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.
Anantha Des Kachariar and ors. Vs. Viswanadha Mudaly and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad442; 30Ind.Cas.989
1. The Subordinate Judge has found that the plaintiffs dug the channel in the bed of the Palar river, that with the permission of the Government they have been taking water to the Pundi tank along a channel which mostly run through Government poramboke lands and which during the remainder of its course passed through channel poramboke lands. He has also founded that up to 1862, the plaintiffs took both spring and fresh water to their tank through this channel but that after 1862 and till 1892, they have not been shown to have removed the silt so as to enable spring water to pass through it. The defendants' case is that the Government made a grant of the right to take water through this channel to their fields as the plaintiffs did not require it any longer. The Subordinate Judge has found against this case. Apart from the fact that Exhibits III and IV purport to be grants to certain individuals only of the right in question, there is Exhibit G which shows that these grants were not act...
Muri Ga Chetty and ors. Vs. Rajaswamy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad130; 30Ind.Cas.669
Ayling, J.1. The preliminary objection is raised that in consequence of appellants' failure to apply within six months of the death of the original 2nd defendant (which took place on 11th June 1911) to bring his legal representative on record, the appeal must be held to have abated as regards that party.2. An application to set aside the abatement was made on 16th December 1912 and on this an order as prayed for was passed ex parte by Benson and Sundara Aiyar, JJ., on 6th February 1913.3. Mr. Seshagiri Aiyar argues that this order being passed ex parte is not conclusive; and that he is entitled to ask us to re-consider the matter of the abatement in the light of the further affidavits since filed.4. In my opinion this contention cannot be accepted and the order, dated 6th February 1913, is final subject only to review. Order XXII, Rule 9 (2), Civil Procedure Code, does not require the issue of notice: and it cannot be said that on this account the order of a competent Bench of two Judg...
Muthuswami Nadan and anr. Vs. A.A.K. Sankaralingam Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad235; 30Ind.Cas.675
1. The only question for decision in this appeal is, whether the acknowledgment of liability by the 1st defendant on 27th May 1909 is binding on the 2nd defendant. The original liability was admittedly incurred on account of a partnership between the 1st and the 2nd defendants; but this partnership had ceased in 1906. It has been held in two cases in this Court, Valasubramania Pillai v. Ramanathan Chettiar 2 Ind. Cas. 309 : and Sheik Mohideen Sahib v. Official Assignee of Madras 11 Ind. Cas. 332(1911) 1 M.W.N. 347 that a part-payment or acknowledgment by one partner of a going concern will not bind another partner (so as to save limitation) in the absence of evidence of authorisation. Mere proof of the partnership would not be sufficient. In a more recent case, K.B.V. Firm v. Sathayavada Sitharama Swami 21 Ind. Cas. 634 Wallis, J., expresses doubts of the correctness of these rulings, and appears to hold that authorisation might be presumed from the ordinary course of partnership busin...
Muthan Alias Muthukrishna Mudali Vs. Puniakoti Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad1079; 31Ind.Cas.18
1. The aspect of the case presented to us on appellant's behalf is that dealt with by the District Judge in paragraph No. 4 of his judgment. He finds that the Manthangal lands were the self-acquisitions of Rajagopala Mudali (brother of the 1st defendant) and that the other suit lands were acquired by Rajagopala Mudali and the 1st defendant out of the profits of their contracts after their father's death without the aid of ancestral or joint family funds. This finding cannot be questioned in second appeal, but the appellant's Vakil argues that the District Judge is wrong in assuming that the lands thus acquired are not part of the joint family estate.2. Bhashyam Ayyangar, J, in Sudarsanam Maistri v. Narasimhulu Maistri 11 M.L.J. 353 says: 'But, if, as supposed, the property was acquired by all the members of the undivided family by their joint labour, it would, in the absence of any indication of intention to the contrary, be owned by them as joint family property and in that case, thei...
Samu Pathan Vs. Chidambara Odayan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad480; 31Ind.Cas.179
Srinivasa Aiyangar, J.1. The plaintiff obtained an assignment of a mortgage debt from the defendant and sued the mortgagor for the mortgage amount. That suit was dismissed on the ground that the mortgagor had no title to the mortgaged properties. Why the plaintiff did not obtain a personal decree against the mortgagor is not explained. The plaintiff brought the present action in the Small Cause side of the Sub-Court, Mayavaram, to recover damages for an alleged breach of a covenant for title. The 1st Court dismissed the suit and this application is to revise the decree of the first Court. Plaintiff contends that the mortgage is an interest in immoveable property, that the transfer was a sale of immoveable property and by virtue of Section 55 of the Transfer of Property Act, the defendant should be deemed to have contracted that the interest which he professed to transfer subsisted.2. A charge on land is undoubtedly an interest in immoveable property, and I will assume, though there is ...
Narayanaswamy Aiyar Vs. D. Venkataramana Aiyar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-1915
Reported in: (1916)ILR39Mad239; 31Ind.Cas.326
John Wallis, C.J. 1. I do not think that the fact the proceedings for the recovery of rent by distraint and sale of moveable property which have given rise to this suit, were taken by a land-owner under ryotwari settlement pursuant to Section 134 of the Madras Estates Land Act, or the fact that the present suit was instituted in respect of proceedings so taken not by a tenant of such land-owner but by a sub-tenant makes any difference, because in my opinion the effect of Section 134 is to enable such a land-owner though not governed by the general provisions of the Act to avail himself of the summary remedy thereby provided for the recovery of rent, and the effect of Section 213 Sub-section (1) is to give 'any person deeming himself aggrieved by any proceedings taken under the colour of this Act' a right to sue for damages before the Collector, words which are sufficient to give the Collector jurisdiction in a suit of this nature if filed before him,2. The question is as to whether sui...
Dhupati Srinvasacharlu Vs. A. Perindevamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1915
Reported in: (1916)30MLJ402
1. The decision in Samiya Mavali v. Minammal I.L.R. (1899) M. 96 has been consistently acted on and is in accordance with the decision in Delroos Banoo Begum v. Naioab Syud Ashgur Ally Khan (1879) 15 B.L.R. 173 and Bunwari Lal v. Day a Sunker Misser 13 C.W.N. 815.2. We are not prepared to differ from it, and are of opinion accordingly that the appellant is bound by the valuation in the plaint....
Padma Krishna Chettiar Alias Krishna Iyer Vs. Nagamani Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad677; (1916)ILR39Mad915
Seshagiri Ayyar, J.1. The finding in this case is that the mother of the defendant as his guardian borrowed from the plaintiff the amount sued on, and that it was spent for purposes binding on him, The question of law argued very strenuously by Mr. Bhashyam Ayyangar is that as the promissory note executed by the mother was not signed by her as guardian, she alone is liable on the note and that the decree against the defendant is wrong. He relies on the language of Section 28 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and contends that the principle which renders the agent personally liable on a contrast entered into on behalf of the principal applies to the case of guardians also. The short answer to this contention is that, a3 the Act contains no provision relating to notes signed by guardians whereas it specifically legislates for the case of agents in Section 28 and for legal representatives in Section 30, Courts should not by analogy extend these provisions to a deliberately unprovided case...
Mailthi Hengsu and anr. Vs. Soma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad670(2); 30Ind.Cas.484
1. It is first contended that the landlord can compel the tenant to surrender the land on the strength of the following clause in the lease-deed (Exhibit A): 'if, while without alienating the land in any manner I am enjoying the said land through posterity, I find that I do not require the said land, I shall relinquish the land to you and obtain from you the value of the improvements which I have made thereon'.2. In our opinion this clause does not work a forfeiture, but is rather intended to secure for the tenant a right to relinquish his holding at his option. In fact the case in which the tenant alienates the land is in terms excluded from the conditions upon which he is allowed to relinquish it. The landlord, therefore, cannot rely on the fact that the land has been alienated as indicating a desire to relinquish, and thus work the clause to the tenants disadvantage when forfeiture does not follow from the act of alienation. We do not see any material distinction between this case a...
N.R. Venkatachalam Chetty Vs. the Chairman, Municipal Council
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1915
Reported in: 30Ind.Cas.450a
ORDER1. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate says he ordered the transfer for the ends of justice but he has recorded no reasons, and as the District Magistrate has made this reference, we presume we are right in inferring that he does not agree with the Sub-Divisional Magistrate as to the expediency of the order. It would have been better if he had expressed his opinion clearly on this point.2. As, however, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate's order of transfer is, on the face of it, in conflict with Section 528(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, we hereby set it aside....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »