Chennai Court July 1916 Judgments
Vanheri Manakkal Purushothaman Nambudri Vs. Purumpulanil Sankunni Meno ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-1916
Reported in: 36Ind.Cas.551
1. We think that the view taken by the lower Courts that the jenmi's title was extinguished by the order for sale obtained in the prior suit by the melkanomdar is not correct. Tlie jenmi could not have worked out his rights in that suit as he was not entitled to pay the redemption money under the decree, and as Section 93 of the Transfer of Property Act, which was then applicable, did not permit him to ask the Court for an order for sale as he was not the mortgagee,though he was a defendant. Though he was a mortgagor he could not have applied under the authority of Govinda Targan, C.P. v. Veeran 12 Ind. Cas. 432 : (1911) 2 M.W.N. 323: 36 M.k 32 as he was not then the plaintiff.2. On the order for sale being made at the instance of the mortgagee the jenmi could not apply to have the sale carried out, whatever the rights of the plaintiff might be. If the property had been sold his rights might have been affected thereby, but he would then have had the power under Section 310(a) of the ol...
Tag this Judgment!Mulla Veettil UssaIn and ors. Vs. Subramania Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-1916
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.877; (1916)31MLJ431
1. A.S. No. 171 of 1914.--The question for decision in this appeal is whether the properties mortgaged to the plaintiff by Athan, the deceased father of defendants 1 to 7 were wakf properties dedicated for pious and religious purposes. There are two mortgages in suit, one executed on the 16th July 1910 and the other on the 19th September 1910. On the 23rd January 1910, Athan had executed and got registered, a document called wakf deed by which he purported to make a wakf of certain properties specified in it for purposes which prima facie are charitable. The mortgage properties are some of those so settled. If the transaction was a real one and if the same was not invalid as one intended to defraud the creditors of Athan, it may be that the wakf constituted under the document was binding on Athan and his subsequent assignees. But, as we have come to a clear conclusion that that document was executed by Athan for the purpose of defeating his creditors, that in fact it was merely a cloak...
Tag this Judgment!Narasinga Row Gaday Row Sahib and ors. Vs. Rangasami thevan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-1916
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.871
1. These second appeals are argued, first, on the ground that the 3rd defendant has. prescribed for a full title to the properties, items Nos. 1 and 5. The evidence shows that he was admitting his position as a tenant in 1884, though since then he has not paid rent. Failure to pay rent is not such an assertion of rights as will make a tenant's possession adverse. We accept the lower Appellate Court's decision on this point.2. Next, it is argued that the plaintiff's contract is, with reference to Section 22(1) of the Specific Relief Act, not one of which specific performance should be decreed. The contract, no doubt, Entitled the plaintiff to buy land worth intrinsically Rs. 2,600 for Rs. 500 and a promise to return 200 Tsulies of the whole 10 acres on possession being given and these terms are at first sight unfavourable to the 1st and 2nd defendants. But, on the other hand, the vendors' title to the land was open to considerable suspicion; and the exertion and expense necessary to enf...
Tag this Judgment!Thonokadavath Awalla and anr. Vs. Ammian Mannil Kuttiali
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1916
Reported in: 36Ind.Cas.471
ORDER1. In these references the question raised is, whether compensation can be awarded under Section 250, Criminal Procedure Code, notwithstanding that the cases originated in complaints to Village Magistrates. The Sub-Magistrate's order of compensation has been set aside by the Joint Magistrate with reference to the decision of Arulanatham Pillai, In re 13 Ind. Cas. 221 : (1911) 2 M.W.N. 558 : 22 M.L.J. 138 : 13 Cri.L.J. 29, and there are no doubt other cases, including one (Criminal Revision Case No. 627 of 1913) decided by one of us, as well as Emperor v. Thammanna Reddi 2 Weir 318 in the authorised reports, in the same sense. But the relevant considerations were greatly affected by the decision in Sessions Judge of Tinnevelly Division v. Sivan Chetty 1 Ind. Cas. 187 : 9 C.L.J. 170 and we disagree with the decision in Arulinatham Pillai, In re 13 Ind. Cas. 221: (1911) 2 M.W.N. 558, in which the contrary view is taken. We prefer to follow the more recent authority, Nachimuthu Chetty...
Tag this Judgment!Public Prosecutor Vs. Madhava Bhonjo Santos and Seven ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-25-1916
Reported in: 36Ind.Cas.161; (1916)31MLJ305
Oldfield, J.1. The Sub-divisional Magistrate dealt with this case in appeal in an unsatisfactory way without finding on the majority of questions of fact and with reference only to the law.2. On such findings of fact as we have and on those which for the purpose of argument, we must assume, 1st prosecution witness, a surveyor empowered to survey the Biridi Estate under Section 17(a) of Act IV of 1897, put up some boundary marks on what he thought was the estate boundary and was engaged in taking measurements on what he thought was the estate land, when accused ' came across ' his chain and after, asking who he was, told him not to measure. Accused, who also removed the marks already set up, were charged with offences punishable under sections 186 and 434 of the Indian Penal Code.3. The Magistrate has acquitted the accused of the latter offence on the ground that the marks were not fixed by a public authority, apparently because the marks were fixed on the land in dispute between the Bi...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Raghunatha Doss Vs. Sri Sri Sir Vikrama Deo, Maharaja of Jeypore
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-25-1916
Reported in: (1916)31MLJ319
Spencer, J.1. The agent to the Governor, Vizagapatam, was directed by this Court in C.M.P. No. 152 of 1909 to investigate and decide the question whether the petitioner Raghunatha Doss is the lawful Mahant of Sri Balajiswami Mutt in Jeypore or not and to dispose of the application for restitution of property accordingly. The result is that we have before us a finding of the special Assistant Agent that the said individual is the lawful Mahant, an order dated 6th March 1913 of the Agent to the Governor made without hearing the parties accepting the Special Assistant Agent's finding, two written endorsements dated 12th March 1913 on petitions objecting to the Special Assistant Agent's finding and asking for a hearing and an order dated 22nd May 1913 made after hearing both sides deciding that Raghunatha Doss was not the lawful Mahant.2. We are now asked under Rule XX of the Agency Rules to direct the Agent to review his last order on the ground that having once passed an order in the mat...
Tag this Judgment!Mullangi Venkatasubbamma and ors. Vs. Mullangi Venkatarangam Chetty an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-25-1916
Reported in: 36Ind.Cas.678; (1916)31MLJ280
Abdur Rahman, Officiating C.J.1. The question which I first propose to consider in this appeal is whether Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code is a bar to the maintenanee of the present suit. The answer to that depends upon what is the nature of the action brought. The suit is instituted by the plaintiffs who claim to be entitled to the office of the Trustee of certain public charitable trust and they want it to be declared that they are the present trustees of the endowment and as such, entitled to conduct the charities, that the alienation made by the 1st defendant who is a widow of the last male holder of the office in favour of defendants 2 and 3 is void and does not affect the rights of the plaintiffs. Then in paragraph (c) their prayer is that if the Court finds that they are entitled to the office in their own right, it may be declared that they are the nearest reversioners of Subbaraya Chetty, the last male holder of the office and that by reason of the alienation by the 1st ...
Tag this Judgment!Veerabhadrah Aiyar Vs. President, Corporation of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1916
Reported in: (1916)31MLJ315
1. Petitioner in this case owns a cocoanut garden, which he has leased to a tenant. Under the lease the tenant is to pay Rs. 20 per mensem as rent and to keep the garden properly watered. If he does not want to water the garden, or fails to do so properly, the landlord is to arrange for the watering and the tenant is to pay Rs. 50 per mensem. The tenant has chosen the latter alternative. It is now contended that the gross rent of the land is only Rs. 20 per mensem, as the balance of Rs. 30 is paid to meet watering charges and cannot be treated as rent. It is, however, perfectly clear that the watering does not benefit the tenant alone, but it is also beneficial to the landlord for it preserves his property in good condition. If the land were not leased out the landlord would have to water the garden and would himself get the usufruct. Under the lease he continues to water the garden, but instead of getting the usufruct he gets Rs. 50 per mensem and this amount is clearly the gross rent...
Tag this Judgment!Maduru Brahmayya Vs. Vedula Vellamma (Died) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1916
Reported in: (1916)31MLJ509
1. This case is typical of the want of care, precision and information with which execution applications are presented to courts. The decree was passed on the 31st of March 1900. The applications made from 1903 up to the one we are dealing with, were all dismissed owing to failure to comply with the requirements of the law. The application of the 22nd March 1912, just within a few days of 1.2 years was so defective that the court had to return it for amendment no less than six times. This went on till the 28th June 1912. On this date, the Subordinate Judge felt bound to dismiss the application, as the particulars he called for were not furnished. A perusal of the B diary shows how negligent was the conduct of these proceedings. Then we enter upon another stage. On the 8th of July, an application for restoration was presented accompanied by affidavits which are as inadequate as any can be. Here again, the B. Diary shows that the Court had to return the petition for amendment more than o...
Tag this Judgment!Veerabhadrah Iyer Vs. President, Corporation of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1916
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.589
1. Petitioner in this case owns a cocoanut garden, which he has leased to a tenant. Under the lease, the tenant is to pay Rs. 20 per mensem as rent, and to keep the garden properly watered. If he does not want to water the garden, or fails to do so properly, the landlord is to arrange for the watering and the tenant is to pay Rs. 50 per mensem. The tenant has chosen the latter alternative. It is now contended that the gross rent of the land is only Rs. 20 per mensem, as the balance of Rs. 30 is paid to meet watering charges and cannot be treated as rent. It is, however, perfectly clear that the watering does not benefit the tenant alone, but it is also beneficial to the landlord for it preserves his property in good condition. If the land were not leased out, the landlord would have to water the garden, and would himself get the usufruct. Under the lease, he continues to water the garden, but instead of getting the usufruct he gets Rs. 50 per mensem, and this amount is clearly the gros...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »