Chennai Court May 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.
Vaiguntathammal and anr. Vs. Valliamman Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-01-1917
Reported in: (1918)ILR41Mad256
Sadasiva Ayyar, J.1. Defendants Nos. 3 and 4 are the appellants in the second appeal. After the issues were settled, which was on the 27th June 1913, the District Munsif on the 15th August 1914 directed the defendants Nos. 3 and 4 to make their appearance in person on the 29th August 1914 to which date the hearing was adjourned. On the said 29th August 1914 defendants Nos. 3 and 4 failed to appear and represented through their vakil that they would refuse to appear even if they were granted time. The learned Munsif, thereupon, on the 29th August 1914, declared them ex parte and decided the suit, on the evidence of the plaintiff's husband, in plaintiff's favour. The Subordinate Judge, on appeal, confirmed this decree. Hence this second appeal.2. It is to be regretted that the District Munsif did not mention the provision of law under which he acted in calling upon defendants Nos. 3 and 4 to appear in person, nor the provision of law under which, on their failure to do so, he declared th...
Yegnarama Dikshitar and ors. Vs. Gopala Pattar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-01-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad733; 41Ind.Cas.738
Abdur Rahim, J.1. The inhabitants of the village of Koduvayur, who form a grama janam, own in common certain temples and moveable and immoveable properties in connection with those temples. The villagers, sometime in 1898 wanting to have the disputes which then arose, with regard to the management of these properties, settled by arbitrators, submitted to them the questions at issue. The arbitrators made an award in April 1898 and the award was filed and made a decree of Court in October 1898. By that award, it was laid down that there should be two managers to be selected, each of them from particular streets in the village, by the majority of the villagers residing in these streets. This was provided for by the decision of the arbitrators on the 6th issue. Under the 9th issue the award provided under what circumstances the managers were liable to be dismissed. It appears that in 1910 a number of villagers were dissatisfied with the management of the managers for the time being, and th...
Vaiguntathammal and anr. Vs. Valliammai Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-01-1917
Reported in: 41Ind.Cas.719
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. Defendants Nos. 3 and 4 are the appellants in the second appeal. After the issues were settled, which was on the 27th Jane 1913, the District Munsif on the 15th August 1914 directed the defendants Nos. 3 and 4 to make their appearance in person on the 29th August 1914, to which date the hearing was adjourned. On the said 29th August 1914, defendants Nos. 3 and 4 failed to appear and represented through their Vakil that they would refuse to appear even if they were granted time. The learned Munsif thereupon, on the 29th August 1914, declared them ex parte and decided the suit, on the evidence of the plaintiff's husband, in plaintiff's favour. The Subordinate Judge, on appeal, confirmed this decree. Hence this second appeal.2. It is to be regretted that the District Munsif did not mention the provision of law under which he acted in calling upon defendants Nos. 3 and 4 to appear in person, nor the provision of law under which, on their failure to do so, he declared t...
K. Ramachandra Aiyar Vs. C. Duraivelu Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-01-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad416; 43Ind.Cas.634
John Wallis, C.J.1. The question raised in a this appeal is whether the lessor or lessee is bound to pay the taxes levied by the Madras Municipality under Sections 129, 145 and 148 of the City Municipal Act III of 1904 'on all buildings and lands,' in so far as they are imposed on lands as distinct from the buildings standing on them. The taxes to which land in the Municipality is subject are quit rent and land revenue leviable under the Madras City Land Revenue Act, 1851, and the Municipal taxes alike are by law payable by the lessor as owner. The covenant of the lessee in the lease Exhibit A is that he the said lessee will pay and discharge all taxes, rates and assessments whatsoever that may hereafter, during the said term, become payable for and in respect of any building hereafter, to be erected upon the said lands hereby demised or any part thereof, save and except only the land tax or quit rent payable to Government which shall be paid by the lessor, and the corresponding lessor...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›