Chennai Court August 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.
C. Vekatachariar Vs. Narasimha Ayyangar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-1918
Reported in: 48Ind.Cas.301
1. This is an appeal from the judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Salem in a suit brought by a Mittadar to eject the defendants, who claim to hold under a permanent lease.2. Two questions have been argued before us: we whether the defendants hold on a permanent tenure; and (2) whether, if they did so hold, they have forfeited their tenure by renouncing their character as lessees by setting up a title in a third person, within the meaning of Section 111 (g~, of the Transfer of Properly Act.3. As regards the first point we have been referred to the cases reported as Rajaram v. Narasinga 5 Ind. Dec. 400, Fonlkes v. Muthusami Goundan 8 M.L.J. 207, Venkataramanna v. Venkatapathi Nayani Varu 29 Ind. Cas. 188 : (1915) M.W.N. 313 and Rama Iyengar v. Anga Guruewami Chetti 46 Ind. Cas. 62 in which the meaning of the words 'Saswatham' and 'kayam' occurring in leases have been construed. We do not think it necessary again to discuss the meaning of these terms or the correctness of the decision in...
In Re: Kandasamy Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-1918
Reported in: 46Ind.Cas.161
ORDER1. In this petition we are asked to revise the judgment of the Sessions Judge of Madura upholding the conviction of the accused for an offence under Rule 29 of the rules framed under the Defence of India Act of 1915 for having dissuaded one Ramu Pillai from entering into military service. It was contended by Mr. A. Subbarama Aiyar in the course of his able argument, first, that there was no such offence in the Madras Presidency and secondly, that if it was an offence, the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Melur had no jurisdiction to try the charge in that (1) the ordinary Courts of the country have no jurisdiction, (2) there was no previous consent of the District Magistrate as required by the Act. After hearing the Advocate General in reply we had no doubt that the petition must be dismissed, but thought it advisable to give our reasons in a written judgment in view of the importance of the questions raised.2. The first argument is based on the peculiar arrangement of th...
Paramaswami Ayyangar Vs. Alamu Nachiar Ammal, Minor Represented by Her ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-1918
Reported in: 49Ind.Cas.11
William Ayling, J.1. This is an application to revise an order of the Special Deputy -. Collector, Madura District, in the matter of bringing on record the legal repre-sentatives of the deceased plaintiff in certain suits, under Section 77 of the' Madras Estates Land Act pending in his Court.2. The preliminary objection is taken that this Court has no power of interference in revision in such cases. Reliance is placed on Section 205 of the Madras Estates Land Act. In my opinion this section relates, not to ' incidental orders in suits, the final decree in which is appealable, but to such proceedings as are specified in part B of the Schedule to the Act, as those in which no appeal lies (Nos. 12--20), It is not, and cannot be, intended to affect the revisional powers of this Court, in suits which are made appealable to the District Court and this Court under Part A of the Schedule. Section 115, Civil Procedure Code, is one of the sections made applicable to suits under the Madras Estate...
V. Subramania Ayyar Vs. Mulla Veettil Assan Koya by Next Friend Mulla ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-1918
Reported in: 46Ind.Cas.204
Spencer, J.1. This is a case of a gift of property by a Muhammadan grandfather in favour of his grandson. Two cases of gifts by Mubammadan grandparents in favour of their grandsons have come before this Court in recent years. They-are reported Fakir Nynar Muhamed Rowther v. Kandasawmi Kulathu Vandan 14 Ind. Cas. 993 and Alamanayakunigari Rabi Sab v. Murukuti Papiah 29 Ind. Cas. 439. The latter was a case similar to the present of a gift made to a grandson during the lifetime of his father at a time when all the three lived together in the Same house. One of these oases had the Advantage of being heard by Abdur Rahim, J., and the other had the advantage of being heard by Tyabji, J. The whole question of gifts to minor sons has again been elaborately and learnedly discussed by Tyabji, J., in Rahman Bi v. Fatima Bibi 31 Ind. Cas. 545. From ' these rulings and from what the text books say on the subject it appears to be sound law that although delivery of season is necessary in the case of...
In Re: Ambalam Ibrahi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1918
Reported in: (1918)35MLJ401
ORDER1. This must be taken as a petition of revision directed solely against the order of the Tahsildar magistrate refusing to give a copy of the magistrate's judgment, the refusal having been based on the ground that the petitioner ought to pay eight annas search fees along with his application for copy under the Board's Standing Order No. 173.2. The application for copy was made to the officer as a magistrate (a Criminal Court) by an accused convicted by him and the Board's Standing Order has absolutely no relevancy to such an application. An application of that kind is governed by Rule 188 of the Criminal Rules of Practice framed by the High Court under the powers vested in the High Court by Section 554, Sub-section 2 Clause (e) of the Criminal Procedure Code.3. The magistrate is therefore directed to give the copy applied for without further delay. A. V. V....
Arunachallam Pillai Vs. Ponnuswamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1918
Reported in: (1918)35MLJ454
ORDERNapier, J.1. These are two petitions, one to revise an order of the District Magistrate of Trichinopoly of the 12ch January 1918, the other to revise the order of the Sessions Judge of Trichinopoly of the 1st March 1918. The order of the District Magistrate was made on appeal from an order of the Stationary Sub-Magistrate of Trichinopoly refusing to sanction the prosecution of the present petitioner and another for an offence under Section 188 I.P.C. The petitions were the result of an order of the Stationary Sub-Magistrate passed on the 8th May 1917 under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Coie restraining this petitioner and others from taking the Pidari deity in procession through a lane claimed, to be the private property of the present counter-petitioners. This order was alleged to have been violated and hence the petition for sanction.2. The Stationary Sub-Magistrate declined to grant the sanction on two grounds, onp, that the order should not have been passed and that th...
Arunachalam Pillai Vs. Ponnuswami Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1918
Reported in: 48Ind.Cas.878
ORDERNapier, J.1. These are two petitions, one to revise an order of the District Magistrate of Trichinopoly of the 12th January 1918, the other to revise the order of the Sessions Judge of Trichinopoly of the 1st March 1918. The order of the District Magistrate was made on appeal from an order of the Stationary Sub-Magistrate of Trichinopoly refusing to sanction the prosecution of the present petitioner and another for an offence under Section 18 6, Indian Penal Code. The petitions were the result of an order of the Stationary Sub-Magistrate passed on the 8th May 1917 under Section 144, Criminal Procedure Code, restraining this petitioner and others from taking the Pidari deity in procession through a lane claimed to be the private property of the present counter petitioners. This order was alleged to have been violated and hence the petition for sanction.2. The Stationary Sub-Magistrate declined to grant the sanction on two grounds, one, that the order should not have been passed and...
The Secretary of State for India in Council, Represented by the Collec ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1918
Reported in: 51Ind.Cas.734
1. This is an appeal by the Secretary of State against the decision of the Subordinate Judge of Chingleput granting the Mirasidars of the village of Damal certain preferential rights in regard to the water supply of their lands. The suit of the Mirasidars was based on the allegation that, as Mirasidars, they were entitled to certain immemorial rights. In this Court the claim was limited to easement rights arising from long use of the water of the channel and of the tank.2. There are two sources of irrigation for the village. One is a Kasam or spring channel taking its source in the North Arcot District and irrigating solely the fields in Damal. In regard to this channel it was admitted by the learned Government Pleader that the Mirasidars of the village have all along been maintaining it in proper condition. The other source of irrigation is the tank. The Kasam or the channel passes along the northern bund of this tank. During the flood season when the tank is full the channel does not...
Ambalam Ibrahi and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1918
Reported in: 47Ind.Cas.873
ORDER1. This must be taken as a petition of revision directed solely against the order of the Tahsildar Magistrate refusing to give a copy of the Magistrate's judgment, the refusal having been baaed on the ground that the petitioner ought to pay eight-annas search fees along with his application for copy under the Board's Standing Order No. ) 173.2. The application for copy was made to the officer as a Magistrate (a Criminal Court) by an accused convicted by him and the Board's Standing Order has absolutely no relevancy to such an application. An application of that kind is governed by Rule 188 of the Criminal Rules of Practice framed by the High Court under the powers vested in the High Court by Section 554 Sub-section (2), Clause (c) of the Criminal Procedure Code.3. The Magistrate is, therefore, directed to give the copy applied for without further delay....
T.V. Vedavyasa Aiyar Vs. the Madura Hindu Labha Nidhi Co. Ltd., Throug ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1918
Reported in: (1918)35MLJ639
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. The 12th defendant is the appellant. Defendants 1 and 2 mortgaged certain items of property to one Naga Iyer who filed O.S.S. No. 61 of 1910 on the file of the Court of the Principal District Munsif of Madura to recover the sum due on his mortgage. He impleaded the puisne mortgagees, one of whom was the present plaintiff Nidhi. A decree was passed in Form 7, Appendix D of the Code of Civil Procedure. The amounts due to the plaintiff in the suit and the puisne mortgagee defendant were declared but the sale of the mortgaged properties was ordered only in case the defendant did not pay the amount found due to the plaintiff and' the only right given to the puisne mortgagees was to share in the surplus if any arising out of the sale. One of the items of property was brought, to sale in execution of the decree but the. plaintiff decree-holder was satisfied as the amount due was paid under Order XXI, Rule 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the sale set aside. The p...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »