Chennai Court March 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.
Syed Ahamad Sahib Shutari Vs. the Magnesite Syndicate, Ltd. by their A ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1915
Reported in: AIR1915Mad1214(1); (1915)28MLJ598
1. In this suit, the plaintiff complains that the 1st defendant has trespassed on property not included in the lease, and prays for an injunction and for damages. The trespass was denied. The District Munsif found for the plaintiff and awarded damages.2. On appeal, the District Judge held that as the plaintiff was only one of the tenants in common who laid claim to the property, he was not entitled to maintain the suit alone. The Judge personally inspected the locality and on the strength of that inspection found that the property was included in the lease.3. We are unable to agree with the District Judge. Although there is a difference of opinion regarding the right of one of the tenants in common to eject the lessee from the leased premises there is no doubt that as against a trespasser any one of the co-owners can maintain an action. Radha Prashad Wasti v. Esuf I.L.R. (1881) C. 414 Harendra Narain Chowdhury v. Moran I.L.R. (1885) C 40 Hira Lal v. Banion I.L.R. (1883) A 602 and per B...
Swaminatha Mudaliar Vs. Gopalakrishna Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad1106(1); 30Ind.Cas.144
ORDERAyling, J.1. The Magistrate had jurisdiction to pass the order sought to be revised and there is no ground for interference with it.2. The term of the order expires to-morrow; and it is observed for the guidance of the Magistrate that repeated recourse should not be had to the provisions of Section 144 in the same dispute. If it is considered probable that danger to the public peace may remain after the expiry of two months from the date of an order under Section 144, steps should be taken in due course to obtain an order of Government under Clause 5 of that section, or recourse should be had to the provisions of Chapter XIL, or Section 107, of the Criminal Procedure Code.3. The petition is dismissed....
Guda William Vs. Guda Karunamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad296; 29Ind.Cas.178
John Wallis, C.J.1. It has always been the practice of this Court, since the passing of the Indian Divorce Act of 1869, to post and dispose of decrees sent up from the District Court for confirmation after notice to the parties without requiring the petitioner to appear and move for confirmation. I see no sufficient reason to depart from this practice, which appears to me to give effect to the intention of the Legislature. It was in the interest of poor suiters that jurisdiction in divorce was conferred upon District Judges instead of on a Central Divorce Court as in England, and it would be a restriction of the boon to require a petitioner who has obtained a decree in a District Court, to take proceedings for confirmation in the High Court. The mere appearance of the petitioner would be no protection against collusion which is guarded against by the other provisions of Section 17, and as regards the possibility of the parties having died or come together again subsequent to the decree...
Syed Ahmad Sahib Shutari Vs. the Magnesite Syndicate, Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1915
Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.60
1. In this suit the plaintiff complains that the 1st defendant has trespassed on property not included in the lease, and prays for an injunction and for damages. The trespass was denied. The District Munsif found for the plaintiff and awarded damages.2. In appeal, the District Judge held that as the plaintiff was only one of the tenants-in-common who laid claim to the property, he was not entitled to maintain the suit alone. The Judge personally inspected the locality and on the strength of that inspection found that the property was included in the lease.3. We are unable to agree with the District Judge. Although there is a difference of opinion regarding the right of one of the tenants-in-common to eject the lessee from the leased premises, there is no doubt that as against a trespasser any one of the co-owners can maintain an action. Radha Proshad Wasti v. Esuf 7 C.P 414 : 9 C.L.R. 76; Harendra Narain Singh Chowdhry v. Moran 15 C.P 40; Hira Lal v. Bhairon 5 A.P 602; A.W.N. (1883) 15...
Sadaya Konan and anr. Vs. Annamalai Udayan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad641; 29Ind.Cas.458
1. This was a suit in ejectment against three defendants. A decree was passed against all of them. These defendants are brothers and are members of an undivided Hindu family. Against the decree of the District Munsif, 1st defendant alone appealed. Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 were not parties to the appeal. The appeal was dismissed. The 1st defendant has preferred a second appeal. Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 applied to this Court to be made party respondents and that application was granted. They have also presented an application to this Court to set aside the decree passed against them by the District Munsif, on the ground that they were not properly served and that the order declaring them ex parte is wrong. Mr. G.S. Venkatarama Aiyar raised a preliminary objection that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the application. The language of Order IX, Rule 13, is clear and if the matter were res integra, we would have felt considerable hesitation in holding that this Court had jurisdicti...
Sreekisan Pitty and anr. Vs. Kota Namalwarayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad1170(1); 29Ind.Cas.246
1. We think that Exhibit 13, besides being a receipt for the money paid by the defendants, is also a written record of the plaintiff's agreement to accept a rent-deed, which was to be executed by the defendants and a record of the terms of the agreement to lease entered into between the plaintiff and the defendants. Exhibit A is referred to in Exhibit B as a document to be read with and as part of Exhibit B.2. We think that haying regard to the decisions in Narayanan Chetty v. Muthiah Servai 8 Ind. Cas. 520 : 9 M.L.T. 142 : 21 M.L.J. 44 : 35 M.p 63 and in Syed Ajam Sahib v. Meenatchi Devastanam 8 Ind. Cas. 668 : 35 M.p 95 : 8 M.L.T. 437 : (1910) M.W.N. 766 : 21 M.L.J. 202 Exhibit B must be treated as an agreement to lease and is inadmissible in evidence for want of registration. The decree of the lower Court will stand reversed and the suit will stand dismissed so far as it prays for specific performance.3. Under the circumstances the parties will bear their own costs in both Courts....
Bangaru Muthu Venkatappa Nayanivaru, Zamindar of Bangari Poliem Vs. Go ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad102; 31Ind.Cas.565
William Ayling, J.1. The subject-matter of the present litigation is the dasabandham rights in the village of Dalavayipattada in the Karvetinagar Zemindari originally granted by the zemindar in 1866 by Exhibit A. They are claimed by the plaintiff (1st respondent) in virtue of an assignment of a usufructuary mortgage (Exhibit C) executed in 1905 by Gangamamba, and the first question is whether this lady was possessed of the dasabandham rights at that time. 2. According to the plaintiff, the grant by Exhibit A, the genuineness of which is not disputed, was really in favour of the 'mahal estate.' It is explained that this estate constitutes a sort of endowment for the benefit of the ladies of the zemindar's family, and is managed by the senior married lady for the time being. This estate is of a somewhat unusual nature, and the appellant's Vakil has commented on the meagreness of the direct evidence adduced to prove its existence. On the other hand, the documentary evidence (in particula...
Velappa Gounden Vs. Palani Gounden and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1915
Reported in: AIR1915Mad1079; 29Ind.Cas.201
Spencer, J.1. Five survey fields, Nos. 367, 368, 369, 371 and 421, measured acres 10, cents 11 according to the old survey. The 1st defendant sold on 18th November 1909 a moiety, viz, acres 5, cents 5 1/2 to the 2nd defendant.2. To make up this extent he included the whole of survey Nos. 368, 36S and 371 which amounted to acres 4 and cents 46 and added thereto 591/2 cents out of survey No. 367, the total area of which was acres 4 cents 18.3. Of the five above-mentioned fields which descended to the 1st defendant and another from a common ancestor, no portion of survey No 421 was included in the 1st defendants sale-deed to the 2nd defendant.4. It was subsequently ascertained at the re-survey that the extent of land in survey No. 367 in the 1st defendant's possession was acre 1 cents 29. Deducting the 59 1/2 cents which he had sold to the 2nd defendant there remained thus 69 1/2 cents. He sold those 69 1/2 cents to the plaintiff on the 29th December 1910 and the plaintiff brought this su...
S. Ramaswami Patter Vs. Tirucha Mannadiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad774(2); 29Ind.Cas.36
1. In the lower Appellate Court no objection was taken to the finding that the suit was in time. Having regard to Kunhi Marakkar Haji v. Kutti Umma 20 M.P 496 and Subbayya v. Rami Reddi 22 M.P 344 the question of limitation argued in this Court, as it appeared to us, is that the point can be decided without remanding the case to the lower Appellate Court. We feel no hesitation in holding that the promise to remit the money in Exhibit B11 refers to the claim made under Exhibit G and to the further claim on account of renewal fees. We are not satisfied that Article 64 of the Limitation Act will cover this case. There has been no account in writing signed by the defendant. But we think that Exhibit B is an acknowledgment of liability and as such it saves the bar of limitation. In this view, there is no other question to be decided.2. We dismiss the second appeal with costs....
Raja Kumar Venkata Puramal Raz Bahadur Varu Minor, Raja of Karvetnagar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1915
Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.435
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff from a decree dismissing his suit for specific performance of a contract of sale in favour of a temple of which he is the trustee, entered into between the Regulation Collector of Karvetinagar who was at the time the Dharmakarta of the temple and the late Venkataraya Reddy who was then the managing member of the family of the defendants. Under the agreement of sale the plaint lands were to be conveyed to the temple for a sum of Rs. 16,000, whenever the trustee pays that amount from the Devastanam funds. The Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit, on the ground that the plaint contract is void as offending the Rule against perpetuities; and the only question before us for decision is whether his judgment on this point is right. A suit, Original Suit No. 40 of 1902, was filed against the late Vekata-raya Reddy as the managing member of his family'for the recovery of the village of Veeraraghavapuram, which was in the possession of his family. Venkataray...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »