Chennai Court February 1916 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.
G. Sam Vs. T. Ramalinga Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1916
Reported in: (1916)30MLJ600
Srinivasa Aiyangar, J.1. This is a suit for ejectment filed in the ordinary Civil Court. Defendants plead that a Civil Court has no jurisdiction as the village of Puliyampattu in which the suit lands lie is an 'unsettled Jagir', within the meaning of Clause (c) of Sub-Section 2 of Section 3 of the Estates Land Act, and that the lands are not the 'private lands' of the landholder. The defendants are not mere trespassers. They are said to be tenants from year to year whose tenancy was put an end to, by a notice to quit which expired just before the Estates Land Act came into force. The learned pleader for the appellant scarcely contended that the suit lands were the 'private lands' of the plaintiff, if he was a land-holder. But his main contention was, that the village of Puliyampattu was only an ordinary 'inam' and not an 'unsettled Jagir'. The short question for determination is whether the village of Puliyampattu is an 'unsettled Jagir'. For the determination of the question at issue ...
Deeri Narasimhacharyulu and ors. Vs. Chalasani Subbayya (Died) and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1916
Reported in: 36Ind.Cas.270; (1916)31MLJ202
Coutts-Trotter, J.1. This was a suit brought under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code with regard to a temple of Indupallu. The learned Subordinate Judge in a very careful and to my mind extremely accurate judgment has dealt with the contention of the appellant and I cannot do better than adopt the words in paragraph 21 of his judgment where he summarises his findings. On the main issue in the case, as to whether the defendants' claim as Arehakas to proprietary right in the lands is well founded, he says this : 'The inams in question were granted for the benefit and support of the temple and constitute absolute dedications to the god as trust property. They were not granted for the limited purpose of the performance of the archaka's duties alone and the contention of the defendants is unfounded and untenable that the income should be applied only to this purpose and no other. There is no usage proved or recognisable in law, as regards the application of the income to this limited p...
Ambalavana Pandarasannadhi Through His Authorised Agent, Dakshinam Kar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1916
Reported in: AIR1916Mad507(2); 35Ind.Cas.201
1. The document, Exhibit D, is not secondary evidence of the alleged purwanah of 1741 as it does not fall under any of the Clauses of Section 63 of the Evidence Act; The Collector's report cannot fall under Clause (5), which refers to oral accounts of the contents of a document. The appellant's learned Vakil Mr. Muthiah Mudaliar relied next on Section 35 of the Evidence Act. Under that section, Exhibit D will only be evidence of the fact that what purported to be a purwanah was produced before the Collector, that the English translation put before him seemed to be a correct translation and that in his opinion, the purwanah looked genuine. But the relevant fact which has to be proved in this case is the contents of the purwanah, and an alleged translation is not secondary evidence and, therefore, not legal proof of the document.2. Next, Mr. Muthiah Mudaliar relied on Section 32, Clause (2), The statement of the Collector made in Exhibit D does not give the contents of the original purwa...
Kanniah Naidu Vs. Chengama Naidu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1916
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.981
1. The appellant obtained a transfer deed (Exhibit A) of the decree passed in Suit No. 53V of 1911 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Poonamallee from the son and heir of the decree-holder (by name Chinna Chengama Naidu) on the 23rd of August 1913 for Rs. 232-11-5. The decree was a mortgage-decree for sale.2. The appellant applied for execution on the 30th November 1912 as transferee-decree-holder under Order XXI, Rule 16, of the Code of Civil Procedure and prayed for the passing of a final decree and also for sale.3. It has to be observed that the lower Courts have not scrutinised the prayer in the petition and did not have it properly amended as they ought to have done. The petition mentions in the beginning only Order XXI, Rule 22, of the Code of Civil Procedure. In column 10, it mentions Order XXI, Rule 16, and Order XXI, Rule 66, of the Code of Civil Procedure. These rules relate to applications by the transferee of a decree for execution thereof, to the issuing of...
Mr. G. Sam, by His Agent B. Balkrishna Raja Vs. T. Ramalinga Mudaliar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1916
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.803
Srinivasa Aiyangar, J.S. A. No. 2037 of 1914.1. This is a suit for ejectment filed in the ordinary Civil Court. Defendants plead that a Civil Court has no jurisdiction, as the village of Puliyampattu in which the suit lands lie is an unsettled jagir,' within the meaning of Clause (c) of Sub-section 2 of Section 3 of the Estates Land Act, and that the lands are not the 'private lands' of the landholder. The defendants are not mere trespassers. They are said to be tenants from year to year, whose tenancy was put an end to by a notice to quit which expired just before the Estates Land Act came into force. The learned Pleader for the appellant scarcely contended that the suit lands were the 'private lands' of the plaintiff, if he was a landholder. But his main contention was that the village of Puliyampattu was only an ordinary inarm, and not an 'unsettled jagir'. The short question for determination is whether the village of Puliyampattu is an 'unsettled jagir.' For the determination of t...
Dhupati Srinivasacharlu Vs. Andoor Perindevamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1916
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.604
JUDGMENT 1. This is an appeal by the 1st defendant against certain specified findings of the lower Court against him in an administration suit brought by the widow of a Brahmin Vakil named Venkatacharlu, who appointed him as trustee under his Will. Four questions were originally raised before us, but with regard to the last of them which raised the question of the validity of a certain gift under the Will to a charity, it is quite clear that this defendant as trustee or executor has no interest. The trustee of the charity in the Court below suffered judgment to go against him and he has not appealed to this Court; and this defendant as executor or trustee can have no possible interest in the matter. 2. There are three other matters we have to consider. The first is the most important, regarding the sum of Rs. 2,000 which perished in Arbuthnot and Co.'s bankruptcy. The case for the plaintiff is that it was money which was deposited there at the time of the insolvency by the doing of the...
Nochat Kizhakke Madathil Venkateswara Aiyar Vs. Kalloor Illath Raman N ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1916
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.696
Coutts Trotter, J.1. The facts out of which these appeals arise are as follows: In 1887 Nanu Pattar obtained a money-decree in the Subordinate Judge's Court of Tellicherry against Thekkedath Nair and his tarwad. Nanu Pattar died and his elder son Ananthanarayana Iyer executed the decree by bringing to sale some of the properties belonging to Thekkedath Nair's tarwad, and at the sale Ananthanarayana Iyer himself bought these properties. Shortly afterwards, Thekkedath Nair presented a petition to have the sale set aside, alleging various irregularities leading up to it. In the result a compromise was effected, the petition was withdrawn and the sale of most of the lands was confirmed on terms which the parties reduced to writing in a registered karar, dated the 4th July 1901. By that document, while the sale to Ananthanarayana Iyer was confirmed, it was agreed that within ten years Thekkedath Nair, on payment of the price of the lands or of any part of them, should be entitled to have th...
Seshachala Chetty and ors. Vs. Para Chinnasami and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1916
Reported in: (1917)32MLJ1
John Wallis, C.J.1. The question referred to us is, whether in a mirasi village the mirasidar is entitled to recover possession of a house site held under a patta from Government; and, to show what it involves, it may be well to state at once the circumstances in which it arises in the case under appeal. On the 16th' November 1894 Mr. George Stuart Forbes, Acting Collector of Chingleput, passed orders on certain petitions praying for an extension of the cheri nattam, or part of the village site reserved for pariahs, in the village of Mannur in the Saidapet Taluk not far from Madras. He began by observing that out of the whole Survey No. 14A of 23 acres which was classed as village site, 97 cents, or nearly one acre, identical with Survey No 45 in the paimash or old survey, was shown in the paimash account as 'Cherial Pizhakkadai' or reserved for pariahs. There had, he went on to say, been no erection on this site by any mirasidar since the date of the paimash (apparently about 1845) an...
Gopisetti Narayanaswamy Naidu Garu, Receiver, Nidadavole and Medur Est ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1916
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.774
1. The learned Subordinate Judge, while admitting that Section 144 cannot help the plaintiff: (1st respondent) as the order of attachment and sale of plaint properties in execution in the former suit was never varied or reversed, has nevertheless allowed the suit to be treated as an application for restitution and he invokes Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code in his support. We do not think that Section 151 can enlarge the scope of Section 144 or can convert an application for a relief which has nothing to do with restitution into, an application for restitution.2. Mr. V. Ramesam, however, for the respondent, argues that the suit can be converted into an application under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code. No doubt it can be, if the application under Section 47 would not be barred by limitation on the date of the suit. The lower Courts have held that it would be so barred, but Mr. Ramesam contends that their view is erroneous.3. The respondent was added on the record as judgm...
Kolla Gangama Naidu and anr. Vs. the Secretary of State for India in C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1916
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.665
Coutts Trotter, J 1. In this case the print was argued at length that the eviction was bad and therefore, was not a proceeding under the Act, because it was carried out by the Tahsildar instead of the Collector. Mr. Krishnaawami Aiyangar at the end of the case pointed out that when the facts were looked in to, the eviction was clearly carried out under the written order of the Collector and the whole substructure on which this argument was founded fell to the ground.2. A further point was taken that as the suit was for the recovery of real property, it was not a proceeding under the Act but was a proceeding under the general law, and reliance was placed upon two decisions of this Court on a section of another Act, which was said to be so analogous in its language as to give guidance in determining the meaning of this section in this Act. The section in question was the old Section 156 of the Madras Local Boards Act of 1884. One of the cases is President of the Tuluq Board, Sivaganga v....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »