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.
Anantanarayana Iyer Vs. Kozhikote Patinhare Kovta-lakath Thiruveeraray ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad548; 41Ind.Cas.536
Napier, J.1. This is a suit by a melcharth-dar from the stani, the 4th Raja of Calicut, to recover from certain persons in possession of land under verumpatom lease the properties demised in the melcharth; the melcharthdar is the second plaintiff, the demisor being the 1st plaintiff. The 5th defendant in the suit is a person to whom a melcharth 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 plaintiffs.' We have already held in Second Appeals Nos. 581, 582 and 608 of 1916 that the property was held by the defendants in possession on a verumpatom lease and tha...
Gangadharan Pattar and ors. Vs. Patinhara Kovilakath ThazhaThe Manavik ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad453; 42Ind.Cas.268; (1917)33MLJ512
1. This is a suit by a Melcharatdar from the stani, the 4th Rajah of Calicut, to recover possession of certain property held by the defendant under a lease from that stani, and also to recover the arrears of rent which had been assigned in the melcharath. The Melcharatdar gave the defendant notice to quit, Exhibit C. The defendant set up that under his lease, he was entitled to a right of permanent occupancy or alternatively to hold for 12 years. The District Munsif on the construction of the document and on the evidence of surrounding circumstances and on the evidence of plaintiff's witnesses 3 and 4, one of whom was a clerk of the stani upheld the contention that it was for a term of 12 years. The Subordinate Judge on appeal has declined to act on the evidence of plaintiff's witnesses 3 and 4, or to attach any special characteristics to Verumpattom leases from the Rajahs of Calicut and holding that this is an ordinary Verumpattom lease negatived the claim for 12 years. The points urg...
Mogadasu Venkatadasu and ors. Vs. Venkamamidi Udayanarayan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad569; 41Ind.Cas.122; (1917)33MLJ548
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The defendants are the appellants in these Second appeals. The plaintiffs are agraharam-dars who claim a right to eject the defendants (tenants) on the ground that they (the plaintiffs) are the owners of both the kudiwaram and Melwaram rights in the lands in the occupation of the defendants. Though the plaint does not definitely set out how the plaintiffs own both the warams it is clear from the 13th paragraph of the District Munsif's judgment that they claimed both warams as conferred upon their ancestor Dakshinamoorthy Sastrulu by the gift deed Exhibit A of 1796 executed by the then Zamindar who called himself Raja Manykyarow Bhavanarayana Rao, Sri Desamukhi Mannevaru, Sirkar Mrithijangaa. I think therefore the only question in this case is whether the plaintiffs obtained both the warams under this grant exhibit A or the melwaram alone. If they obtained the melwaram alone, the kudiwaram not being granted to them and they not having claimed the kudiwaram as having...
Nadanaligi Kurugodappa Vs. Angadi Soogamma and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad661; (1918)ILR41Mad40; 39Ind.Cas.928
Spencer, J.1. Briefly stated, the order of the District Judge, which we are asked to revise, has arisen out of the following facts. One Angadi Soogamma, acting as next friend of her minor son Nanjundappa who had been adopted into another family, brought a suit (Original Suit No. 24 of 1910) for the recovery of considerable properties belonging to the minor and obtained on compromise a decree for the possession of moveable properties worth about Rs. 90,000. Under Order XXXII, Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, she was required to furnish security for the cash and jewels handed over to her. The petitioner before us, Kurugodappa by name, stood surety for her to the extent of Rs. 50,000 and executed a bond in April 1911. In February 1914, Soogamma presented an original petition to the District Judge, alleging inter alia that Kurugodappa, out of Rs. 44,945 in cash, jewels and bonds belonging to the minor's estate delivered to him by the Court, had retained Rs. 12,340 in his own hands, t...
Vankamamidi Mahalakshmamma Vs. Venkamamidi Rajamma Alias Raja Lakashma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1917
Reported in: 43Ind.Cas.458
Oldfield, J.1. The preliminary and final decrees passed by the lower Court seem to me to have been at least irregular, in the provision they made respectively regarding profits before and after the beginning of Fasli 1317. The suit was no doubt for partition. But it is not disputed that Order XX, Rule 12, applies. Under that rule the profits prior to plaint should be decreed in the decree which gives possession, that is in a partition suit in the final decree; and the profits after it may be the subject of a direction in that decree for an enquiry and of a separate final decree after its conclusion. The lower Court certainly erred in dealing with the earlier profits in its preliminary decree, though it may have been open to it to deal with the later profits either prior to or after the final decree. Two consequences follow. Firstly, no inference in favour of a conclusion that the later profits had been refused should have been drawn by petitioner from the irregular award of the earlier...
Muthu Bhattar Vs. Mrithunjaya Bhattar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1917
Reported in: 44Ind.Cas.248
Spencer, J.In Civil Revision Petition No. 872 of 1916.1. The District Judge was mistaken in thinking that he bad no power to correct a clerical error occurring in his Review Order because of the pendency of a second appeal in this Court.2. The clerical errors alleged in the affidavit, which was before the Judge, consisted of the words. '1st defendant' occurring where the words '2nd defendant' were intended and vice versa.3. This was a matter to be dealt with under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure and that section distinctly provides that where such clerical errors arise from any accidental slip, the Court (that is, the Court in which they have occurred) may correct them at any time.4. I set aside the District Judge's order and direct him to pass fresh orders according to law after giving notice to the parties concerned. The parties will bear their own costs of this application.In Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 2597 of 1916.5. The proper Court to correct clerical errors is t...
Dost Muhammed Khan and anr. Vs. Nazir Ali Sahib and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad1006; 42Ind.Cas.474
1. The suit out of which this appeal has arisen was instituted under the provisions of Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code with reference to a takia (spelt in these proceedings as Thaikal). The origin of the institution dates bask to the seventeenth century. The only account we have as to how it came to be founded is that given in a Persian inscription, Exhibit KKK. That shows that three men, named Taj Firaque Shah, Yar Shah and Hidayat Shah, came from Upper India and settled at Tiruvalur in the Tanjore District. These' fakirs or sufis as presumably they were so, died one after another and their tombs apparently became objects of Veneration and received endowments from time to time, from different rulers. One of the grants which is available was made by a Mahratta Prince of Tanjore in 1770 granting about 22 velies of land to the takia which is Called Tas Prakasha Takia; the other grants are not available. But we have got the tenor of them described in the Inam Register and the Inam ...
Sikhamani Pandithar Vs. Ammani Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad708; 40Ind.Cas.36
1. The main question for consideration is whether Exhibit A is admissible in evidence for any purpose. The lower Courts have construed it as a partition deed, and although in the document the past tense is employed, that is, 'as we have effected a division' and 'for our having thus divided', it is undoubtedly an instrument of partition whereby the parties divide their property. If the partition was effected by this deed and not prior to the deed, the deed must be registered under Section 17 of the Regisrtration Act and under Section 49 of the Registration Act the document shall not affect any immoveable property comprised therein, nor be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property. The lower Courts, while holding that the document is one that should be registered under Section 17, have admitted it as evidence of the status of division. If, however, the division was not effected prior to execution of Exhibit A, by an unequivocal declaration, then we think that the do...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›