Chennai Court August 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.
Appayya Shetty, Manager, Tile Factory Vs. P.M. Mahammade Beari and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1915
Reported in: 30Ind.Cas.596
Seshagiri Aiyar, J.1. I have had the advantage of reading the judgment which my learned brother is about to deliver. As the question is one of considerable importance and as the decisions bearing on it are not consistent with each other, 1 think it desirable to state my views on the subject shortly.2. The lease to defendants Nos. 1 and 2 is a permanent one. The plaint says that the produce was set apart for a religious service. I take it that the grantor was only anxious that he should be paid the rent. He gave up rights of possession, etc., when he granted this permanent lease. The original grantees paid the rent regularly for 16 years. It was after the transfer of their interests to the 3rd defendant in 1907 that default was made. There were three years' arrears of rent when the suit way brought. The document in question provides for the payment of the first year's rent with that of the second year. If rent remained unpaid even then, the lessees were liable to be evicted. The questio...
Shrinivasa Raya Vs. Ramappa Hebbara and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad709(2); 30Ind.Cas.991
1. The plaintiff is the appellant. One Subroya Udpa died in the year 1876 leaving a daughter Venkamma, and daughter-in-law, Satyabhama, the widow of this predeceased son, Krishna Udpa. Venkamma adpoted Subroya Adiga, who conveyed the suit properties to the appellant by a registered deed of sale, dated 5th January 1911. Satyabhama sold the suit properties to the 1st defendant's father and died in the year 1901. Venkamma died in the year 1901 and the appellant sues to recover possession of the property, on the ground that he represents the adopted son of Venkamma who as daughter's son of the last male holder became entitled to the properties on her death.2. Both the lower Courts have found that Satyabhama took adversely to Venkamma and that her adverse possession commenced in the year 1876. They dismissed plaintiff's suit as barred by limitation on the ground that adverse possession against Venkamma barred the reversioner also.3. We are of opinion that the decision of the lower Courts ca...
Krishnacharya Vs. Anthakki and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad939; 31Ind.Cas.12
1. This suit was brought to restrain a mulgeni tenant from cutting down the trees in his holding. These include three classes of trees., viz., (1) trees in existence at the grant of the lease, 2) trees planted by the tenant and (3) trees of spontaneous growth. In the District Munsif's Court the plaintiff's Pleader conceded that he had no title to the trees planted by the lessee after the commencement of the lease. In this Court even this position is contested, but if we rely upon the analogy of the Transfer of Property Act, as it was held in Gangamma v. Bommakha 7 M.L.T. 231 that Courts were entitled to do, Section 108, Clause (h), is against the appellant's contention and no direct authority has been cited for a different view.2. The decision in Gangamma v. Bommakka 5 Ind. Cas. 437 : 7 M.L.T. 231 is conclusive on the point that a mulgeni lessee in South Canara is not entitled to cut trees standing at the date of the grant. The plaintiff failed to prove that the defendant had sold or f...
Krishnaswami Pillai Vs. Mookayi Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad148(1); 31Ind.Cas.35
1. In Exhibit B, to which all the members of the branch to which the plaintiff's husband belonged were parties, it was agreed that the charities were to be managed by the head of the family in each branch for the time being. We think the language clearly points to the intention that the management should be in the hands of the male head and not in the hands of females like the plaintiff. It is true that subsequently one of the widows asserted her right of management against the plaintiff's husband, but after obtaining a decree she gave up her right for a money compensation. The other fact relied on is that in Exhibit D series the leases were made out in the names of the female as well as the male members; but this appears to be accounted for by the fact that the branches were improperly dividing the trust properties among themselves and making payments for the performance of the charities, whereas it is now admitted that they had no beneficial interest in the charity properties. On the...
Kiloth Chozhan Oydal Kurup and ors. Vs. Kirathwa Illath Narayanan Namb ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad749; 31Ind.Cas.220
1. Appellants in this case admittedly hold the suit property under Exhibit I executed by plaintiff's predecessor, on what is known as kudima jenm or kudimanir tenure; the incidents of which are set out at pages 307, 417 and 418 of Moore's Malabar Law and Custom and also in Grraime's Glossary. Plaintiff is the jenmi of the said land; he has been given a decree for eviction of appellants on the ground of disclaimer of his paramount title.2. The chief point for decision is whether plaintiff has made out a disclaimer of his title. He relies on passages in certain documents (Exhibits C and D) taken by appellants from tenants of their own in respect of the suit lands in a plaint, Exhibit C, filed by appellants in a suit for recovery of rent. These passages refer to the land as the jenmam of appellants: and it is argued that this constitutes a denial of the jenmam title of plaintiff. For appellants it is argued that nothing of the kind is intended but that the phrase 'jenmam' is loosely used,...
T.B.K. Viswanathaswami Naicker Vs. Kamulammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad39; (1916)30MLJ451
1. The 1st question to be decided is whether the plaintiff as the illegitimate son of his deceased father is entitled to share equally with his widow the 1st defendant or whether he is only entitled to half of her share i.e., to 1/3 rd of the properties. In a series of cases in Madras beginning with Banoji v. Kandoji I.L.R. (1880) M. p. 557, it has been held that an illegitimate son succeeding to his deceased father along with a widow, daughter or daughter's son is entitled to half of the properties and not merely to one-third Pravathi v. Tirumalai I.L.R. (1886) M. p. 334, Ghinnammal v. Varadarajulu I.L.R. (1892) M. 307, and Meenakshi v. Appakntti I.L.R. (1909) M. 226In Bahi v. Govindu I.L.R. (1875) B. 97, Chief Justice Westropp elaborately reviewed all the texts of Hindu law dealing with the rights of an illegitimate son and came to the conclusion (as we understand the judgment) that the illegitimate son was entitled to a half share of the properties and in Seshagiri v. Girewa I.L.R. ...
S. Shunmugam Chetty Vs. Subba Reddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-1915
Reported in: 31Ind.Cas.1
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant in the second appeal here. He sued for specific performance of a contract whose terms according to the plaint were as under:(1 The purchase-money was fixed at Rs. 4,600 on the 11th November 1909 out of which the plaintiff gave an advance of Rs. 200;(2a) Of the remaining Rs. 4,400, Rs. 900 should be deposited before the Sub-Registrar before whom the sale-deed of the plaint properties had to be registered;(2b) For the remaining Rs. 3,500, the plaintiff (vendee) was to execute a mortgage-deed to the defendants (vendors) mortgaging the properties that were to be sold, and fixing a period of three years for the repayment of the Rs. 3,500 with interest at 81/2 per cent, per annum; and(3) That the defendants should go to Satur with the title-deeds of the properties on 1st December 1909 and execute the sale-deed and register it.2. The lower Appellate Court found that the contract between the plaintiff and the defendants was not on the terms 2...
Sankar Rangayya and anr. Vs. Sankar Ramayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad483; 31Ind.Cas.350
ORDERTyabji, J.1. The first point involved in this revision case is, whether the desire of the parties to compound the offence of causing grievous hurt punishable under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code can affect our decision. The point arises in a case where two brothers brought a charge and counter-charge against each other for causing grievous hurt and rioting and each of them was sentenced by the Joint Magistrate to one month's rigorous imprisonment.2. From these sentences they could not appeal, but they have applied in revision and are now desirous of compounding.3. The composition of offences is dealt with in Section 345 of the Criminal Procedure Code.4. Sub-section (1) specifies the offences which may be compounded without leave of Court by the injured person. It contains no reference to the stage at which the proceedings may lie.5. Sub-section (2) provides that the offence of causing grievous hurt may, with the permission of the Court before which any prosecution for such o...
In Re: K. Parameswaran Nambudri
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1915
Reported in: (1916)ILR39Mad677
Ayling, J.1. The complaint in this case sets out that some time in the month of Chingom, 1087 (Malabar) corresponding to August 1912, the accused persons, the present petitioners, wrote an endorsement on a promissory note, which had been executed in favour of the complainant (present counter-petitioner), purporting to record a payment of Rs. 1,500 towards that promissory note. No such payment according to complainant was ever made and his case is that the endorsement was written with the intention that it might appear in evidence in case be (complainant) brought a civil suit to recover the amount due on the promissory note.2. Now assuming that complainant is in a position to make out (1) that the accused wrote the endorsement, (2) that the payment which it purports to record was never made, (3) that the intention of the accused was that the endorsement should appear in evidence in judicial proceedings then the offence of fabricating false evidence defined in Section 192, Indian Penal C...
The Secretary of State for India in Council by the Collector of Ganjam ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad186; 30Ind.Cas.609
Oldfield, J.1. This is an appeal from the decision of two learned Judges, given under Section 98 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in accordance with the confirming judgment of one of them, Sankaran Nair, J. The question is whether water-cess was legitimately levied by Government, the appellant, from plaintiffs for the water of the Vamsadhara river, which they have admittedly used in their inam village for the irrigation of (1) second crop, (2) wet (or irrigated) crops grown on dry (or ordinarily unirrigated) land. The decision of this question will be a sufficient adjudication on the plaintiffs claims to a refund of past collections and an injunction as to the future.2. Plaintiffs did not dispute that they used the water of the Vamsadhara, as alleged. The dispute is, therefore, only whether it belongs to and can be charged for by Government. Government has relied on Section 2 of Act III of 1905 in support of its ownership of the water and Section 1, Act VII of 1865, in support of its ri...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »