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.
Biridugadda Venkadu Vs. Receiver of Nidadavole and Medur Estates
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad706(1); 30Ind.Cas.832a
1. The point taken in this case is that as the appeal was out of time and thrown out by the Judge without trial, it was not competent for him to proceed to try the memorandum of cross-objections. It is quite unnecessary to decide that general question in this case, because what happened in this case was that in error the Court admitted the appeal as having been presented in time, and notice was given of it to the respondent and he filed the memorandum of cross-objections within thirty days of the service of the notice upon him. It was subsequently found out that this was a mistake; having been made, the respondent was entitled to take advantage of it, and he took it. Therefore his memorandum which was filed within the time laid down by the Code of Civil Procedure must be heard. The appeal fails and must be dismissed with costs....
Annamalai Chetty and anr. Vs. Poosari Suppia thevan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad584(2); 31Ind.Cas.279
Tyabji, J.1. An application is made to me to allow time to have the plaint translated and printed. I refuse the application. On the merit's the first point taken before me is that the District Munsif 'ought not to have considered the Commissioner's report to be unsatisfactory. I think the District Munsif was entitled to prefer the 'defendant's evidence to the report of the Commissioner. I have, however looked at the Commissioner's report, which is printed by Mr. Rajah Aiyar and the evidence, given by the Commissioner in Court was read to me. The District Munsif was, in ray opinion, justified in taking the view he did. It was next argued before me that the defendant ought to have been ordered to give some damages, because he was in use and occupation of the land. The answer to it is that the suit may be considered in two ways, (1) as based on a breach of the contract to cultivate the Land and (2) as for fair compensation for use and occuption of land.2. As to the first aspect of the cas...
Sree Rajah Vatsavaya Venkata Simhadri Jagapatiraju Bahadur Garu and an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad980; 31Ind.Cas.255
Srinivasa Aiyangar, J.1. Two points are raised in this appeal, first as to the liability of the 6th defendant, second as to the amount recoverable from the 1st defendant, the registered holder.2. So far as the 6th defendant is concerned, it is clear that the plaintiff cannot recover anything personally from him as he was under no personal obligation to pay the proportionate revenue to the Government. It is now settled that the only person who is personally bound to pay the reveune to Government is the registered holder, who is called the defaulter in the Revenue Recovery Act, and that co-owners or co-sharers who are not also registered holders, are not under any such obligation, though the Government revenue may be a charge on the lands in their holding. Subramania Chetty v. Mahalingaswami Sivan 3 Ind. Cas. 624 : 19 M.L.J. 627 : 6 M.L.T. 198. Payment of the revenue by the plaintiff could not give him a larger or higher right, than what the Government had. See Ghose on Mortgages, page 3...
The Public Prosecutor Vs. Ramarazu Venkatappayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad1037(2); 30Ind.Cas.749
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. Exhibit F even according to the defence is forged document, as the defence was that the date '2nd October 1910' was dishonestly altered into 22nd October 1910 through the machinations of the prosecution 9th witness, in whose house the 1st accused alleges that he had left it for safe custody.2. That Exhibit F was used by the 1st accused (respondent in this appeal) in the suit brought by him on it is clear. Unless the date '22nd October 1910' could be established for the pro-note, his suit brought on 22nd October 1913 would be barred.3. It is impossible to believe hi statement that he did not know of the alteration when he gave in to his Vakil (P.W. No. 2) to file a suit on the 21st October 1913. The learned Sessions Judge rightly disbelived the defence story that prosecution 9th witness altered the date in collusion with prosecution 1st witness without the 1st accused's knowledge.4. Though there may be no proof that Exhibit F was not exeuted by the deceased Pentared...
Chellappaswamy Vs. K.P. Singaravelu Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad1015(2); 30Ind.Cas.721
ORDER1. There is a provision in Section of the Copyright ct of 1847, that a certified copy of the entry in the Copyright Register Book is prima facie evidence of the proprietorship of the person mentioned therein, to the copyright of the book in question. Such prima facie proof cannot be said to have been rebutted by anything in the complainant's statements before the Magistrate. That provision has no doubt, been repealed by the new Act of 1914 and though the new Act grants, by Section 24, Clause (a), of the first Schedule to the owners of existing copyrights, rights at least as valuable as the rights given under the repealed Act, the rule of evidence is not reproduced in the new Act.2. Assuming, therefore, that the complainant ought to prove his case, Section 114 of the Evidence Act can be invoked in his favour Further, his statements before the Magistrate do not show that he claimed to be the joint author of the work as stated by the Magistrate.3. The further statement attributed to ...
Nallaya Koundar Vs. P.N. Sadaya Koundar Alias Appavu Koutndar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad1142(1); 32Ind.Cas.809
1. This is a suit under Section 38 of the Madras Estates Land Act by a tenant for reduction of rent on the ground that there has been a permanent failure of supply of water from the irrigation works on which the land was dependent. The plaintiff had been in occupation of various plots of these lands for periods going back as far as 25 years in the case of some plots. He bought all these lands in their present condition and he has never known them to be irrigated by any tank at all. The other evidence in the case shows that the tank has not been known to irrigate these lands, certainly for 40 years back, which probably means within living memory. During the whole of this period, the rent, now sought to be reduced has been paid without demur. There is no evidence that there has been any failure of water supply from the tank during the period at which the present rates of rent were being paid. Whatever construction is put upon the section as to the period of limitation within which the fa...
A. Subbanna and ors. Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council T ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad981(1); 31Ind.Cas.267
1. The main relief asked for in the plaint was a declaration that the plaintiff was entitled to hold the land free of assessment. The other relief which was to recover the assessment collected by the Government for one year, was merely consequential upon the establishment of the right asserted by the plaintiff. It is argued that the suit was in effect one to establish a periodically recurring right for which the limitation period is 12 years under Article 131, Limitation Act.2. But it is clear that the plaintiff is not entitled to obtain such a declaration without getting the Collector's order resuming the dasabandam inim set aside, see Parbati Nath Dutt v. Rajmohun Dutt 6 C.W.N. 92 and Raghunath Prasad v. Kaniz Rasul 24 A.a 467 : (1902) A.W.N. 116 and for this purpose he was under Article 14 of the Limitation Act bound to bring his suit within one year of the passing of that order. The present suit having been filed in (sic) twelve years after the order is clearly time-barred. We are ...
Sree Raja Sobhanadri Appa Row Bahadur Zamindar Garu Vs. Govindaraju Se ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad706(2); 31Ind.Cas.305
1. We are of opinion that when a decree-holder purchases property in execution of an ex parte decree which is set aside, the sale becomes ipso facto void. Set Umedmal v. Srinath Ray 27 C.W.N. 692. The decree-holder was the party having the conduct of the suit, and it is difficult to see what equities can arise in his favour in cases where he obtains an ex-parte decree which is set aside on the ground that the defendants were not served. Cases where strangers have purchased in execution are distinguishable, as also where the purchaser is a defendant. It is unnecessary to consider whether in cases of purchase by defendant, the sale is voidable or absolutely void. In the view we take, the decision of the lower Appellate Court is right. We dismiss this second appeal with costs....
Kalianji Singji Bhai, Sole Partner of the Firm of Raysee Amerchund Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1915
Reported in: 31Ind.Cas.583
1. The appellant is the sole partner of the firm of Rayasi Amerchand carrying on a money-lending business at Calicut with a head office at Bombay. On December 3rd, 1912, the agent of the Bank of Madras, the respondent in the case, presented a petition to the District Judge to adjudicate the appellant insolvent and to appoint an ad interim Receiver. On December 6th a notice signed by the sheristadar of the District Court (by order) went to the local agent to inform him that a petition to declare the appellant insolvent was posted for January 21st and that he might appear and show cause against it. The agent, Visram Sait, refused to receive the notice on the ground that his master should be made a party, and it was served on him by affixture. On December 7th a notice of the hearing together with a copy of the petition was sent by the respondent's Pleader through registered post to the appellant at Mandavi in Cutch, where he was thought to be residing, but it was returned to the sender as...
Manavikraman Alias Manjeri Karnamulpad Vs. Nilambur Thacharakavil Mana ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad928(2); 31Ind.Cas.579
1. This appeal arises out of a suit to recover an elephant. The elephant fell into a pit dug on a hill referred to in the plaint as Choriappara hill and by the defendants as (1) Thonimannu Thekke mala or (2) Ottathannippattu or (3), Perumpattur Thekka mala. Each party claims ownership of the land in which the pit was dug as well as to have dug the pit. The main issue, therefore, depends upon the questions whether (1) the land belonged to the plaintiff or (2) to the defendant and (3) whether the pit was dug by the one party or the other. The first Court held that the plaintiff had proved his title to the land as well as that the pit had been dug by him and granted a decree in his favour. The learned District Judge held that the plaintiff had not established his title to the land and on this finding alone dismissed the plaintiff's claim. It is admitted by the learned Pleader for the respondent that the Appellate Court's finding is insufficient to dispose of the case. It is argued, howeve...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »