Chennai Court September 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.
In Re: Uppala Kotayya Nagaram
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-03-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad683(1); 30Ind.Cas.656
ORDERAyling, J.1. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate remarks that accused was 'not a pariah, but a govandla ryot owning some lands to whom imprisonment in stocks is a great disgrace;' and on this account has reduced the sentence. He does not appear, however, to have considered whether in view of these circumstances accused was liable to the punishment of confinement in the stocks. If on this ground the sentence of confinement in the stocks was illegal, accused cannot be convicted of an offence under Section 224, Indian Penal Code, in escaping from it.2. The order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate is set aside: and he is directed to restore the appeal to file and dispose of it according to law in the light of the above remarks and of the decision in Queen v. Nabi Saheb 6 M.K 247 : 1 Weir 927....
Thayoth Puthia Purayil Seethi Vs. Mangottil Ryrath Ummayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-03-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad714; 30Ind.Cas.977
1. The parties, are Moplahs, and neither side pat forward any special plea as to the applicability, to the family they belong to of Marumakkattayam Law or any system other than the Muhammadan. The construction of the stridhanam deed, Exhibit A, will, however, unless it is governed by special custom, depend on which of these systems should be applied.2. The District Munsif, without stating clearly whether he eventually proceeded on Muhammadan or Marumakkattayam Law or special custom, evidently considered that no ordinarily prevalent law would suffice for the decision of the case. For he referred to his ignorance of the incidents of such a transaction, the absence of authority and the evidence as to those incidents. The lower Appellate Court appears to have held that that evidence, so far as it was in the defendants' favour, was counterbalanced by the effect of the decision in Packrichi v. Kunhacha 13 Ind. Cas 236: (1911) 2 M.W.N. 538. In doing so it assumed what is not clear, that the d...
Yelampati Kannayya Vs. Yelampathi Ramanna
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-03-1915
Reported in: 31Ind.Cas.21
Spencer, J.1. This suit was brought to establish the plaintiff's title to the land, which he got by virtue of a decree passed in a prior suit brought for specific performance of a contract to sell.2. Defendants Nos. 3 and 4, who are appellants in this second appeal, allege that they are not bound by the decree in Original Suit No. 51 of 1907, on the ground that it was a decree upon a compromise to which they were not parties. This appeal has been argued to a great length on the assumption that it was a decree passed with the consent of parties to which Section 96(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure would apply. But it appears that what happened was that the 1st defendant made a statement on oath in the presence of the Pleader for defendants Nos. 1 to 4 that he and defendants Nos. 2 to 4 had agreed to execute a sale-deed in favour of the plaintiff according to the prayer in the suit. The plaintiff also made a statement on oath confirming this. The Court thereupon directed a decree to be m...
C.A. Easwara Aiyar Vs. K. Govindarajulu Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-03-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad734(2); 31Ind.Cas.192
Napier, J.1. This is a reference under Section 69 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act--Act XV of 1882. It is much to be regretted that the Judges of that Court did not adhere more closely to the directions of the section in making their reference. They do not state clearly the points on which there is a difference of opinion. They practically refer the whole case to this Court saying that they are not agreed on the question, whether 'under the circumstances of the cane, the bond should be enforced against the surety, the defendant.' In my opinion this is not a proper reference, and were it not that one of the Judge of that Court has row retired. I would, speaking for myself, reference for re-submission in strict accordance shall, during the pendency of the insolvency proceedings, have any remedy against the property of the insolvent, or commence any suit or other legal proceeding except with the leave of the Court, and on such terms as the Court may impose. It is argued before us ...
Sundaram Ayyar and Three ors. (Sons and Legal Representatives of the D ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-01-1915
Reported in: (1916)ILR39Mad1018
Spencer, J.1. The question which we have to decide is whether landholder in Madras who has ceased to be a landholder can recover rent for the years when he was a landholder by bringing the ryot's holding to sale under the provisions of chapter VI of Madras Act I of 1908. For Bengal it has been decided by the Privy Council with reference to the Bengal Tenancy Act that he cannot: vide Forbes v. Maharaj Bahadur Singh I.L.R. (1914) Calc. 926. The Madras Estates Land Act is modelled on the Bengal Tenancy Act. Therefore the above decision must have great weight with us so far as it is based on provisions which have been repeated in the Madras Act. There are, however several distinctions between the two Acts. In Bengal a landlord must bring a suit and obtain a decree before he can bring to sale the tenant's holding. In Madras he can proceed summarily to attach the holding by notice to the defaulter served through the Collector provided that he has exchanged a patta and muchilika with the ryot...
In Re: A.L.A.R.R.M. Arunachalam Chettiar, Zamindar of Devakottah Throu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-01-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad440; 30Ind.Cas.679
1. Two questions are common to most of these second appeals and they are:(1) Whether the zemindar (appellant) is entitled to charge 12 fanams per kurukkam on dry lands as rent or only to 10 fanams?(2) Whether he is entitled to levy rent on the dry area left waste without the tenant's negligence?2. The first question has been decided as a question of fact by the District Judge and we can see no grounds for interference on second appeal with that finding, which has been based on a consideration of the whole evidence.3. On the second question the appellant's learned Vakil (Mr. A. Krishnaswamy Aiyar) relied on Section 4 of the Estates Land Act for his contention that neither custom nor contract could deprive the zemindar of his right to charge rent on the area left uncultivated. Butthe case reported as Segu Rowthen v. Alagappa Chetty 22 Ind. Cas. 83and the decisions in Second Appeals Nos. 1244 and 1245 of 1913 of this Court have held that agreements and customs entitling the tenants to cla...
Sundaram Iyer and ors. Vs. Kulathu Aiyer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-01-1915
Reported in: 31Ind.Cas.81
Spencer, J.1. The question which we have to decide is, whether a landholder in Madras who has ceased to be a landholder can recover rent for the years when he was a landholder by bringing the ryot's holding to sale under the provisions of Chapter VI of Madras Act I of 1908. For Bengal it has been decided by the Privy Council with reference to the Bengal Tenancy Act that he cannot Vide Arthur Henry Forbes v. Maharaj Bahadur Singh 18 C.W.N. 747 : (1914)M.W.N. 397 : 15 M.L.T. 380 : 27 M.L.J. 4. The Madras Estates Land Act is modelled on the Bengal Tenancy Act. Therefore, the above decision must have great weight with us so far as it is based on provisions which have been repeated in the Madras Act. There are, however, several distinctions between the two Acts. In Bengal a landlord mast bring a suit and obtain a decree before he can bring to sale the tenant's holding. In Madras he can proceed summarily to attach the holding by notice to the defaulter served through the Collector, provided ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›