Chennai Court April 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.
President of the District Board Vs. Kannuswami Thondaman,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-1916
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.121
Oldfield, J.1. The plaintiff-appellant, a landholder, sued in the Civil Court to recover possession of land, on which the three defendants-respondents were alleged to have trespassed, The question is whether the lower Courts were right Mi. holding that the suit should have been brought in a Revenue Court on the ground that defendants were non-occupancy tenants of old waste, the Court of first instance applying Section 153, and the lower Appellate Court Section 157, Estates Land Act.2. The facts are that defendants first cultivated their respective portions of the land without permission in Faslis 1315, 1317, 1318 respectively. They, however applied for pattas in Exhibit E in Fasli 1318 and Exhibit E2, E3 in Fasli 1320, and payments were accepted from them: but no pattas were given them, the lower Appellate Court's reference to Exhibit D series as relating to the suit land being mistaken. In Fasli 1321 plaintiff decided to reserve the land for forest and directed the filing of the prese...
Rangaswamy Bhattar Vs. K. Seshadri Aiyengar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-1916
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.204
Oldfield, J.1. The learned Judge held that plaintiff, a hereditary archaka, who sued in respect of the punishment inflicted on him by the trustees of his temple, was bound to prove against them that the preliminary enquiry they held was inadequate.2. The question of burden of proof as to the legitimacy of the procedure atsuch an enquiry, as opposed to the correctness of the decision on the merits, has not, so far as we have been shown, been the subject of any decision. But in Seshadri Ayyangar v. Nataraja Ayyar 21 M.P 179 and in Thiruvambala Desikar v. Chinna Pandaram 34 Ind. Cas. 57 : 30 M.L.J. 274 : (1916) 2 M.W.N. 43 the language used implies that the burden of proof of the giving of notice of the enquiry is on the authority holding it. The latter case is important, because it negatives the general application of the presumption1 in favour of the bona fides of the acts of a legally constituted authority drawn in Hayman v. Governors of Rugby School (1874) 18 Eq. 28 : 43 L.J. Ch. 834 ...
Marudanayakam Pillai Vs. Syed Mohammad Rowthen and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-1916
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.329
Seshagiri Aiyar, J.1. In this case I cannot, help saying that the attempt of the first class Magistrate to take a short cut has resulted in an unnecessary prolongation of the proceedings. The chief complaint is that the witnesses summoned by the second party, one of whom is the petitioner in this Court, have not been examined. There is no doubt that these witnesses were summoned and were present at the time the Magistrate passed his order. The Magistrate himself says that it was unnecessary to examine the witnesses, as the documents filed before him showed that the first party was in possession.2. The facts are these. There was a complaint by the first party that on the 7th September 1915, while they were in peaceful possession of the property, the second party attempted to take forcible possession from them and threatened to commit a breach of the peace in furtherance of their object. Therefore, the question which the Magistrate had to decide was as to who was in possession of the dis...
Bhaganathi Servai and anr. Vs. Valayee
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-1916
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.830
ORDERSeshagiri Aiyar, J.1. The order of the Magistrate was passed without jurisdiction. He had no power under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to direct the village Munsif to be in possession of the property. The section only enables the Magistrate to direct a party to the proceeding to do or abstain from doing certain acts regarding the subject-matter of the dispute. My view of the section is supported by Leong Mow v. Tchun Chun 12 C.W.N. 1044 The order contained in the last clause of the, proceedings is set aside. The Magistrate will direct the village Munsif to restore the properties to the parties from whom he or the Police took possession....
M. Govinda Pillai Vs. Best and Company, Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-1916
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.843
1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Kumaraswami Sastri, J., dismissing the plaintiff's suit for breach of contract. The contract was embodied in what is known in modern business as a Cargo Engagement Form, under which the defendants bound themselves to ship the plaintiff's cargo at Cuddalore during the months of July-August, by Sections City of Madras or other steamers. It is well settled, as observed by the late Mr. Cawn in his work on Carriage by Sea, Section 51, that engagements to ship goods and to keep space for goods must be punctually performed, and it is quite clear that the defendants could perform their contract by shipping the goods at Cnddalore at any time during the months of July and August, and that the plaintiff was bound to have his cargo ready to ship when the ships called. The City of Madras after loading manganese at Vizagapatam and Co-canada arrived in Madras harbour on August 7th, 1914, en route for Cuddalore, which is only eight hours distant for an ordinary ...
Savarimuthu Pillai (Died) Vs. Muthu Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-1916
Reported in: (1917)32MLJ81
ORDERAyling, J.1. This case (Cal. Case No. 716 of 1915) on the file of the 2nd Class Magistrate of Dindigul was tried by Mr. D.K. Venkateswara Aiyar who heard all the evidence and adjourned it to 30-11-1915 for judgment. He also wrote and signed a judgment, adding the date (30-11-1915), but did not pronounce it as, when the case was called on 30-11-1915, one of the three accused was absent. The case was therefore adjourned to secure the attendance of this man. On 8-12-1915 all the accused appeared, but by that time Mr. Venkateswara Aiyar had been succeeded by Mr. N. Subramania Aiyar. The accused then demanded a de novo enquiry under S.350 of the Criminal Procedure Code and Mr. Subramania Aiyar apparently feeling doubts as to whether he would in such circumstances be justified in pronouncing his predecessor's judgment acceded to their demand.2. The District Magistrate refers the case under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code on the ground that Mr. Subramania Aiyar was bound to pr...
A.T. Raghava Chariar Vs. O.A. Srinivasa Raghava Chariar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-1916
Reported in: 36Ind.Cas.921; (1916)31MLJ575
Abdur Rahim, O.C.J.1. The question referred to us is whether a mortgage executed in favour of a minor who has advanced the whole of the mortgage money is enforceable by him or by any other person on his behalf. In considering this question the starting point is the decision of their Lordships of the Privy Council in Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose I.L.R. (1909) M. 312 : 19 M.L.J. 752, which decided, so far as is material for the present case, that a mortgage by a minor was void. A mortgage is a transfer of property and their Lordships pointed out that under Section 7 of the Transfer of Property Act persons competent to contract are competent to transfer property and went on to show that under the Contract Act a minor is not competent to contract. They, therefore, as I understand, held that the transfer by the minor was bad and went on to hold with reference to certain other contentions which were raised that, as an infant was not competent to contract the question whether the contract ...
In Re: Bob Dore
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-1916
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.165
ORDER1. The question referred to us by > the District Magistrate of Bangalore is whether he has exceeded his powers in awarding a sentence of six months' rigorous imprisonment to a European British subject in Criminal Case No. 7 of 1915, his view being that as a Justice of the Peace, he can only pass a sentence of imprisonment for three months, in which case the sentence passed by him for six months would be illegal. This view is evidently founded on the language of Section 446 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which limits the powers of a Justice of the Peace to passing a sentence on a European British subject to a term of three months. We have had considerable difficulty in ascertaining the powers of the District Magistrate of Bangalore in respect of a European British subject. The Public Prosecutor has invited our attention to the history of the various Notifications and we are satisfied that there are only two Notifications at present in force, namely Notification No. 680 I-B of the ...
Vena Subbarayulu Naidu Vs. M.K. Subbarayalu Naidu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-1916
Reported in: 40Ind.Cas.238
1. In defending a suit for rent, appellant alleged that the rent was not due, because respondent had failed to repair the well on the land and consequently he (appellant) had been unable to raise the garden crops for the cultivation of which the rent had been fixed. The first Court allowed an abatement of rent, but the lower Appellate Court disallowed appellant's contention because under Section 38 of the Estates Land Act he could and should have applied to the Collector for a reduction of rent.2. Patta was accepted by defendant for Fasli 1318 and a muchilika executed; and similar pattas were tendered for Faslis 1319 to 1321 (the suit period) and were not objected to. It must be taken, therefore, that there was a contract between the parties, under which the appellant was bound to pay the rent now claimed. His plea for reduction of rent on the ground of failure of water supply is undoubtedly in the nature of an equitable set-off, for, in effect, it is a claim for damages in respect of ...
C.B. Swami Chetty Vs. S.T. Ethirajulu Naidu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-1916
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.853
John Wallis, C.J.1. Exhibits V and VI both contain agreements about effecting an equitable mortgage by deposit of title-deeds Similar documents have been held in. England to affect land and require registration under the Statute of 7 Anne relating to Middlesex in Moore v. Culverhouse 27 Bea 639, Neve v. Pennel, Hunt v. Neve 2 H. & M. 170. The case of Kedarnath Dutt v. Sham Loll Khettry 11 B.L.R. 495 is distinguishable. The learned Judge was, therefore, right in holding that Exhibits V and VI required registration and were inadmissible under Section 49 of the Registration Act, even as regards the stipulation for compound interest on the equitable mortgages.2. The appeal is dismissed with costs.Phillips, J.3. The question for decision in this appeal is whether Exhibits V and VI are admissible in evidence, although they are not registered. Plaintiffs had effected an equitable mortgage by deposit of title-deeds with a third party, and then arranged with the defendant to pay off this mortga...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »