-1915
Reported in: (1916)31MLJ257
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The second defendant is the appellant. The plaintiff's case might be summarised thus:--(a) the 1st defendant on the 19th January 1905 wrongfully attached in execution of his decree against one B.V. Narasimham, certain timber logs belonging to the plaintiff, (b) the 2nd defendant brought O.S. No. 8 of 1905 against that same debtor B.V. Narasimham, got an order for attachment before judgment of these same logs belonging to the present plaintiff and had them attached by a prohibitory order directed against the Village Munsif the 3rd defendant, with whom the logs had been left in pursuance of the first attachment made at the instance of the 1st defendant. (c) Though the attachments were all released soon after (on 8th March 1905 and 24th January 1905), the 1st defendant brought a suit contesting the orders of release passed in the plaintiff's favour and his suit was finally disposed of on appeal in plaintiff's favour only in December 1907. (d) Though the cause of actio...
Manjappa Ajri and anr. Vs. Marudevi Hengsu and Twelve ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-1915
Reported in: (1916)ILR39Mad12
Sadasiva Ayyar, J.1. The defendants Nos. 5 and 6 are the appellants. They and the plaintiffs and the second defendant and the second defendant's son, the fourth defendant, all belong to an Aliyasantana family. The second defendant (mother of the fourth defendant) is the maternal aunt of the plaintiffs and of the defendants Nos. 5 and 6 and she is the senior lady in the tavazhi of the second defendant's mother, As such senior lady in the branch of the second defendant's mother, she was the ejamanathi or manager of the branch. The second defendant was one of four sisters. Of the four sisters, the second defendant is the only one now surviving. One of the other sisters had a daughter Kusmaji and the finding of the lower Courts is that item 1, schedule B, out of the plaint properties (and that is the only item in dispute in this Second Appeal) belonged to Kusmaji as her self-acquired property, Kusmaji died issueless, The second defendant, the maternal aunt of Kusmaji, was alleged by the co...
Raja Parthasaradhi Appa Rao Savai Aswa Rao Bahadur, Zamindar of Saniva ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-1915
Reported in: (1916)ILR39Mad944
Seshagiri Ayyar, J.1. Assuming without deciding that the effect of the arrangement between the plaintiff and the Government was that the suit lands were substituted as a part of his zamindari for the zamin lands which were acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, it must be borne in mind that prior to the exchange the Zamindar as regards the suit lands was in the position of a Government ryot and as such owned the kudivaram right. He had therefore, in our opinion, a right of occupancy in the lands within the meaning of the explanation to Sub-section (6) of Section 6 of the Madras Estates Land Act and therefore he did not by the terms of the explanation lose such occupancy right by becoming interested in the land as landholder, that is, by the land becoming part of his estate.2. It is then said that this is opposed to the plain provisions of Section 8(1) which provide that in such a case the owner shall hold the land as a landowner and not as a ryot. The language of Section 8(1) is no d...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »