Chennai Court December 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.
Gopisetti Narayanaswami Nayudu Garu, Receiver of Nidadavole and Medur ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.433
ORDERSadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The question is whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest on the principal amount claimed by and decreed to him.2. Under Section 3, Clause 11(a), of the Estates Land Act, rent includes for the purpose of Section 61 (among other sections) money recoverable under any enactment for the time being in force as if it was rent.' Under the 1st proviso to Section 73 of the Local Boards Act, a land-holder is entitled to recover from an intermediate land-holder the whole of the local cess paid in respect of the lands held by the intermediate land-holder (less certain deductions).3. This is a suit to recover the amount of such a local cess and is brought by a landholder against an intermediate land-holder. Section 61 of the Estates Land Act says:An arrear shall bear simple interest at the rate of one half per centum per mensem from the date on which the arrear fell due,' Section (JO says: An instalment of rent not paid on the day on which it falls due, becomes on the ...
In Re: Madu Chinnagi Reddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.665
Abdur Rahim, J.1. The first accused has been convicted under Sections 467 and 471, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment and the 2nd and 3rd accused have been convicted under Section 467, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment each. The document said to have been forged and used as genuine is Exhibit J in the case. It is a promissory note which purports to have been executed on the 3rd October 1909 for the sum of Rs. 260. The alleged executant of the note is one Meda Lakshmayya, who died on the 8th September 1911 leaving as his heirs two minor sons. On his death the 1st accused instituted a suit in the Court of the District Munsif on the 21st November 1911 claiming a sum of Rs. 460 with interest on the basis of the promissory note. Exhibit J purports to be attested by accused Nos. 2 and 3 who do not deny the same. They admit that they attested it. Their defence, as: also that of the 1st accused, is that it is a genuine docum...
The Maharaja of Bobbili Vs. Ranku Appala Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.703
1. The claim is for rent for three Faslis ending with the 30th June 1912. The muchilika, Exhibit A, fixes the rent payable by the defendant, and it is not open to him to let in oral evidence to prove that the contract has been varied. The lower Courts are, therefore, wrong in holding that by the long payment of a smaller rent, the defendant has acquired a right for all time to come, to compel the plaintiff to receive only that rent.2. Mr. Ramesam has, however, drawn our attention to Exhibit VI, which is a communication to his client from the zamin official in which it is stated that the reduction hitherto made in the rent will not be granted after the date of that letter, namely, April 1913. We regard this letter as agreeing to discharge the defendant from liability to pay the contract rate for a particular period and to accept in lieu thereof a smaller sum. No consideration is necessary for this remission and as pointed out in Kattika Bapanamma v. Kattika Kristnamma 17 M.L.J. 30, this...
Surapudi Muniappa and anr. Vs. Nookala Seshayya Gari Subbiah and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.901
Coutts Trotter, J.1. This is an action by a mortgages against the mortgagor and various other persons to enforce a mortgage, dated the 26th October 1900. The only question that arises in this appeal relates to the liability of the appellants, the 12th and 13th defendants. The facts are briefly these. The mortgaged property contained a plantation of casuarina trees, said to be twenty thousand in number. The allegation against the 12th and 13th defendants is that they in concert with the mortgagor cut and removed the trees and thereby depreciated the value of the plaintiff's mortgage security by a thousand rupees. It is abundantly clear that such an act on their part might very well give rise to an action of tort. But that will not avail the plaintiff, for such cause of action is admittedly barred by limitation, and he can only succeed if he can establish that they are properly sued in an action brought to enforce the mortgage, which would fall under the longer period of limitation presc...
Subbaraya Goundan Vs. S. Ranganadha Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.971
John Wallis, C.J.1. The question involved in this appeal is whether a zemindar or mittahdar who under his sannad has a right to collect the jodi payable by an inamdar; has a charge for arrears of such jodi on the interest of the inamdar. Before considering this question it may be well to refer to the right of Government to a charge for arrears of revenue, and to the rights of the inamdar for arrears against the ryots themselves.2. It was held by Innes, J., in Subbaraya v. Sub-Collector of Chingleput 6 M.K 303 that 'the right of Government is only a right to a charge on the land, and a right to forfeit by due course of law, the title of the person holding the land who does not pay the charge;' and this was cited with approval by Shephard, J., in Secretary of State v. Ashtamurthi 13 M. 89 . In the present case the Government assigned its right to revenue to the inamdar subject to the payment of a jodi, and it is well settled that by virtue of such assignment the inamdar did not acquire a...
Muthukrishna Aiyar and ors. Vs. Pakkiri Voikaran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1915
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.134
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The District Munsif's statement that there is no stipulation in Exhibit A admitting liability so long as they continue in service' is irrelevant. If he means that even if they continued in service and thus paid interest within three years before suit, it would not save limitation, his view appears to be erroneous Mylan v. Annavi Madan 29 M.P 234 : 16 M.L.J. 99 and Kariyappa v. Rachapa 24 B.P 493 : 2 Bom. L.R. 378.2. The District Munsif is requested to give a definite finding on the evidence on record as to whether the defendant and Kulandan Voikaran worked under the plaintiffs and during what period or periods they so worked.3. The finding will be submitted within four weeks from the date of the receipt of the records by the lower Court and one Week will be allowed for filing objections. * In compliance with the order contained in the above judgment, the District Munsif of Tiruvalur submitted the followingFinding4. This suit was remitted by the High Court for a fin...
Kamaravutu Mrutyunjayadu Vs. Raja Saheb Maharban Dostan Sri Raja Ravu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1915
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.901; (1916)30MLJ132
John Wallis, C.J.1. This is no doubt a case very much on the line and has given rise to a difference of opinion between the District Munsif and the Subordinate Judge, and between the two learned Judges who heard the Second Appeal, and on the Letters Patent Appeal. On the whole I am disposed to agree with the conclusion of Sadasiva Aiyar, J. that there are not sufficient grounds for interfering in second appeal with the finding of the District Judge. As regards the disputed passage in Forbes v. Meer Mahomed Tuquee (1870) 13 M.I.A. 466. I agree with Ayling, J. that their Lordships considered that the fact that in that case no quit rent had been reserved although the land had been included in the assets of the zemindari on which peishcush was payable, was a circumstance which taken with all the other circumstances of that case would have clearly negatived a power of resumption; but that was only one of the circumstances to be taken into account in the absence of a grant. Here we have the ...
Raja Rajaeswari Ammal Vs. Subramania Archakar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1915
Reported in: (1916)30MLJ222
1. The only question raised in the second Appeal is whether a female heir is disqualified from succeeding to the office of Archaka and receiving the emoluments attached to the office in cases where such office is hereditary in her family. The District Munsif passed a decree in plaintiff's favour but the Subordinate Judge who agreed with the District Munsif in all his findings of fact, dismissed the plaintiff's suit on the ground that the decision in Sundarambal Ammal v. Yogavana Gurukkal : AIR1915Mad561 was authority for holding that females were disqualified from succeeding to the office.2. The right of females to succeed to religious offices and perform the duties by proxy where such offices are hereditary has been recognized in numerous cases. As observed by Justices Ayling and Hannay in Ramasundaram Pillai v Savundrathammal (1914) 16 M.L.T. 423 (where all the important cases are collected) the rule enunciated by Sadasiva Aiyar, J. in Sundarambal Ammal v. Yogavana Gurukkal : AIR1915...
Raja Rajeswari Ammal Vs. Subramania Archakar and Two ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1915
Reported in: (1917)ILR40Mad105
1. The only question raised in this Second Appeal is whether a female heir is disqualified from succeeding to the office of archaka and receiving the emoluments attached to the office in cases where such office is hereditary in her family. The District Munsif passed a decree in plaintiff's favour, but the Subordinate Judge who agreed with the District Munsif in all his findings of fact dismissed the plaintiff's suit on the ground that the decision in Sundarambal Ammal v. Yogavana Gurukkal I L.R (1915) Mad. 850 was authority for holding that females were disqualified from succeeding to the office.2. The right of females to succeed to religious offices and perform the duties by proxy where such offices are hereditary has been recognized in numerous cases. As observed by Ayling and Hannay, JJ., in Ramasundaram Pillai v. Savundrathammal (1914) 16 M.L.T. 423 (where all the important cases are collected) the rules enunciated by Sadasiva Ayyar, J., in Sundarambal Ammal v. Yogavana Gurukkal I....
P.R. Aiyana Chariar and ors. Vs. Vathiar Ramanuja Ayyangar and ors. an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.698
Phillips, J.1. In this case a decree had been obtained by petitioners whereby respondents were restrained from interfering in certain processions of the Vadagalai community, and it has been found by the District Munsif that on 15th October 1912 respondents did interfere with such a procession and delayed it for three hours, after which it was allowed to proceed. Petitioners applied under Order XXI, Rule 32, Civil Procedure Code, for an order to enforce the decree by the imprisonment of respondents. The District Munsif ordered respondents to execute a security bond for obedience of the injunction order, an order for which there is no provision in Order XXI, Rule 32. In appeal the District Judge, accepting the facts as found, set aside the District Munsif's order as illegal and dismissed the petition on the ground that the decree had been enforced when the procession was allowed to proceed and that the application to enforce it had been subsequently put in, i.e., after its enforcement an...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »