Chennai Court October 1918 Judgments
Jampana Somadu Vs. Sri Raja Venkata Ramayya Appa Row Bahadur Zamindar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-1918
Reported in: (1919)36MLJ248
Spencer, J.1. This suit was brought by the Court of Wards Manager of the estate of Mirzapuram on behalf of the minor zemindar, who is a landholder under the Madras Estates Land Act (Act I of 19 08), to evict the defendants on the expiry of their lease in fasli 1322. In second appeal, three questions were argued: first, whether the land in suit is 'old waste,' secondly, whether the tenants of 'old waste' can be ejected, and thirdly whether mesne profits can be decreed by a Revenue Court.2. It was asserted in paragraph 3 of the plaint that the lands in the schedule of the plaint were 'old waste', and in the written statement there is no specific denial of this fact. Therefore applying Rules 3 and 5 of Order VIII of the Code of Civil Procedure (Act V of 1908) the defendants must be taken to have admitted the fact that the land in suit was ' old waste,' and it is not open to them now to set up a contention to the contrary.3. The defendants held on a lease for 10 years from faslis 1313 to 1...
Tag this Judgment!Ramaswami Goundan Vs. Kali Goundan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-1918
Reported in: (1919)36MLJ571
Ayling, J.1. This petition arises out of an order of the Deputy Collector of Namakkal under Section 131, Madras Estates Land Act, setting aside a sale for arrears of rent2. The preliminary objection is taken that this Court has no power to revise such an order. I do not think this objection can be upheld. It is true that Section 205 of the Act (read with the schedule, Part B, No. 19) gives a power of revision to the Board of Revenue or the District Collector in the case of such an order : and in the present case, petitioner has invoked the interference of both the authorities named without success. But Section 192 renders Section 115 of the present Code of Civil Procedure (old Section 622) applicable to all suits, appeals and other proceedings under the Madras Estates Land Act. It may seem undesirable that the power of revising the same order should vest in two authorities so different in their constitution and ordinary procedure as this Court and the Board of Revenue; and one may wond...
Tag this Judgment!Mulukutla Ramamurthi and ors. Vs. Chillara Bhaskarayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-1918
Reported in: 50Ind.Cas.58
Krishnan, J.1. Following the ruling in Vaithilingam v. Ramalingam Pillai 38 Ind. Cas. 133, I think the petitioners should be directed to be made party defendants.2. They allege that they are trustees and there is nothing prima facie to show that they are not. Their rights as trustees would be lost bey the framing of the scheme: see Rama Das v. Hanumantha Row 12 Ind. Cas 449: (1911) 2 M.W.N. 387 and, that being so, I think they should be heard before the Court takes any action to their prejudice No doubt the Subordinate Judge says that their application is not bona fide. It is not clear what this means or on what it is based. The defendant support the claim of the petitioners to the trusteeship. I cannot taken this observation as meaning that the petitioners are putting forward a totally unfounded claim to trusteeship. If that is what is meant, it is unsupported by any evidence.I must, therefore, set side the order of the Subordinate Judge and direct him to add petitioners as party defe...
Tag this Judgment!Jampana Somadu Vs. Sri Raja Venkata Ramaya Appa Row Bahadur Zamindar G ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-1918
Reported in: 50Ind.Cas.946
Spencer, J.1. This suit was brought by the Court of Wards Manager of the estate of Mirzapuram on behalf of the minor Zemindar, who is a landholder under the Madras Estates Land Act (Act I of 1908), to evict the defendants on the expiry of their lease in Fasli 1322. In second appeal, three questions were argued: first, whether the land in suit is 'old waste', secondly, whether the tenants of 'old waste' can be ejected, and thirdly, whether mesne profits can be decreed by a Revenue Court.2. It was asserted in paragraph 3 of the plaint that the lauds in the schedule of the plaint were 'old waste', and in the written statement there is no specific denial of this fact. Therefore, applying rules 3 and 5 of Order VIII of the Code of Civil Procedure (Act V of 1908), the defendants must be taken to have admitted the fact that the land in suit was 'old waste', and it is not open to them now to set up a contention to the contrary.3. The defendants held on a lease for 10 years from Faslis 1313 to ...
Tag this Judgment!Narasimhayya Vs. Srinivasayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-30-1918
Reported in: (1919)36MLJ118
1. We think we are bound by the Privy Council decisions in Mathura Das v. Raja Narondra Bahadur I.L.R. (1896) A 39 : 6 M.L.J. 214 and Bindersi Nails v. Ganga Saran Sahu I.L.R. (1897) A. 171 and the decisions of this Court in Ghantayya v. Papayya I.L.R. (1899) M. 534 and Bamanathan Ghetty v. Nur Muhammad Marakkayar (1900) 11 M.L.J. 183 to hold that post diem interest is payable on the general promise by the debtor to be liable for interest though a definite term is fixed in the bond for re-payment of the principal and interest. If the liability under that general undertaking to pay interest is further extended by another under taking, (which may be called appurtenant to the principal undertaking) to pay interest upon arrears of interest and which further undertaking is found in the same document following the provision to pay interest it is difficult to hold that the parties intended that only the principal undertaking should apply to the question of the liability for post diem interest...
Tag this Judgment!Gaddam Paramasivudu Vs. Mulakala Subbanna and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1918
Reported in: 52Ind.Cas.625
1. The plaintiff, here appellant, sued in ejectment alleging that 1st and 2nd defendants had attorned to him as tenants by paying him rent for one year, 3rd defendant being their sub-tenant, and that they had subsequently set up the title of 4th defendant. Plaintiff set up his own title as by purchase from Sattemma, who claimed under the Will of Rajasekharadu. Defendants denied the title of both the last mentioned and contended that the decisions in Original Suits Nos. 212 of 1905 and 133 of 1915 were res judicata in their favour. The District Munsif accepted this contention. The lower Appellate Court confirmed his decision, relying solely on the judgment in Original Suit No. 212 as the judgment in Original Suit No. 133 was the subject of a pending second appeal in this Court. It has since been confirmed here in Second Appeal No. 1057 of 1917.2. Plaintiff argues first that, even if this Court's judgment can be looked at, it will be decisive only as between himself and 4th defendant, wh...
Tag this Judgment!Dhulipallia Butchayya Vs. Kuppa Venkatakrishnayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-23-1918
Reported in: 58Ind.Cas.797
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. There are two questions raised in this second appeal filed by the plaintiff, the respondents being the 1st defendant and his sons (the defendants Nos. 3 and 4). The suit was brought on a promissory note executed by the 1st defendant: The first of the two questions is, whether the plaintiff has a right to appropriate several payments made by 1st defendant (without specific directions) in full satisfaction of the interest due to the plaintiff on the pro-note till the respective dates of payment and the balance, as far as would go towards the principal amount, or whether plaintiff ought to treat whatever was paid as paid wholly towards the principal and allow counter-interest on the whole of the amount of each payment without denoting there from the interest due till the date thereof. I think the lower Courts were wrong in deciding in favour of the second alternative. The cases in Luchmeswar Singh. Bahadur v. Syud Lutf Ali Khan 8 B.L.R. 110; Bamundoss Mookerjee v. Ome...
Tag this Judgment!Uppara Chinngappa and ors. Vs. Gaddam Chinna Hanumanna
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-23-1918
Reported in: 50Ind.Cas.471
1. This is a suit to enforce the award of an arbitrator. What happened was that there was a dispute which ended in a criminal case, the dispute being about the dams alleged to have been put up on the defendants' land which caused the flooding of the plaintiff's land. The father and sons were parties to the agreement, but the reference to the arbitrator was made by the father alone. The question is, whether this is binding on the sons or whether, as they now wish, they should be allowed to re-open this probably trivial dispute.2. There is no direct authority on the point. The cases relied on by the learned Subordinate Judge, viz., Jagan Nath v. Mannu Lal 16 A. 231 : A.W.N. (1894) 60 : 8 Ind. Dec. 150 and we may add another case Pitam Singh v. Ujagar Singh 1 A.P 651 : 1 Ind. Dec. 454 and Chinna Poochiammal v. Ganga Naicker 9 M.L.J. 34 and Balaji v. Nana 27 B.K 287 : 5 Bom. L.R. 95 sometimes speak of the authority of the manager and sometimes of the authority of the father to bind the oth...
Tag this Judgment!Pathma Re Krishna Chettiar Vs. Mu Pa Venkatachella Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-22-1918
Reported in: (1919)36MLJ114
John Wallis, C.J.1. This is an appeal from the decree of the Subordinate Judge, of Kumbakonam in so far as it dismissed the suit brought by the plaintiff as assignee of a surety bond Exhibit A, dated 21st April 1896, charging the immoveables therein mentioned for the due performance by the 1st defendant of his obligations under the bond given by him to the District Court under Section 34 (a) of the Guardians and Wards Act as guardian of the plaintiff who was then a minor. The immoveable properties of the other sureties being insufficient, the 1st defendant added certain properties of his own and became a party to the surety bond, Exhibit A, as well as to the principal bond which is now missing The Subordinate Judge passed a personal decree against the guardian and the 1st defendant who did not contest the suri, and otherwise dismissed it on the ground that the plaintiff had no right to sue on the bond Exhibit A, at the date of the suit, as the principal bond had not been assigned to hi...
Tag this Judgment!T.K. Parameswara Iyer and ors. Vs. Land Acquisition Collector and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-22-1918
Reported in: (1919)36MLJ95
Ayling, J.1. In this case we are asked to revise an order of the Revenue Divisional Officer of Palghat dismissing petitioners' application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (1 of 1894) for a reference to the Court regarding his award of compensation for certain lands of a devaswom acquired under the Act.2. The order is very brief and runs thus :These persons do not appear to be the accredited representatives of the devaswom. The petition is therefore rejected. 3. That the order is illegal hardly admits of doubt. Section 18 enables 'any person interested, who has not accepted the award' to 'require' a reference: and Section 3 (b) defines 'persons interested' as including all persons claiming an interest in the compensation. As long as the application sets out a claim to an interest in the compensation, it is no part of the Collector's duty to decide whether the claim is well founded : and he is not authorised to refuse to make the reference merely because he may think it is n...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »