Chennai Court February 1916 Judgments
Suppu Nayakan Vs. Perumal Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1916
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.372; (1916)30MLJ486
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The appellant was the plaintiff in Original Suit No. 178 of 1911 on the file of the District Munsif's Court of Dindigal. The only defendant in the suit died in March 1912. On the 15th April 1912, the plaintiff applied to bring in the defendant's son Perumal Chetty on the record as the defendant's legal representative. He failed to mention the Order and rule of the Civil Procedure Code, under which the application was filed. On the 23rd April 1912 the Court returned the application to him for amendment giving him three days' time to take it back, amend and re-present it. The District Court transferred the suit about the end of April 1912 to the District Munsif's Court of Melur for disposal. The records were sent away from the District Munsif's Court of Dindigal accordingly to the District Munsif's Court of Melur but retaining the above application (which was not taken back by the plaintiff for amendment and re-presented). The other records were sent away from the Di...
Tag this Judgment!Nidamarthi Krishnamoorthy and anr. Vs. Garigiparti Ganapatilingam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1916
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.741
1. The application for adjournment, in which the Court was asked to send the records to the arbitrator to whom the parties had already referred the matter in dispute in the pending suit, seems to have been treated by all parties as an application to the Court itself to also make a reference to the said arbitrator under Schedule II, paragraph 1, of Section 1. The Court acted upon that application on that footing, and we think the appellant is estopped from contending that the application was not of such a character.2. Further, we think we are bound by the interpretation put upon the Privy Council decision in Ghulam Khan v. Muhammad Hassan 6 C.W.N. 226 by the Full Bench of this Court in Tallapragada Suryanaraina Row v. Tallapragada Sarabaya 9 Ind. Cas. 173 : (1911) 1 M.W.N. 1513. The Letters Patent Appeals Nos. 325 and 326 of 1914 are dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!i. Balu Mudali and ors. Vs. V. Durvasalu Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1916
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.570
Srinivasa Aiyangar, J.1. Mr. Govindaraghava Aiyar wanted to raise a contention that ordinary Civil Courts have no jurisdiction, as the suit village was an ' Estate ' as defined by the Estates Land Act. I declined to hear him on the point, as it was not taken in the lower Court. The village is an inam village settled by the Inam Commissioner. If this point had been raised in the lower Court, evidence may have been forthcoming to prove the nature of the grant and to prove that the grantee was the owner of the kudivaram at the time of the grant. Mr. Govindaraghava Aiyar contends that the documents filed in the case establish that the inam was only of the land revenue and that the grantee was not the owner of the kudivaram, but seeing that the plaintiff in any event will have to be given an opportunity of adducing evidence on these points, I did not think it right to allow the petitioner to raise it here in revision. After all it cannot affect the liability of the defendants if they are li...
Tag this Judgment!Morgan and Son Vs. N.P. Fernandez
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1916
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.439; (1916)30MLJ519
Napier, J.1. The question raised in this second appeal is whether the four letters A, B, C and D, or alternatively, the two letters A and B require registration under Sections 17 and 49 of the Registration Act, Section 17, Sub-Section (1) requires that 'the following documents shall be registered,' namely, among them Clause (a) 'bases of immovable property from year to year, or for any term exceeding one year, or reserving a yearly rent. 'Under the definition Section Sub-Section 7' 'lease' includes an agreement to lease.' There is a proviso to Section 17, Sub-section 2 which excepts some documents which would otherwise come under Clauses (b) and (c) and also distinguishes certain classes of documents which might otherwise have been thought to fall under either of those two classes. One of these clauses is (5) 'any document not itself creating etc. any right, title, etc. but merely creating a right to obtain another document which will when executed create such right, etc.' It has been ...
Tag this Judgment!Pandillapalli Singa Reddi Vs. Yeddula Subba Reddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1916
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.185; (1916)31MLJ48
Sadasiva Iyer, J.1. We agree with the conclusions of Sadasiva Aiyar, J. in the order of reference.2. The question is whether the second suit can be regarded as brought in respect of the same subject-matter as the first suit within the meaning of Order 23, Rule 1(3) of the Civil Procedure Code. The terms 'subject matter' and 'the same matter' which occurred in the corresponding Section 373 of the old Code have not been defined, and must, we think, be construed strictly in a penal provision of this character. Without attempting an exhaustive definition of all that may be included in the term 'subject matter' we are of opinion that where, as in the present case, the cause of action and the relief claimed in the, second suit are not the same as the cause of action and the relief claimed in the first suit, the second suit cannot be considered to have been brought in respect of the same subject matter as the first suit. This was expressly decided in Gopal Chandra Banerji v. Purna Chandra Ban...
Tag this Judgment!Raman Menon Vs. Mammali
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1916
Reported in: 39Ind.Cas.954
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant in this second appeal. He brought the suit in ejectment on the basis of an unregistered kaichit, dated October 1894, alleged to have been executed by the deceased Pakru whose representatives are the defendants Nos. 1 to 6, Both the lower Courts found that this unregistered kaichit was not a genuine document The plaintiff based his claim also upon his title. When he so based his claim on title, he ought to have stated in his plaint when he was dispossessed by the defendants, so that the Court might be satisfied that the suit on title is not barred by limitation, that is, that he had not been dispossessed more than twelve years before suit. He did not give any indications in his plaint on these points, evidently because the plaint was substantially based on the alleged kaiehit of 1894. When the case came up on second appeal before this Court, it remanded the suit for a finding by the lower Appellate Court on the issue whether the posses...
Tag this Judgment!Moothetuth Kanari Vs. Hari Shenoy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-1916
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.428
Coutts Trotter, J.1. In this case the suit was brought for partition, the plaintiff being a person who had bought the 2nd defendant's share in some property at a Court-sale in ]905. The 2nd defendant is stated in the plaint in terms to have been insane at the date of those proceedings, and it is found by the learned Judge on the evidence that he was insane at the time of the sale in 1905. It is argued, therefore, on behalf of the defendants that, that being so, the Court-sale in 1905 was a nullity and passed no property to the purchaser. For the purchaser it is argued that it is at the most voidable and can only be set aside in proceedings specially instituted for that purpose and if not set aside by proceedings under Section 311 of the old Code, corresponding to Order XXI, Rule 90, of the new Code, it cannot be set aside by a side wind by way of defence to a separate suit. When the sale took place, the old Code was in force. By Section 463 of that Code it was enacted: The provisions c...
Tag this Judgment!Gundan Alias Chenroyan Vs. Kamakha Rama Chetti and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-1916
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.660
1. The petitioner ought to have followed the course which the plaintiffs in the case reported as Chandramathi Ammal v. Narayannsami Iyer 5 Ind. Cas. 23 followed under similar circumstances.2. In that case, when the District Munsif dealt with the suit under Section 158, old Civil Procedure Code (corresponding to Order XVII, Rule 3, of the new Code), instead of under Section 157, the plaintiffs appealed against the decree passed by the Munsif and preferred a second appeal to the High Court and then the High Court set aside the decree which the Munsif, applying Section 158, Civil Procedure Code, had passed and themselves passed the order which the District Munsif ought to have passed, namely, the dismissal of the suit for default under Section 157 of the Civil Procedure Code, and then set aside that dismissal on the materials before them.3. The petitioner ought, therefore, to have appealed against the Munsif's wrong decree purporting to have been passed on the merits under Order XVII, Rul...
Tag this Judgment!Vengu Naidu and ors. Vs. the Deputy Collector of Madura Division
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1916
Reported in: 45Ind.Cas.468
Phillips, J.1. This is an application to consolidate the several appeals from awards passed by the District Judge of Madura on reference made to him by the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 18 of Act I of 1894. Several references appear to have been made to the District Judge, but they were all in connection with land taken up for the extension of Madura town, except one with which we are not now concerned. The District Judge treated all the references as 47 separate petitions and passed a separate award on each of these, although they were all tried together and were disposed of in one judgment. It is not quite clear whether the Land Acquisition Officer divided up the references in this way, either of his own initiative or at the request of the District Judge, or whether it was done by the District Judge himself.2. The first question argued is whether this Court has power to consolidate appeals. No express power to do so is conferred by the Legislature, but such power has been he...
Tag this Judgment!The Secretary of State for India in Council Vs. Pemmaraju Venkayya Gar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1916
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.254; (1916)30MLJ575
Coutts Trotter, J.1. This is an appeal by the Secretary of State for India in Council against a judgment of the District Judge of Godavori awarding to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 14,000, by way. of damages. The facts of the case are comparatively simple, though the questions for determination are complex and difficult. The plaintiff in March 1896 acquired from the Collector of the Godaveri District, acting as agent for the Government, a patta, a lease of a piece of land called the Sidhantam Lanka at an annual kist of Es. 6010 for a period of five years. These Lankas are islands formed in the bed of (ihe river Godaveri by the silting up of solid matters brought down by its waters. They are extremely fertile and valuable for the purpose of cultivation, but their configuration and consequently their size is constantly varying owing to the action of the river; and it is often extremely difficult (o delineate the exact boundaries of a particular lanka at any given time. The patta purported t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »