Chennai Court November 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.
Aiyalam Kesava Chetli Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1918
Reported in: 51Ind.Cas.46; (1919)36MLJ222
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. He sued the Secretary of State for India in Council (Respondent) for a declaration that the property specified in the plaint belongs to him and is not liable to penal assessment, for an injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the property and for refund of the penal assessment levied. The case for the plaintiff is that the property belongs to him absolutely and was never the property of the Government, that he was served with a notice from the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 15th July, 1914 purporting to be issued under Madras Act III of 1905, levying a penal assessment of Rs. 10 and that the amount was wrongly collected from him on the 21st July, 1914. The defence is that the property was Nattam Poramboke which the plaintiff trespassed upon, that the Government is entitled to levy the assessment claimed and that the suit is barred by limitation.2. Both the District Munsif and on appeal the Subordinate Judge h...
T.R. Ramachandra Iyer and anr. Vs. Ponniath Akathuthu Parameswaram Mun ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1918
Reported in: 50Ind.Cas.693
Abdur Rahim, J.1. The sole question for determination in this Letters Patent Appeal is whether the suit in which it has arisen and which was instituted under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure with respect to a temple in North Malabar is maintainable, the point being whether Mr. T.R. Ramachandra Aiyar, one of the plaintiffs, has an interest within the meaning of that section in the temple concerned. Mr. T.R. Ramachandra Aiyar who is a leading practitioner of this Court and a Brahmin resides in Madras while the temple is situate in Tellicherry. It is an ancient temple of some celebrity and is dedicated to the deity Sri Rama. Mr. T.R. Ramachandra Aiyar is a member of the Dharma Eakshana Sabah among whose objects is included institution of suits for the protection and due application of Hindu religious endowments. It also appears that when, on one or two occasions in the exercise of his profession he went to Tellicherry, he attended this temple1 and worshipped there, and it was fur...
Origanti Venkatarathnam Vs. K. Desikachari and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1918
Reported in: (1919)36MLJ461
1. This is an appeal from an order of Coutts Trotter, J., directing the third defendant to be committed for contempt for disobeying four orders of the Official Referee to produce certain documents alleged to be in his possession. The account books in question were admitted by the 3rd defendant in his affidavit of documents to be then in his possession. He was in charge of the Bezwada branch of the suit business, and the accounts which were the accounts of the branch were kept there. They had been sent to Madras for the purpose of an arbitration in the present suit and then taken back to Bezwada, and the correspondence shows that they were again sent to Madras in connection with the arbitration in February 1913. The arbitration fell through, as appears from a summons taken out on 3rd March, 191.7 relating to the further prosecution of the suit. There is evidence that the books in question were sent back to Bezwada on the 6th of March, where it appears they were wanted for the purpose of...
Alur Lakshmi Narasimha Sastrulu and ors. Vs. Venkata Narasamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-1918
Reported in: 52Ind.Cas.614
1. The defendants Nos. 8 to 10 (the sons of the deceased 1st defendant) are the appellants before us. A preliminary decree for partition of the B Schedule properties was passed by the District Court, Cuddapah, in the plaintiff's favour against the 1st. defendant in 1904. The 1st defendant died in January or February 1914. The plaintiff filed the present petition on 8th December 1916 in the form of an execution petition and she filed it in the District Court of Cuddapah praying for the defendants Nos. 8 to 10 being brought on the record as the 1st defendant's legal representatives, for the appointment of a Commissioner to divide the B Schedule properties into six shares and for delivery of one such share to her.2. The District Court has brought the defendants Nos. 8 to 10 on the record as the 1st defendant's legal representatives (evidently because no objection was taken by them to that course). But it treated the other prayers as prayers in execution and transferred the execution to th...
K. Pathumma Umma and ors. Vs. M. Thittu Umma Alias Kunhi Umma and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1918
Reported in: 50Ind.Cas.855; (1919)36MLJ159
1. The donor in this case was the mother of the plaintiff. She had a son who was the husband of the first defendant; defendants 2 to G are their children. The property in suit came to the donor under a deed of settlement. She was in possession and she allowed her son, his wife and children to live with her. Her son died in May-June 1914. She then left the house temporarily and executed a deed of gift to plaintiff while she was living in the latter's house. This was on the 23rd July 1914. She directed her daughter to take possession from the defendants. When the daughter's husband attempted to enter the house on behalf of his wife, he was resisted. Hence this suit.2. It is clear from the judgment of the District Judge that the defendants were licensees who were permissively in occupation. There can be no doubt that this finding is based on legal evidence. Ex. I a petition sent by the defendants to the Registrar practically admits that the were in the house with the permission of the don...
Asan Alliar Maraikayar and anr. Vs. T.B. Masilamani Nadar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1918
Reported in: 51Ind.Cas.198; (1919)36MLJ252
Seshagiri Aiyar, J.1. This is a suit against two policemen for damages for illegal search of the plaintiff's house. On the 29th January 1915, the two defendants undoubtedly conducted the search. The District Munsif held that the search was illegal and awarded Rs. 100 as damages against each of the defendants. In appeal the District Judge exonerated the 2nd defendant altogether and gave a rupee damage against the 1st defendant. The plaintiffs have preferred this second appeal and the 1st defendant has filed a memorandum of objections.2. On the question whether the 2nd. defendant should be held liable I have come to the conclusion that the District Judge is right. The main argument addressed to us by the learned vakil for the appellant was that the 2nd defendant was not an officer in charge of a police station and that consequently he had no power to make the search. Under Section 4, Clause (p) of the Code of Criminal Procedure an officer in charge of a police station includes, when a pe...
Ramalinga Chetty and ors. Vs. Sivachidambara Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1918
Reported in: (1919)36MLJ575
1. This is a suit to recover property. The father of defendants 1 to 3 gave about 40 cents of land to a temple in 1903 on the Sapandikaranam day of his father's death. There was no writing to evidence it. The donor was himself a trustee of the temple. During his life-time he regarded himself as a lessee on behalf of the temple and gave it the income from the land. After his death, the defendant refused either to give the income or to deliver possession of the land.2. There were two main defences. One is that as the gift was not in writing and registered, no title passed to the temple. The other is that it was not competent to the donor who was a member of a joint Hindu family at the time of the gift to dispose of ancestral property in the way he did. The courts below rejected these contentions.3. In Second appeal, Mr. Ananthakrishna Aiyar relied strongly upon Mannu Lal v. Radhakishenji 36 Ind.Cas. 989 for the first contention. The learned Judges of the Allahabad High Court do not discu...
Batchu Ramajogayya Vs. Vajjula Jagannadham and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-1918
Reported in: (1919)36MLJ29
John Wallis, C.J.1. The decision of the Privy Council in Waghela Rajsanji v. Shekh Masludin I.L.R. (1887) Bom. 551 with reference to a personal covenant made on behalf of a Hindu minor by his guardian, that a guardian cannot be allowed to make covenants in the name of the ward so as to impose personal liability upon him, precludes us, in my opinion, from holding that a guardian has any such power in India. It was, however, pointed out in Maharana Shri Ranmalsingji v. Vadilal Vakhatchand I.L.R. (1894) Bom. 61 that this ruling does not affect the liability of the minor's estate under Section 68 of the Indian Contract Act to persons who have supplied him during minority with necessaries suited to his condition in life. What are necessaries must depend on the facts of each case, and in the case of a Hindu, money advanced for the expenses of a marriage which the minor has to perform or to pay off a debt binding upon him, may be recoverable under this head from his estate. It was held in thi...
Valan Pakkiri Taragan and ors. Vs. Subbayan Samban and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-1918
Reported in: (1919)36MLJ79
John Wallis, C.J.1. In Satku Valadhadir Sausare v. Ibraim Aga Valad Mirza Aga I.L.R. (1877) B. 457 the facts are not set out in the report, and all that appears is that the plaint averred obstruction of the plaintiffs in their use of the highway by the defendants, and also an order of the Magistrate under Section 518 (now Section 144) of the Code of Criminal Procedure prohibiting the plaintiffs from using the highway in the particular way to which the defendants took objection. Sir Michael Westropp, C.J., after reviewing the English decisions as to the right of an individual member of the public to maintain an action for the obstruction of a public thoroughfare and showing that no such action would he without proof of special damage, dismissed the plaintiffs' suit on that ground. The obstruction in the English cases cited consisted of interference with the surface of the highway which interfered with the right of the public to pass and repass freely. The same principle would, no doubt,...
The Secretary of State for India in Council Represented by the Collect ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-1918
Reported in: (1919)36MLJ207
1. The question in this case is whether the rights of a mulgenidar escheat to the Government on the death of the last owner dying without issue or whether it reverts back to the mulgar from whom the mulgeni was acquired. This question is not uncovered by any direct authority. If a mulgeni tenure is of the same character as a permanent lease, on the authority of the Judicial Committee in Sonet Koer v. Himmut Bahadur I.L.R. (1876) C. 391 the right would escheat to the Government and would not revert to the landlord. Therefore the question is what are the characteristics of a mulgeni tenure. In the Fifth Report Vol. II page 78 it is pointed out that on the death of the mulgenidar the right would revert to the mulgar just as the Mulgar's property would escheat to the Government in case he dies issueless. Similar observations are to be found in the Report of the Collector in the same report at page 481. The learned Government Pleader suggested that this is not a statement of fact but an inf...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »