Chennai Court August 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.
Palikandi Katapurath Mammad and anr. Vs. Matancheri Mammad
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1917
Reported in: (1918)35MLJ315
1. Plaintiff sued to recover the two items of property in suit on the strength of Exhibit A an usufructuary mortgage deed alleged to have been executed by the defendant to him. That document has been found by the lower appellate court not to be proved to have been genuine. It is argued before us that the burden of proof has been wrongfully placed by the Subordinate Judge on the plaintiff to prove that the document was genuine, because that document was found to be genuine by the District Registrar when he held an enquiry and ordered the compulsory registration of it even though the defendant, denied its genuineness before him. It is difficult to see how this can be allowed to affect the question, the burden of proof being in the first instance on the party setting up the document to prove its genuineness. It may be as held in the Full Bench case, Atchutayya v. Gangayya I.L.R. (1891) M. 138 that the Registrar was a court under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure when he held t...
Pallikandi Kathapurath Mammad and anr. Vs. Matancheri Mammad
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1917
Reported in: 43Ind.Cas.28
1. Plaintiff Sued to recover the two items of property in suit on the strength of Exhibit A, an usufructuary mortgage-deed alleged to have been executed by the defendant to him. That document has been found by the lower Court not to be proved to have been genuine. It is argued before us that the burden of proof has been wrongly placed by the Subordinate Judge on the plaintiff to prove that the document was genuine, because that document was found to be genuine by the District Registrar when he held an enquiry and ordered the compulsory registration of it, even though the defendant denied its genuineness before him. It is difficult to see how this can be allowed to affect the question, the burden of proof being in the first instance on the party setting up the document to prove its genuineness. It may be, as held in the Full Bench case of Atchayya v. Gangayya 2 M.L.J. 64, that the Registrar, was a Court under Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code when he held the enquiry, but that ...
Subramania Aiyar and anr. Vs. A.L.V.R.R.M. Muthia Chettiar (Dead) and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad421; (1917)33MLJ705
Ayling, J.1. In this case the appellants (plaintiffs) are purchasers of the suit property from 2nd defendant by a sale-deed, Ex. A dated 20-6-1904. First defendant subsequent to this sale obtained a decree against 2nd defendant in S.C.S. No. 1960 of 1905, and in 1913 attached the suit properties in execution. Plaintiffs preferred a claim on the dismissal of which they filed the present suit for declaration of their title, and for cancellation of the summary order on their claim.2. The suit failed in both the lower courts, the Subordinate Judge holding in 1st appeal that the sale was a fraudulent transaction intended to defeat or delay 2nd defendant's creditors though not a mere sham transaction.3. It is now argued in secoud appeal that it is not open to 1st defendant to set up such a defence in the present suit; and that the sale must be held good against him unless and until he obtains a decree setting it aside in proceedings suitably instituted for that purpose. Mr. A. Krishnaswami A...
Bolusawmy and anr. Vs. Sri Rajah Venkatadri Appa Rao Bahadur Zemindar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-1917
Reported in: 47Ind.Cas.594
1. The Subordinate Judge in his judgment says: 'The land involved in this appeal is admittedly cultivable tank-bed land and even at present admittedly the land is liable to submersion.' The question is whether the land is a ryoti land within the meaning of Section 3(16) of the Estates Land Act, 1908. That clause says: Ryoti land means cultivable land in an estate other than private land but does not include (a) tank-beds; (b) threshing floors, cattle-stands, village-sites, etc., etc.' So far as tank-beds are concerned, what the Legislature was alluding to was such class of tank-beds as are cultivable, that is to say, as are capable of being cultivated when the tank has become dry or when there is no water in the tank in certain years. Mr. Narayanamurthi for the appellants contends that what the Legislature meant was the bed of a tank which is full of water. It is difficult, however, to assume that the Legislature was dealing with land that could not be cultivated at all.2. Section 20 o...
Gurvanna Gowd and ors. Vs. Govindappa
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-1917
Reported in: 44Ind.Cas.971
ORDERSpencer, J.1. As stated in paragraph 6 of the Deputy Magistrate's Order of 8th September 1915, the question for consideration in these proceedings under Chapter XII was who was in possession of the Takrar land on July 1st, 1915.2. No doubt the Divisional Officer's Court, which determined that Patta should be registered in the name of Venkamma, was a competent Court to decide the question of registry, and it appears from the records that it was this question of registry which was the principal cause of the dispute as to possession. Nevertheless, the Divisional Officer's Court was not a competent Court for deciding a question as to the person entitled to possession of the land in dispute. This question can only be finally decided in the Civil Court and the Magistrate having passed the order of attachment, not as an interim order under Section 145 (4), proviso 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, but as an order under Section 146 (1) made at the conclusion of his enquiry after hearin...
Rajah Papamma Rao Garu, Being Dead M.R. Ry. Gopisetti Narayanasami Nai ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad589; (1917)33MLJ472
1. The question in this appeal is whether the notice under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act was properly served on the Manager of the Office of the Receiver of Nidadavole and Medur Estates in the absence of the Receiver. Section 45(2) of the Act provides that service is to be made whenever it may be practicable on the person named therein, and when such person cannot be found in the manner provided in Sub-section (3). It is not suggested in the present case that service had been effected in conformity to Section 45.2. If reliance is placed on Section 53 of the Act, that section merely provides ' save in so far they may be inconsistent with anything contained in this Act. the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure shall apply to all proceedings before the court under this Act. ' It is open to question whether the provisions of the Code can be taken to apply to the notice in question by virtue of this section. Assuming that they can, we are of opinion that they have not been ...
Yelikepalli Venkaya and anr. Vs. Sri Raja Venkatramayya Apparao Since ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1917
Reported in: 43Ind.Cas.711; (1917)33MLJ757
1. This is a suit in ejectment against a person who is admittedly a non-occupancy tenant of land described as old waste land within the meaning of the Estates Land Act. He had a lease before the passing of the Act which expired after, the Act came into force. The question that arises is whether the suit must be brought in the Court of the Collector or in the ordinary Civil Court, This question of jurisdiction has been dealt with in a number of cases in this Court and the great preponderance of view is in favour of interpretation of Section 153 to the effect that the proviso to that section does not affect the question of jurisdiction which is dealt with by the section itself. That is to say, Section 153 lays down that a suit to eject a non-occupancy ryot shall be brought before the Collector and the proviso which has been added by the subsequent Act IV of 1909 to that section only lays down that as regards a non-occupancy ryot whose lease commenced before the commencement of the Act, t...
Rajah Papamma Rao Garu, Beingdead, M. R. Ry. Gopisetti Narayanaswami N ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1917
Reported in: 42Ind.Cas.235
1. The question in this appeal is whether the notice under Section 12 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act was properly served on the manager of the office of the Receiver of Nidadavole and Medur Estate in the absence of the Receiver. Section 45 (2) of the Act provides that service is to be made, whenever it maybe practicable, on the person named therein, and when such person cannot be four d, in the manner provided in subsection (3). It is not suggested in the present case that service has been effected in conformity to Section 45.2. If reliance is placed on Section 53 of the Act, that Section merely provides: Save in so far as they may be inconsistent with anything contained in this Act, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure shall apply to all proceedings before the Court under this Act'. Is is open to question whether the provisions of the Code can be taken to apply to the notice in question by virtue of this section. Assuming that they can, we are of opinion that they have not b...
K. C. Nachimuthu Chetty Vs. Andiappa Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-15-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad634; 42Ind.Cas.706
1. In this case the learned District Judge held that the suit as brought was not maintainable as the note sued on was one which offended against Section 26 of the Indian Paper Currency Act. That was clearly right: see Chidambaram Chettiar v. Ayyasami Thevan 36 Ind. Cas. 741 31 M. L. J. 401: (1910) 2 M. W. N. 210.2. But we consider that the District Judge should have allowed the plaintiff to amend his plaint as prayed and base his suit on the original cause of action in the circumstances of this case, as no objection was taken to the frame of the suit in the First Court. The questions as to whether the plaintiff's suit on the original cause of action would not be maintainable in whole or part, having reference to the observations in Shanmuganatha Chettiar v. Srinivasa Aiyar 31 M. L. J. 138. and in Chidambaram Chettiar v. Ayyasami Thevan 40 M. 585 : (1910) 2 M. W. N. 210. and whether his suit will be barred by limitation, are questions to be decided by the Trial Court after evidence. We ...
P. Thiruvarangiah Vs. D.K. Pania and Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad322; (1917)33MLJ410
1. This is an action for damages for breach of three contracts between the parties dated the 24th April, 27th April and 30th April 1914 under which the plaintiff agreed to purchase a certain number of cases of Belgium window glass. Those goods were shipped-we do not know the exact date, but as the invoices were made out on the 23rd July 1914 and the bills of exchange were dated the 29th July, the probability is that they were shipped between those dates, and it is conceded for the purpose of this case that they were shipped before the outbreak of war between Great Britain and Germany on the 3rd August. The contracts were c.i.f., c.i., Madras, and they were shipped on board a German ship the 'Spitzfels ' at Antwerp. While she was on her voyage, war broke out; I am told that she was ultimately captured, and was brought to Colombo where the ship was condemned as a prize, but she was allowed, to proceed to such ports in the British Empire as she had cargo consigned for and to discharge tha...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »