Chennai Court March 1917 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.
Akula Bakkayya, Manager of the A.L.i. Company Vs. Aluri Venkatanarasim ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1917
Reported in: (1917)33MLJ553
Abdur Rahim, J.1. The question on this petition is whether the decree of the District Munsif in favour of the plaintiff came within the purview of Rule 2 or Rule 3 of Order XVII of the Civil Procedure Code. The question whether any particular decree comes within one or other of these two rules is one not free from difficulty as there are conflicting rulings on the subject. Even supposing that the ruling in Chandramathi Ammal v. Narayanaswami Aiyar I.L.R. (1910) M. 241 which seems to be in conflict with the decisions in Naganatha Aiyar v. Krishnamurthi Aiyar I.L.R. (1911) M. 97 Anandaraju v. Venkataraju (1911) 1 L.W. 123 and Enatulla Basunia v. Jiban Mohan Boy I.L.R. (1913) C. 956 is correct, it seems to me that the facts of the present case are distinguishable, The suit was instituted in 1912. It is clear from the applications and the orders passed thereon that the defendant applied for adjournment more than once and was given time. Even in 1913 the plaintiff himself was examined and c...
C. Srinivasa Aiyangar and ors. Vs. Meddaikara Abdur Rahim Sahib and an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1917
Reported in: 40Ind.Cas.82
William Ayling, J.1. The suit out of which this second appeal arises is one for arrears of rent under Section 77(1) of Act I of 1908. The rent. sued for is in excess of that paid in previous faslis, the difference being due to an increase in wet area discovered by re-survey. The District Judge has disposed of the appeal on the short ground that the suit for excess rent will not lie, until the landlord has obtained an order of the Collector under Section 42(2) sanctioning the enhancement.2. I think he is right. Section 42 declares that no alteration of rent in respect of an alteration in area shall be given effect to, except under an order of the Collector passed on an application made to him for that purpose. Admittedly there has been no such application here. The ryot is, therefore, not liable to pay the additional rent claimed.3. The question of whether a suit for enhanced rent (whatever be the cause of enhancement) can be brought without first enforcing the acceptance of a patta emb...
Akula Bakkayya, Manager of the A.L.J. Company Vs. Aluri Venkatanarasim ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1917
Reported in: 39Ind.Cas.948
Abdur Rahim, J.1. The question on this petition is whether the decree of the District Munsif in favour of the plaintiff came within the purview of Rule 2 or Rule 3 Order XVII of the Civil Procedure Code; The question whether any particular decree comes within one or other of these two rules is one not free from difficulty as there are conflicting rulings on the, subject. Even supposing that the ruling in Chqndramathi Ammal v. Narayanmni Iyer 5 Ind. Cas. 23 which seems to be in conflict with the decision in Naganada Iyer v. Krishnamurti Aiyar 6 Ind. Cas. 233; (1910) M.W.S. 213 ; 20 M.L.J. 535, Penamucha Anandaraju v. Nadimpalli Venkataraju 23 Ind. Cas. 519 and Enatulla v. Jiban Mohan Roy 23 Ind. Cas. 769 ; 18 C.W.N. 775 ; 19 C.L.J. 535 is correct, it seems to me that the facta of the present case are distinguishable. The suit was instituted in 1912. It is clear from the applications and the orders passed thereon, that the defendant applied for adjournment more than once and was given ti...
T. Krishnamacharlu and ors. Vs. Appan Govinda Ramanuja Pedda Jiyangarl ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad628; 42Ind.Cas.275
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The defendants are the appellants. If I understand the pleadings aright, they have been made by the plaintiffs to represent the Vadagalai Brahmin community in India. The two plaintiffs who originally brought the suit are Tengalai Vaishnava Brahmins residing in Tirupati and they brought the suit in the very beginning of 1905 (more than twelve years ago) with the permission of the Court under Section 30 of the old Civil Procedure Code on behalf of the Tengalai Sri Vaishnava Brahmins who are permanent residents of Tirumalai (that is, upper Tirupati), Tirupati (that is, lower Tirupati) and of Tiruchanoor (a village a few miles distant from lower Tirupati). The plaint alleged that the Tengalai Brahmins who were the permanent residents of those places were all entitled to the mirasi office of Adhyapakam in the Vaishnava temples in the two Tirupatis mentioned in Schedule A of the plaint and that the Vadagalai Brahmins represented by the defendants obstructed the performan...
Segu Baliah Vs. N. Ramasamiah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1917
Reported in: 42Ind.Cas.608
Abdur Rahim, J.1. This is not a case of an order either under Section 195 or Section 476 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It is a permission granted to the Receiver, who is an officer of the District Court, to prosecute an insolvent who, within the knowledge of the Receiver or upon the information available to the Receiver, is alleged to have committed an offence under Sections 421 and 424 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the report of the Receiver is not evidence and cites a ruling of the Allahabad High Court in Nand Kishore v. Suraj Mal 29 Ind. Cas. 998., holding that a conviction based on such a report is not legal. But that has nothing to do with the present case. What the District Judge has done is only to grant permission to the Receiver to prosecute the insolvent, as it is alleged that he has committed an offence of the nature described.2. Then it is argued that the prosecution ought to be under Section 43 of the Provincial Insolvency...
In Re: Naddi Chengadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad644(1); (1917)ILR40Mad789; 39Ind.Cas.1006
ORDER1. We agree with the District Magistrate that the conviction in the case is bad and must be set aside. A person against whom an order is passed under Section 565 of the Criminal Procedure Code is merely bound to notify his residence or change of residence after release. As long as he retains his residence in the same place, his temporary absence from home for a day or two does hot require notification. Whether he retains his residence must always be a question of fact; but provided a man leaves his family and household effects in the house in which he was residing he would ordinarily be considered to retain his residence there.2. In the present case all that is proved is that accused was absent from what was treated by the Police as his notified residence for a single night. There is nothing to indicate that the residence itself was changed.3. We set aside the conviction and sentence and direct that the fine, if paid, be refunded....
Bezwada Kotayya and ors. Vs. Konathalapalli Venkayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-1917
Reported in: 45Ind.Cas.257
ORDER1. The complainant in this case, K. Venkayya, presented a complaint to the Taluq Magistrate, Nandigama, on 8th August 1916 against accused B. Kottayya and others, charging them with an offence under Section 426, Indian Penal Code. The case was duly taken on file and posted for haring, and eventually adjourned to 20th September 1916; on which date, in consequence of the absence of complainant, an order of acquittal was passed under Section 247, Criminal Procedure Code.2. Subsequently on 22nd September 1916, complainant presented a freshly complaint of the same offence based on the same facts and explained his absence on 20th September 1916 to the satisfaction of the Magistrate. The Magistrate thereupon took cognizance of this second complaint and directed the issue of process to the accused.3. The sole question is whether Section 403, Criminal Procedure Code, is a bar to the Magistrate's taking cognizance of the second complaint by reason of the order of acquittal passed on 20th Se...
Anantanarayana Iyen Vs. Khozhikote Patinhare Kovilakath Thiruveeraraya ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1917
Reported in: (1917)33MLJ459
Napier, J.1. This is a suit by a melcharatdar from the Stani the 4th Rajah of Calicut to recover, from certain persons in possession of land under Verampatum lease, the properties demised in the melcharath. The melcharatdar is the 2nd plaintiff the demisor being the 1st plaintiff. The 5th defendant in the suit is a person to whom a melcharat had been granted by the predecessor of the 1st plaintiff with respect to the same properties and the plaintiffs claim that that demise was bad and not binding on the present 1st plaintiff as having been given without any consideration and for the purpose of depriving the 1st plaintiff of his lawful income and not for the purpose of the stani. This question was made the subject of the 7th issue, namely, ' whether the lease relied on by the 5th defendant is valid and binding on the plaintiff.' We have already held in S.A. Nos. 581, 582 and 608 of 1916 that the property was held by the defendants in possession on a Verumpatum lease and that they were ...
Sivanupandia thevar and ors. Vs. Meenakshisundara Vinayaga Visakaperum ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1917
Reported in: 43Ind.Cas.498; (1918)34MLJ139
Sadasiva Aiyar. J.1. These eleven second appeals have arisen out of suits brought by the tenants of the Urkad estate to have their rents, which had been mostly paid in grain and partially in cash, consolidated and commuted to a definite money rent under Section 40, Clause 1 of the Madras Estates Land Act. One or more or all of the following six questions arise for decision in these second appeals.2. Firstly, whether the lower courts were right in construing Section 40, Clause 3(a) of the Estates Land Act to mean that the Collector in making the determination as to the proper money rent should have regard to the average value of the rent actually accrued due to the landholder during the 10 years preceding the year of the determination of such commuted rent or whether the true meaning of that section is that the Collector should have regard to the average value of the rent during the 10 years preceding the institution of the suit. I am clear that according to the true construction of the...
Sivanupandia thevar and Ten ors. Vs. Meenakshi Sundara Vinayaka Visaka ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1917
Reported in: (1918)ILR41Mad109
Sadasiva Ayyar, J.1. These eleven second appeals have arisen out of suits brought by the tenants of the Urkad Estate to have their rents, which had been mostly paid in grain and partially in cash consolidated and commuted to a definite money rent under Section 40, Clause 1 of the Madras Estates Land , Act. One or more or all of the following six questions arise for decision in these second appeals.2. Firstly, whether the lower Courts were right in construing Section 40, Clause 3(a) of the Estates Land Act to mean that the Collector in making the determination as to the proper money rent should have regard to the average value of the rent actually accrued due to the landholder during the ten years. preceding the year of the determination of such commuted rent or whether the true meaning of that section is that the Collector should have regard to the average value of the rent during the ten years preceding the institution of the suit. I am clear that according to the true construction of...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »