Chennai Court January 1918 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.
Sadasiva Chetty Vs. Rangappa Rajoo
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1918
Reported in: 45Ind.Cas.428
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The defendant is the appellant he purchased a schoolmaster's house about a year before suit, the plaintiff's house being next door to the house so purchased by the defendant. The defendant is an oil monger by caste and he set up an oil mill of the country pattern in the yard of his house. The noise of the mill caused by the turning of the machine drawn by the bullock?, the state of the ground trodden by the bullocks and the droppings of the bullocks created much nuisance. The District Munsif found (1) that the machine occupied the entire vacant space in the defendant's compound and that it has been put up very near the occupied portion of the plaintiff's house; (2) that the machine was worked by the defendant both day and night, that the noise caused by the working of the machine was unbearable and prevented the defendant from attending to his photographic work; (3) that the noise proceeding from the mill machine could be beard at a distance of two furlongs; and (4...
Chidambaram Pillai and ors. Vs. Muhammad Khan Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1918
Reported in: AIR1918Mad72; (1918)34MLJ206
ORDERNapier, J.1. The accused were convicted by the Stationary Magistrate of Palghat under Section 430, Indian Penal Code and this conviction has been upheld on appeal. The facts found are that they entered on the lands of the complainant, cut 3 bunds which had been erected in a channel that runs through the complainant's land with the result that the water in that channel ran down another channel off the complainant's land and was utilised by the 1st appellant for sale to ryots holding lands lower down. Dr. Swaminathan applies to us to set aside the conviction and sentence on various grounds, the two chief grounds being that where water is in fact utilised for agricultural purposes and not allowed to run to waste, no offence under Section 430, I.P.C. is committed, the other, that even if it would have been an offence, if the complainant had intended to utilise the water for his own fields, it is not an offence if the indention was to sell the use of it to the other persons. The first ...
Kumaraswami Chetty Vs. Kuppusami Chetti and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1918
Reported in: (1918)34MLJ217
ORDERAbdur Rahim, J.1. This is an application to revise an order of acquittal passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate in appeal in a case in which the accused were convicted by a Second Class Magistrate of offences under Sections 147, 355 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. The Appellate Magistrate found that the charge of rioting could not be sustained upon the evidence and thereupon acquitted the accused of that offence. That acquittal, must in my opinion, stand as no sufficient reason has been made out for interference with that part of the order of the appellate Magistrate. He has acquitted the accused of charges under Sections 323 and 355 on the ground that there had been a valid composition of those offences within the meaning of Section 345 Criminal Procedure Code before the complainant laid the charge in court. There are two questions of law which arise in connection with this matter. First of all, a doubt has been expressed by Oldfield, J., who admitted this application, with re...
Bhimanagowd Vs. Eswaragowd and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1918
Reported in: 46Ind.Cas.139
Krishnau, J.1. This suit is in the nature of an administration suit and asks for accounts to be taken of the deceased's estate and to administer it in accordance with his Will. In the administration properties will no doubt be partitioned and given to various persons entitled. The 5th defendant is one of those persons so entitled and though he was originally arraigned as a defendant, I see no objection to his being made a plaintiff to claim his share. It is argued that as the original plaintiff had no right to institute the suit, this suit would have been dismissed and that the Court has no jurisdiction to add a new plaintiff as it has done. The question whether the original plaintiff has a right or not, has not been found yet. It is a matter of controversy between the parties. But even if we assume for argument that he would ultimately be found to have no interest, that is no bar to adding a new plaintiff. Vide Krishna. Boi v. Collector and Government Agent, Tanjore 2 M.L.T. 447. It w...
P. Dasarthy Naidu Vs. Palala Kumaramull Raja (Dead) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1918
Reported in: AIR1918Mad78; 45Ind.Cas.969
1. This is a suit for redemption. The two main defences are that the suit is barred by Order II, Rule 2, and also by Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Coda. The Subordinate Judge overruled these objections and passed a preliminary decree for taking accounts. The defendant has appealed.2. In order to understand the contentions in appeal it is necessary to set out the history of the case. The property in suit belonged to the 1st plaintiff. He executed a deed of mortgage in favour of one P. Rajaratnam Naidu on the 12th of July 1892. On the 6th of July 1898 he executed a general power-of-attorney to the same individual to facilitate the collection of rents from the tenants. One of the conditions of the power-of-attorney was that the agent should appropriate the net income towards the mortgage-deed and should also pay to the mortgagor a certain fixed monthly allowance. The relation between the mortgagor and the mortgagee became strained in or about the year 1910. In that year Original Suit ...
Kuttiventi Venkataramanamurthi Vs. Macherla Sundara Ramiah and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1918
Reported in: 47Ind.Cas.630
1. The first defendant obtained a decree for maintenance against defendants Nos. 2 to 5. By the decree a charge was created over certain immoveable property concerned in the present suit. In executing the decree the property which was subject to the charge was attached and sold for Rs 900. The plaintiff was the purchaser. He paid the purchase-money into Court, and the first defendant drew out Rs. 365-7 0 of it. On .3rd defendant's petition the sale was subsequently set aside on the 14th September 1908. The plaintiff applied for a refund of his purchase-money and obtained an order on 1st December 1908 that 1st defendant should within one month deposit in Court the money drawn out by her with interest at 6 per cent.2. Subsequently in execution of that order he attached on 15th December 1908 1st defendant's maintenance decree. He applied to sell the property charged under the maintenance decree but his application was dismissed on 22nd April 1910, for what reason it is not clear, from the...
Kumarasami Chetty Vs. Kuppusami Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1918
Reported in: 44Ind.Cas.583
ORDERAbdur Rahim, J.1. This is an application to revise an order of acquittal passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate in appeal in a case in which the accused were convicted by a 2nd Class Magistrate of offences under Sections 147, 355 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. The Appellate Magistrate found that the charge of rioting could not be sustained upon the evidence and thereupon acquitted the accused of that offence. That acquittal must, in my opinion, stand, as no sufficient reason has been made out for interference with that part of the Order of the Appellate Magistrate. He has acquitted the accused of charges under Sections 323 and 355, on the ground that there had been a valid composition of those offences within the meaning of Section 346, Criminal Procedure Code, before the complainant laid the charge in Court. There are two questions of law which arise in connection with this matter. First of all, a doubt has been expressed by Oldfleld, J., who admitted this application, with r...
The Madura Etc., Devastanam Through Manager, P.S. Ananthanarayana Ayya ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1918
Reported in: 47Ind.Cas.858
1. Under Section 189(1) of the Madras Estates Land Act, jurisdiction is conferred upon the Collector to hear and determine, as a Revenue Court, the suits and applications specified in parts A and B of the Schedule to the Act, and there is a corresponding provision depriving the Civil Courts of jurisdiction in such matters. As regards Section 46, part B of the Schedule confers upon the Collector jurisdiction to dispose, as Revenue Court, of applications for settlement of rent of land for the purpose of Section 46 under the proviso to that section, and makes orders passed under that section appealable to the Court of the District Collector, if there is no dispute about the rate of rent under the proviso to Section 46(1), there is nothing in Section 189 or in the Schedule to oust the jurisdiction of the Civil Court or confer jurisdiction on the Collector as a Revenue Court; and even if there is such a dispute, jurisdiction is only conferred with respect to it.2. Under Section 46(3) the Co...
Karakkattitathil Rayarappan Nambiar Karnavan and Manager of His Tarwad ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1918
Reported in: (1918)35MLJ51
1. Plaintiff as the karnavan of his Tarwad sues to recover possession from the defendants. His case is that his tarwad is the jenmi of the properties in suit, that its title was recognised by the 1st defendant in O.S. No. 142 of 1868 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Kavvayi, (under the Zilla Court at Tellicherry), and that the 1st and other defendants who are Anan-dravans of the defendants' tarwad hold the property under a kanom from the plaintiff's tarwad. The plaintiff further stated that a sum of Es. 400 was paid towards the kanom and that the defendants are bound to surrender on the receipt of the balance, The defendants contended that the jenm title belonged to their tarwad and not to the plaintiff's tarwad.2. The Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit. The plaintiff has appealed. A preliminary objection is taken by the respondent that the appeal filed in this Court is barred by limitation. The original valuation of the suit was below five thousand rupees. The plai...
Karakkattitathil Rayarappa Nambiar Karnavan and Manager of His Tarwad ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1918
Reported in: 45Ind.Cas.489
1. Plaintiff, as the Karnavan of his Tarwad, sues to recover possession from the defendants. His case is that his Tarwad is the jenmi of the properties in suit, that its title was recognised by the Ist defendant in Original Suit No. 142 of 1868 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Kavvayi (under the Zilla Court of Tellichery), and that the 1st and other defendants who are Anandravans of the defendant's Tarwad hold the property under a Kanom from the plaintiff's Tarwad. The plaintiff further stated that a sum of Rs. 400 was paid towards the Kanom and that the defendants are bound to surrender on the receipt of the balance. The defendants contended that the jenm title belonged to their Tarwad and not to the plaintiff's Tarwad.2. The Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit. The plaintiff has appealed. A preliminary objection is taken by the respondept that the appeal filed in this Court is barred by limitation. The original valuation of the suit was below five thousand ruples; ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »