Chennai Court April 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.
P.L.P.L. Palaniappa Chettiar and ors. Vs. Pana Lana Seena Shanmugam Ch ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-1918
Reported in: (1918)35MLJ90
Sir John Wallis, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a decree of Kumaraswami Sastri, J., in a suit brought by the plaintiff on a promissory note executed by the 1st defendant describing himself as ' P.R.P.L.S.Hukdar.' The plaint sought to make the 1st defendant personally liable on the note. The 1st defendant pleaded that the suit was bad for non-joinder of the other members of the family who as he alleged, were also hukdars of the charity, that it was without consideration and that he was not personally liable. He died after the settlement of issues, and the plaintiff then brought on the record not only his legal representatives but also the other members of the family to meet the objection of non-joinder, and additional issues were settled as to their liability.2. The learned Judge found on the 1st issue that the promissory note was not without consideration or intended to be inopera-. tive, and we see no reason to differ from that finding. The subsequent correspondence clearly shows the n...
Sree Rajah Vasireddi Venkata Lakshmi Narasamma Bahadur Sultan Garu,dha ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-1918
Reported in: (1918)35MLJ159
1. In Bengal Regulation XI of 1825, the legislature, acting, as recited in the preamble, on reports from the law officers as to the provisions of the Muhammadan and Hindu laws and on a consideration of the decisions of the Sudder Adalut, proceeded in Section 4 to make a distinction as to the ownership of churs in navigable and non-navigable rivers, which, in the opinion of Sir M.R. Westropp, C.,T. in Baban Mayacha v. Nagu Shravucha and Ors. I.L.R. (1876) Bom. 19 raised an inference, though not conclusive, that the beds of non navigable rivers are generally private property. The observation of the Judicial Committee in Doe Dem Rajah Seeb Kristo and Ors. v. The East India Go. (1856) 6 M.I.A. 267 appears to proceed upon the same view. The law was laid down in the same way in Rajah Neelanund Singh and Ors. v. Rajah Teknarain Singh (1862) Cal. S.D.A.R. p 160 and by the Calcutta High Court in Hunooman Das alias Nunne Baboo and Ors. v. Shamachurn Bhatta and Ors. 2 Hay 426 and Bhageeruthee Deb...
Venkata Lashminarasamma Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Counci ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-1918
Reported in: (1918)ILR41Mad840
John Wallis, Kt., C.J.1. In Bengal Regulation XI of 1825, the legislature, acting, as recited in the preamble, on reports from the law officers as to the provisions of the Muhammadan and Hindu laws and on a consideration of the decisions of the Sudder Adalut, proceeded in Section 4 to make a distinction as to the ownership of churs in navigable and non-navigable rivers, which, in the opinion of Sir Michael Westropp, C.J., in Baban Mayacha v. Nagu Shravucha and others I.L.R. (1878) Bom.19 raised an inference, though not conclusive, that the beds of non-navigable rivers are generally private property. The observation of the Judicial Committee in Doe dem Seebkristo and others v. The East India Company (1856) 6 M.I.A. 267 appears to proceed upon the same view. The law was laid down in the same way in Rajah Neelanund Singh and others v. Rajah Teknarain Singh (1862) Cal. S.D.A. R, 160, and by the Calcutta High Court in Hunooman Doss v. Shamachurn Bhutta (1862) 1 Hay, 426, and Bhageeruthee De...
K. Ramachendra thevar, Zemindar of Palayampatti Vs. S.V. Velayutha Nad ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-1918
Reported in: 52Ind.Cas.951
1. The landlord in these suits under the Madras Estates Land Act appeals in respect of three items, namely, Vanpayir, (2) Pada Nazzar,(3) Vagaira,2. On the first point, we think that the District Judge was in error in regarding the provisions of Section 13 (3) of the Act as precluding him from finding, from the payment of higher rate for a long series of years prior to the passing of the Act, that an implied contract existed to pay at these rates in future. It was decided in Venkata Perumal v. Ramudu 27 Ind. Cas. 688that Section 13 applied to improvements made after the new Act same into force and had no retrospective effect. The Judge has referred to the fact that the Jamabandi accounts and Pattas show that these special rates have been paid since 1330, and we must now ask him to find as a question of fact whether the payments made by each of the tenants concerned in these appeals have been continuing for such a length of time that it may be properly presumed that they are based on an...
Sree Rajah Vasireddi Venkata Lakshmi Narasamma Bahadur Manne Sultan Ga ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-1918
Reported in: 47Ind.Cas.606
1. In Bengal Regulation XI of 1825, the Legislature, acting, as recited in the preamble, on reports from the law officers as to the provisions of the Muhammadan and Hindu Laws and on a consideration of the decisions of the Sudder Adalut, proceeded in Section 4 to make a distinction as to the ownership of Churs in navigable and non-navigable rivers, which, in the opinion of Sir M.R. Westropp, C.J , in Baban Mayacha v. Nagu Shravucha 1 Ind. Dec. 441 raised an inference, though not conclusive, that the beds of non navigable rivers are generally private property. The observation of the Judicial Committee in John Doe v. East India Com. 6 M.I.A. 267 appears to proceed upon the same view. The law was laid down in the same way in Rajah Neelanund Sing v. Rajah Teknarain Singh Cal. (1862) SDAR 160 and by the Calcutta High Court in Hunooman Doss v. Shamchurn Bhutta, 1 Hay 426 and Bhagee-ruttee Dabea v. Greesh Chunder Chowdhry 2 Hay 541 , where the Court held that 'by the common law of this countr...
Somu Pathar and anr. Vs. Rengaswami Reddiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1918
Reported in: 51Ind.Cas.411; (1918)35MLJ252
Seshagiri Aiyar, J.1. Although the point argued is not free from difficulty and I have a doubt whether Section 115, C.P.C, is applicable to the case, I shall express my opinion fully so that, if the matter be taken in appeal, it can be properly dealt with then.2. The petitioners in this case are the judgment-debtors in O.S. No. 333 of 1912. One Rengaswami Reddi obtained in a small cause suit a decree against the decree-holder in O.S. No. 333 of 1912 and attached the decree in the latter suit. That was in August 1914. In December 1915, the decree-holder in O.S. No, 333 of 1912 applied to the District Munsif's Court to enter up satisfaction of his decree. At this time, the attachment at the instance of the decree-holder in the Small Cause Suit had been effected. This application for satisfaetion being entered up was opposed by the attaching decree-holder. In consequence of the opposition by the attaching creditor, the decree-holder in O.S. No. 333 of 1912 withdrew the application. The at...
See Vana Na Ramah Iyer and anr. Vs. S.R.M.A.G. Gopala Iyer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1918
Reported in: (1918)35MLJ355
1. The 4th and 5th defendants in this case who are the appellants, brought a suit, O.S. No. 305 of 1913, in the District Munsif's Court of Ambasamudram, against the 2nd defendant. The 2nd defendant was brought under the machinery of Order 38 of the Code of Civil Procedure, because an application was made for his arrest before judgment on the ground that he was absconding from the local limits of the court. In accordance with the procedure set out in Order 38 Rules 1 and 2, he was brought before the court to show cause why he should not furnish security for his appearance; and he proceeded under Rule 2 to deposit a sum of money-in this case, Rs. 1,200-which was adjudged sufficient to meet the plaintiff's claim, that is to say, the claim of the defendants Nos. 4 and 5 in this suit. The dates are important. The arrest was on the 15th July 1913, and the payment into court was on the 21st of July following. The 4th and the 5th defendants obtained a decree for the full amount claimed on the ...
Ramiah Aiyar and anr. Vs. Gopalier and Five ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1918
Reported in: (1918)ILR41Mad1053
Coutts Trotter, J.1. The fourth and the fifth defendants in this case who are the appellants, brought a suit, Original Suit No. 305 of 1918 in the District Munsif's Court of Ambasamudram, against the second defendant. The second defendant was brought under the machinery of Order XXXVIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, because an application was taken against him for his arrest before judgment on the ground that he was absconding from the local limits of the Court, and thereupon, in accordance with the procedure set out in Order XXXVIII, Rules 1 and 2, he was brought up before the Court to show cause why he should not furnish security for his appearance; and he proceeded under Rule 2 to deposit a sum of money and, in this case, Rs. 1,200 which was adjudged sufficient to meet the plaintiff's claim, that is to say, the claim of the defendants Nos. 4 and 5 in this suit. The dates are important. The arrest was on the 15th July 1913 and the payment into the Court was on the 21st of July foll...
Seena Vana Ramiah Ayyar and anr. Vs. S.R.M.A.G. Gopala Ayyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1918
Reported in: 49Ind.Cas.20
1. The 4th and 5th defendants in this case, who are the appellants, brought a suit, Original Suit No. 305 of 1913 in the District Munsif's, Court of Ambasamaram against the 2nd defendant. The 2nd defendant was brought under, the machinery of Order XXXVIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, because an application was taken against him for his arrest before judgment on the ground that he was absconding from the local limits of the Court, and there-upon in accordance with the procedure sett out in Order XXXVIII, Rules 1 and 2, he was brought before the Court to show cause why he should not furnish security far his appearance; and he proceeded under Rule 2 to deposit a sum of money--in this case Rs. 1,200--which was adjudged sufficient to meet the plaintiffs' claim, that is to say, the claim of the defendants. Nos. 4 and 5 in this suit. The dates are important. The arrest was on the 15th July 1913, and the payment into Court was on the 21st July following. The 4th and the 8th defendants obtai...
Gaspari Louis and anr. Vs. Rev. Fr. C.P. Gonsalves
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1918
Reported in: 47Ind.Cas.941; (1918)35MLJ407
1. This suit, together with an execution petition which turns upon it, was brought by the Reverend Gonsalves, Vicar of the Roman Catholic parish church at Kalianpur for arrears of rent due by tenants of Church property. The only defence with which we are concerned is the defence that the plaintiff was not entitled to sue, as his appointment as manager or moktessor of the church property was not a valid one. The vicar was appointed by the Bishop upon the 14th November 1914, and the facts leading up to the appointment were these: The temporal affairs of the church were ordinarily administered by a body known as the junta composed of the heads of houses in the village. This body has been in existence for something like 30 years and has claimed and exercised the right to appoint the moktessor. The last moktessor appointed by the junta was a Mr. Louis who resigned bis appointment in 1913. Attempts were then made to get the junta to appoint a successor, but the meeting held was so disorderly...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »