Chennai Court December 1915 Judgments
K.M.U.R. Ulagappa Chetty Vs. Ramanathan Chetty and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-28-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.821
Coutts Trotter, J.1. I think that the decision in Sowcar Lodd Govinda Doss v. Muneppa Naidu 4 M.L.T. 341 is in conflict with that in Arunachala Reddi v. Subba Reddi 17 M.L.J. 393; 3 M.L.T. 7 and the authorities therein referred to. Apart from authority I am very strongly of opinion myself that the case in Sowcar Lodd Govinda Doss v. Muneppa Naidu 4 M.L.T. 341 cannot possibly be supported, as it amounts pro tanto to a repeal of the Negotiable Instruments Act. I therefore, think that the present suit was unsustainable, being a suit on a promissory note which had not been endorsed to the plaintiff, and I must hold that the District Munsif was wrong in decreeing the plaintiff's suit. I allow the petition and dismiss the suit with costs here and in the Court below. Civil Revision Petition No. 132 of 1915 follows, but there will be no order as to costs in that case....
Tag this Judgment!Rama Aiyar Died, Lakshmana Aiyar, Supplemental Appellant and Legal Rep ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-26-1915
Reported in: (1916)30MLJ148
1. We think that Parry and Co. v. Appasami Pillai (1880) M. 407, must be overruled. No authorities are cited in the judgment of the Appellate Court but the learned Judge who decided the case on the original side referred on the point to The General Steam Navigation Co v. Guillov (1843) 11 M. & W. 877, and to Schibsby v. Westenhoh (1885) L.R. 6 Q.B. 155. The dicta in The General Steam Navigation Co. v. Guillou (1843) 11 M. & W. 877, on which the learned Judge relied were questioned in Schibsby v. Westenholz (1885) L.R. 6 Q.B. 155 which is rather against the view taken by him as in that case the question on which the Court of Queen's Bench decided to express no opinion was 'as to the effect of the appearance of the defendant, where it is so far not voluntary that he only comes in to try and save some property in the hands of the foreign tribunal', rather implying that at any rate, where there was no property in the hands of the foreign tribunal appearance there would amount to submission...
Tag this Judgment!A.L.A.R. Rm. Arunachalam Chettiar Through His Authorised Agent M. Subr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-1915
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.329; (1916)31MLJ168
1. Defendant is the appellant. The questions raised in these appeals relate to the propriety of the terms of the pattah as settled by the Special Deputy Collector and varied in appeal by the District Judge.2. The first question relates to the Kanganam fee which the defendant wants to levy. Kanganam is in effect a contribution paid by the tenant to reimburse the landlord for the cost of the supervision of harvest out of which melvaram has to be delivered to the landlord. The Special Deputy Collector found that this was an item included in the total Jama of the Ramnad Taluk at the time of the permanent settlement and formed one of the items of assets in fixing the peishcush, that it was not an illegal cess so as to bring it under Section 143 of the Estates Land Act and that it was being paid for a series of years. He, however, was of opinion that it could not be levied after the Estates Land Act came into force as it was a charge for supervision not allowed by the Act which removes all r...
Tag this Judgment!A.L.A.R. Rm. Arunachallam Chettiar (Through His Authorized Agent M. Su ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-1915
Reported in: (1917)ILR40Mad640
1. Defendant is the appellant. The questions raised in these appeals relate to the propriety of the terms of the patta as settled by the Special Deputy Collector and varied in appeal by the District Judge.2. The first question relates to the kanganam fee which the defendant wants to levy. Kanganam is, in effect, a contribution paid by the tenant to reimburse the landlord for the cost of the supervision of harvest out of which melvaram has to be delivered to the landlord. The Special Deputy Collector found that this was an item included in the total jama of the Ramnad taluk at the time of the Permanent Settlement and formed one of the items of assets in fixing the peshkash, that it was not an illegal cess so as to bring it under Section 143 of the Estates Land Act and that it was being paid for a series of years. He, however, was of opinion that it could not be levied after the Estates Land Act came into force, as it was a charge for supervision not allowed by the Act which removes all ...
Tag this Judgment!Paykat Manakkal P. Damodaran Nambudripad, Styled Churavan Narayanan Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.624
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. Plaintiff is the appellant. He and the defendants Nos. 21 to 24 are the urallers of the plaint devaswom. The plaintiff brought the suit on behalf of the devaswom to redeem a mortgage granted in February 1887 for Rs. 3,500, the first defendant having executed the registered kaichit, or counterpart Exhibit A, to the devaswom urallers. Both the Courts found that the 1st defendant acted beyond the scope of his authority in executing this kaichit, Exhibit A, and that he did not properly represent the tarwad of the defendants Nos. 1 to 16 in executing the kaichit. The Subordinate Judge, however, gave a decree for redemption of an old mortgage of 1833 granted by the devaswom to the family of the defendants Nos. 1 to 16 for Rs. 1,885-11-5. The learned District Judge, however, held that as the devaswom had brought a prior suit No. 320 of 1886 for redemption of this old mortgage of 1833 and had withdrawn that suit without liberty to bring a fresh suit, the plaintiff cannot b...
Tag this Judgment!A.P.T. Veerabhadra Pillai Vs. A.P.T. Shunmugam Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.668
ORDERSrinivasa Aiyangar, J.1. The Magistrate in this case has found that as regards the villages of Sithambur and Bommanapolliem, Veerabadra Pillai and Shanmugam Pillai, the two parties to the dispute, were jointly in possession. On that finding he was not entitled to issue any order under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code, directing either the one party or the other, from disturbing the possession of the other till evicted in due course of law. It was so held in Tarujan Bibee v. Asamuddi Bepari 4 C.W.N. 426, and it has been followed in this Court by Mr. Justice Sadasiva Aiyar in the case reported as Kandasami Asari v. Narayana Asari 26 Ind. Cas. 644. Unfortunately the exact order issued by the Magistrate is not before me. If, as a matter of fact, he has issued any order with regard to these two villages, that will have to be cancelled. The remainder of the order was within the jurisdiction of the Magistrate to pass and Mr. T.R. Ramachandra Aiyar has not convinced me that I ha...
Tag this Judgment!Bava's wife, Bevi Umma Vs. thekkiniyedath Allath Shamu Menon and Anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.709
1. The lower Appellate Court regarded the defendant as a trespasser and held that he was not entitled to a notice to quit. We are unable to agree with this conclusion. Exhibit I, which is dated the 14th of May 1910, stipulates for a year certain and provides for yearly payments in case the lessee continued to hold on. We think that on the expiry of the first year of tenancy, the defendant was continuing as a tenant from year to year under the provision to hold on. The observation of Lord Alverstone, C.J., in Dixon v. Bradford and District Railway Servants' Coal Supply Co. Ltd. (1904) 1 K.B. 444, clearly supports this position. See also Lewis v. Baker (1906) 2 K.B. 599; 95 L.T. 10 and Woodfall's Landlord and Tenant, page 254. In Dougal v. McCarthy (1893) 1 Q.B. 736, Lord Esher, M.R., states the law thus: I take it that the doctrine laid down by Lord Mansfield in Right v. Darby 1 Term. Rep. 159 is correct. He there said: If there be a lease for a year, and, by consent of both parties, th...
Tag this Judgment!Kupparazu Venkatasubbiah and anr. Vs. Murugula Shaik Silar Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.947
Coutts Trotter, J.1. The plaintiff in this case was an inamdar entitled to a share in certain lands in Kandukur. The inam was granted to the plaintiff and several others on condition of their providing water for the use of travellers passing through that place. Certain of the inamdars neither the whole nor apparently the majority, have purported to lease the whole of the inam lands for 40 years to 1st defendant, but they neither obtained the consent of the plaintiff nor is it shown that he knew of or assented to it subsequently. The first Court gave him a relief to this extent; it declared the lease which the defendants had executed not to be binding on the plaintiff's own share of the lands. But the plaintiff was not satisfied with that, and proceeded to claim that he was entitled to a decree declaring the lease to be absolutely void as a whole and further declaring that in consequence he, along with such other inamdars as had not been the parties to the lease, was entitled to possess...
Tag this Judgment!Marimuthu Pillai Vs. Velu Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.908
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. Plaintiff is the appellant. He sued to set aside certain alienations made by his grandmother purporting to act as his guardian during his minority. His allegations were that there was no necessity for the sales referred to in the plaint and that they were fraudulent and for grossly inadequate consideration. The present appeal relates only to the alienation in favour of the respondents under Exhibit 4. The respondents stated that the sale was bona fide for consideration and for purposes of discharging the debts mentioned in the sale-deed and that it is binding on the plaintiff. The District Munsif held that the alienation evidenced by Exhibit 4 was not binding on the plaintiff, as there was no evidence adduced to show that the sale-deed was for the purpose of discharging the debts mentioned therein. An appeal was filed against the decree of the District Munsif: but neither in the grounds of appeal nor in any other proceedings was any reason given for the defenda...
Tag this Judgment!Attyam Venkatasubbarayadu and anr. and Vs. Sri Rajah Velugoti Govinda,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-1915
Reported in: (1917)32MLJ144
1. Mr. Subramania Aiyar has taken the preliminary objection that the High Court cannot entertain a review in appeals preferred under Section 15 of the Letters Patent. The question is practically res integrals the decision in Hafiz Muhammed Moshin v. Sheo Prasad (1904) 1 A.L.J. 509 in which the point was directly raised gives no reason for the conclusion arrived at.2. After hearing the matter fully argued by the learned Vakils on either side, we are of opinion that there is no force in the objection : Section 44 of the Letters Patent says that the provisions are subject to the Legislative powers of the Governor-General in Council. As at present advised we are in agreement with Mr. Subramania Aiyar that this provision would not enable courts, by implication, to supplement the Letters Patent by importing into them all acts, ejusdem generis, passed by the Governor-General in Council and that the provision is only intended to empower the Governor-General in Council to legislate with a view ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »