Chennai Court April 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.
Logambal Alias Thangachi Ammal Vs. Vaithinatha Iyer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-14-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad1071(2); 30Ind.Cas.768
1. The lower Appellate Court has found that no nuisance or inconvenience is caused to the plaintiff by reason of the drain constructed by the defendants. The contention that the construction of the drain was such a violation of the plaintiff's rights as co-owner of the lane marked 'M' as would entitle him to an injunction independently of any proved nuisance, is in direct conflict with Shamnuggar Jute Factory Co. Ltd. v. Ram Narain Chatterjee 14 C.k 189 and Mohanchand Nemchand Gujar v. Isakbhai Tanaji 2 Bom. L.R. 898 and, in our opinion, is unsustainable.2. We will protect the appellant's rights to be safeguarded against the possibility of nuisance by ordering that the drain throughout its course should be covered over so as to prevent any nuisance to the plaintiff.3. With this modification, the second appeal is dismissed with costs....
Janga Venkatareddy and ors. Vs. Jamal Ahmed Saheb
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-1915
Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.394
Napier, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the Temporary Subordinate Judge of Masulipatam, allowing a claim for compensation by the purchaser of certain land in respect of a deficiency in extent. The District Munsif disallowed the claim on the authority of the case reported as Abdullah Khan v. Abdur Rahman Beg 18 A.p 322 : A.W.N. (1896) 81. The Subordinate Judge, Belying on the case reported as Doyal Krishna Naskar v. Amrita Lal Das 29 C.P 370, where Abdullah Khan v. Abdur Rahman Beg 18 A.P 322 : A.W.N. (1896) 81 was dissented from, allowed the claim. The basis en which the claim is made is not stated in the plaint, but it was sought in argument to base it on the implied covenant for title relying on the case reported as Tavala Nageswara Row v. Saripalli Sambasiva Raw 11 Ind. Cas.337 : (1911) 1 M.W.N. 361. In my opinion that case does not apply. A covenant for title, is not a covenant that the land purported to be conveyed is of the extent stated in the sale-deed, but, as shortl...
S.T.U.V.R. Muthuraman Chettiar Vs. Ponnuswamy Udayar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-1915
Reported in: AIR1915Mad1191; 29Ind.Cas.549
John Wallis, C.J.1. The short question in this case, is whether an attachment obtained by the defendant in execution of a decree against the widow of the late Maria Pillai and his three divided brothers should not be declared to be subject to a mortgage in favour of the plaintiff executed by the three surviving brothers in satisfaction of his debts. Ordinarily, of course, his widow would have been his heiress but under the terms of the partition deed, Exhibit A, between the four brothers, it was provided that in the event of the death of any one of them without male issue his share of the joint family properties, after deducting any alienations made by him, should be divided among the surviving brothers, It was held in Kantee Chandra Mukerji v. Ali-Nabi 9 Ind. Cas. 935 : 8 A.L.J. 199 : 33. A.P 414 in a precisely similar case that such a settlement was neither in contravention of Hindu. Law nor obnoxious to the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, Section 6 (a), as being a transf...
Krishnamachari Vs. Shaw, Wallace and Company
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad438; (1916)ILR39Mad576
Oldfield, J.1. The question on this reference is whether the Third Presidency Magistrate has jurisdiction to try the accused for an offence punishable under Section 406 or 409 of the Indian Penal Code or whether he should return the complaint for presentation to a competent Court at Nandyal, Kurnool district.2. The circumstances are set out in the complaint only generally But the material allegations appear from the evidence already taken and the statements of complainant's counsel, to be that the accused was appointed agent for the sale of complainant's oil at Nandyal, that his periodical reports showed a certain quantity of oil sold and a certain sum of money received and (after deduction of commission, etc.) to be accounted for and that, when called on to account, the accused failed to do so, leaving Nandyal after locking up his place of business and secreting his books, the inference being that he had made away with the funds in his charge. No suggestion is made that any oil entrus...
Venugopalachariar Vs. Padmanabha Row
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad768(2); 30Ind.Cas.188
1. The suit was on a mortgage and ended in a decree for recovery by sale of the property. The decree also contained a declaration of the personal liability of 2nd defendant for plaintiff's costs in case the sale-proceeds were not sufficient to pay them as well as the mortgage-money. Defendant No. 2, who appeals against this part of the decree, purchased the property after the suit mortgagee.2. His first objection, that such a declaration call in no case be included in a preliminary decree for sale, is answered by reference to Kamalamma v. Komandur Narasimha Charlu 17 M.L.J. 317.3. Next he argues that whilst such a declaration can be given, as in that case, against the mortgagor, none can be given against any other party, because it is only against the mortgagor that a personal decree under Order XXXIV, Rule 6, (Section 90, Transfer of Property Act) can eventually be passed. Costs, it is said, may be legally recoverable from 2nd defendant under the decree against him. Bat the mortgage-m...
Subramaniyan Chetty Vs. S.R.M. Ramaswami Chetty Alias Chinniah Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad908(2); 31Ind.Cas.499
1. The learned Judge is clearly right. It is not necessary to decide whether by the operation of Section 150 of the Civil Procedure Code, the jurisdiction to receive an inventory has been conferred on the District Court of Ramnad. Having regard to the saving clause in the beginning of the section, the language of Section 98 of the Probate and Administration Act is clear and imposes on the grantee the duty of furnishing the inventory to the Court which issued the Probate. Section 76 also shows that the undertaking is given to the Court which granted the Probate. Under Section 56 of the Probate and Administration Act, the Madura District Court had jurisdiction to grant the Probate. That jurisdiction cannot be said to have been taken away, because the properties dealt with in the Probate are within the jurisdiction of another Court by reason of the bifurcation of the district.2. We dismiss the appeal with costs....
C. Krishnamachari Vs. Shaw Wallace and Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-1915
Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.331
Oldfield, J.1. The question on this reference is whether the third Presidency Magistrate has jurisdiction to try the accused for an offence punishable under Section 406 or 409 of the Indian Penal Code, or whether he should return the com-plaint for presentation to a competent Court at Nandyal, Karnool District.2. The circumstances are set out in the complaint only generally. But the material allegations appear, from the evidence already taken and the statements of complainant's Counsel, to be that the accused was appointed agent for the sale of complainant's oil at Nandyal, that his periodical reports showed a certain quantity of oil sold and a certain sum of money received and (after deduction of commission, etc.) to be accounted for and that, when called on to account, the accused failed to do so, leaving Nandyal after locking up his place of business and secreting his books, the inference being that he had made away with the funds in his charge. No suggestion is made that any oil en...
Sri Rajah Venkata Perumal Raju Bahadur Varu, Minor, by Guardian Mr. W. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad972; 29Ind.Cas.556
1. The lower Court's conclusion against the appellant is not sustainable, in so far as it is based on the suspension of respondent's right to execute during the Court of Ward's possession of the former's estate. The first period of that possession was not long enough, if excluded from the computation, to justify respondent's delay; and the second, during which (it is agreed) the decree was not transferred to the Collector for execution, cannot be excluded. Kumara Venkata Perumal v. Velayuda Reddi 24 Ind. Cas. 195 : 27 M.L.J. 25.2. Respondent has then urged that he is entitled to execute within 12 years from the date on which he obtained personal decree against the appellant, and that the lower Court should be called on to deal with the application on that footing. The lower Court did not sonsider this at the hearing before it, because it had another ground of decision, in its own opinion satisfactory. In these circumstances we think that respondent should not be debarred from relying o...
Ammani Vs. Jagannatha Reddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-08-1915
Reported in: AIR1915Mad1059(2); 30Ind.Cas.7
Oldfield, J.1. The 4th defendant, the appellant, relied on an oral sale on the 4th May 1901, the date of her unregistered document, Exhibit I, executed by the 1st defendant; the plaintiff on a registered sale-deed, Exhibit A, executed on the 5th May 1908 by the 1st and 2nd defendants. The question is whether on the latter date the plaintiff's vendors had any title to convey; and the answer to it depends under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act on whether the 4th defendant's oral sale included a delivery of the property sold, that is, whether the 1st defendant placed the 4th defendant in possession.2. The 4th defendant relied primarily on an alleged delivery to her of the property at the Monigar's house at the time of the execution of Exhibit I and her alleged enjoyment from that date. The learned District Judge has found some difficulty in applying the authorities he cited to these allegations. But their result seems to us plain, that proof of a formal delivery of the property ...
Sri Sri Bommadevera Sattynarayana Varaprasada Rao Naidu Bahadur Zamind ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-08-1915
Reported in: 30Ind.Cas.178
Oldfield, J.1. Plaintiffs-respondents are ryots holding under 3rd defendant-appellant--a zemindar, who represents 2nd defendant, now deceased. First defendant is the Secretary of State. Plaintiffs' case is that their holding is mamool wet inam and has always been held as such without payment of rent or water rate. So long as the zemindar made the collection of water rate on behalf of Government, there was as between him and Government no necessity to ascertain the identity of the mamool wet lands, since he could simply deduct the amount corresponding with their total extent from the total sum otherwise payable by him. When, however, before Fasli 1312 he abandoned the collection, an ascertainment of the mamool wet became necessary; and owing to the incorrect information, which 2nd defendant's servants gave, Government, represented by 1st defendant, collected water rate from plaintiffs, which they were not liable to pay, since their land was mamool wet. They sue to recover the payments m...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »