Chennai Court February 1919 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.
The Rajah of Pittapuram Vs. the Revenue Divisional Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1919
Reported in: 51Ind.Cas.656; (1919)36MLJ455
1. We think the correct rule in cases like this has been laid down by Sir Lawrence Jenkins in Collector of Bolgaum v. Bhima Rao : (1908)10BOMLR657 viz the land to be acquired has to be valued in the first instance including all interests in it, and that the amount so ascertained has then to be apportioned among the parties interested according to their interests. This was followed by Batchelor, J. in Bonibay Improvement Trust v. Jalbhoy I.L.R. (1909) Bom. 483. Similarly it was held in Calcutta in Collector of Dacca v. Hari Das Bysak 14 Ind.Cas. 163 that the proper way of dealing with lands like this is in the first instance to leave out of consideration the value of the occupancy rights, and to ascertain what would be the market value of the land if it were put to the most lucrative use, having regard to its condition, etc., the value of the occupancy rights of the tenants settled on the land being left to be ascertained afterwards. The fact that neither the landlord nor the tenant can...
Sri Gajapati Narasimha Deo Garu and ors. Vs. Sri Gajapati Krishnachend ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1919
Reported in: (1919)37MLJ256
Abdur Rahim, J.1. The suit of the appellants has been dismissed on the ground of limitation, none of the other issues raised in the case having been tried at all. I may say at the outset that though in the result, I agree in the conclusion of the learned District Judge, I do not think that it was a prudent course on his part to, have confined himself to the issue of limitation.2. The suit was to enforce partition of a partible Zamindari in the district of Ganjam. The two plaintiffs claim to be the legitimate sons of the last proprietor Vasudeva Deo, and their case is that they are entitled to one-third share each in the estate while the 1st defendant, the son of Vasudeva Deo by another wife, is entitled to the remaining one-third. The plaintiffs further alleged that Vasudeva Deo left a will under which the plaintiffs were entitled to one-fourth share, their claim therefore is in the alternative to one-fourth share of the estate in case they fail to prove that they are the legitimate so...
S. Haji Abdulla Sahib and ors. Vs. Hyder Beg Sahib Alias Dada Mian Sah ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1919
Reported in: 51Ind.Cas.42
John Wallis, C.J.1. The question in this appeal is, whether the grant, Exhibit L, created a public charitable trust. The petition, of which a precis is given at the close of the document, prays that a grant by the late Nawab Sadatullah of 18 Cawnies of land for expenses of lamp oil in the Mosque and in aid of the maintenance of the petitioners who were servants of the mosque should be confirmed. This was preceded by another summary of the petition which says that the grant prayed for was of 16 Cawnies of land and the rent of 12 shops for the same purposes, The grant itself, which comes first, recites the earlier grant for subsistence of Abdul Kadir, etc, the servants of the mosque and for the expenses of lamp, oil in the mosque and makes a grant of the lands and the rents 'to the aforesaid persons so that the revenues may be enjoyed by them according to their own needs and that they should engage in prayers for the prosperity and duration of the Government.' In Bibee Kuneez Fatima v. B...
Hammakke Hengsu Vs. Kochappa Rai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1919
Reported in: 52Ind.Cas.631
1. The plaint claims a specific sum as a half share of the profits of land, and does not pray for an account of profits. No issue was raised as to the amount of profits, and apparently they are a fixed sum and probably, therefore, consist of rent. It must be taken, from the course of the proceedings, that the suit was properly framed and that an account was unnecessary to ascertain the profits of the land. The suit, therefore, does not fall within the Provincial Small Cause Court Act, Article 31, and is of a small cause nature and no second appeal lies.2. The second appeal is dismissed with costs....
Melancheri Parkum Pallikkara Kuniyati Alias Kuniyati Govinda Variyar A ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1919
Reported in: 52Ind.Cas.735
1. The question in the former suit was whether the plaintiff was entitled to redeem a mortgage, that is, the matter in issue was whether the rights of the mortgagor had passed to the plaintiff The same matter is in issue in the present suit. It is, however, argued that in the former suit the plaintiff set up a title as Karnavan of the Mundoli Madham Tarwad, but in the present suit the plaintiffs set up a title as successors of that Tarwad, which has become extinct, No doubt the averments of the facts which conferred title upon the plaintiff, and the evidence which would be given by him, differed in the two oases, but the relief claimed is the same.2. We think that a plaintiff is not entitled to set up a false case to the relief which he claims, and, when he has failed, to plead a fresh case; if he be in doubt as to which case is true, he should set out the two oases in the alternative; each case is one which ought to be made a ground of attack, so as to afford ground for a final decisi...
Arumugam Asari Vs. Gurunatha Asari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-1919
Reported in: 50Ind.Cas.886; (1919)36MLJ435
1. The Appeal is filed against an order passed by the Judge of a Court of Small Causes under Section 95 of the Civil Procedure Code. We have not been shown any reason for departing from the general principle that no appeal lies against an order passed on the Small Cause side and we dissent from the decision to the contrary effect in Karumaru Venkataswami v. Lanka Tripuriah 26 Ind.Cas. 3892. We have been asked, if no appeal lies, to deal with the matter in the exercise of our revisional powers. But the Lower Court's decision is in our opinion correct.3. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with costs....
Karumathil Kalliani Amma and ors. Vs. Kardmathil Sankaran Nair and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-1919
Reported in: 52Ind.Cas.688
1. The Karnavan, who brought the suit in this Court died after decree and the lower Appellate Court finds that the Karnavan who succeeded him was not interested in filing an appeal as ho sided with the defendants in the suit. It has been held in Raja of Arakal v. Kunhi Kannan 31 Ind. Cas. 482 : 29 M.L.J. 632 that if the Karnavan for the time being is submitting to an infringement of the Tarwad's rights of property, the next senior member may take proceedings. The appellants in the lower Appellate Court are interested parties within the decision and the present Karnavan was joined as party respondent,2. We are of opinion that the appeal was properly brought and we set aside the appellate decree and pass a decree restraining the respondents Nos. 1 to 5 from removing the timber logs and other materials found by the Subordinate Judge to be the property of the Tarwad (paragraph 11 of his judgment) from the possession or control of the 6th respondent or otherwise interfering with the rights ...
Rangasami Chetti Vs. Thangavelu Chetti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-1919
Reported in: 50Ind.Cas.380
Oldfield, J.1. I have had the advantage of reading the judgment, which my learned brother is about to deliver, and, as I agree with his conclusion, I deal only with the one important question we have to decide, whether the appellant is entitled to the extension of time he claims, as transferee from a minor. It does not appear material that his transfer was not voluntary, but was effected by attachment followed by a sale of the debt and an order vesting it in him as purchaser; and I assume that time did not begin to run, before the minor's acquisition of the cause of action. Appellant's contention is that he is entitled to the full extension of time, which the minor would have had, if the cause of action had remained his property or, in the alternative, to three years from the date, when his own ownership began.2. This alternative contention can be dealt with shortly. It cannot be justified by any provision of the Limitation Act; for Section 6(3) is, as will be shown, the only one exten...
The Secretary of State for India in Council Vs. Gulam Mahaboob Khan Sa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-1919
Reported in: 51Ind.Cas.366; (1919)37MLJ71
Abdur Rahim, J.1. The appellant, the Secretary of State for India, was sued by the respondents for recovery of two villages of Ganduvaripalle and Akbarabad in the District of Nellore. The Government purported to res me these villages which are described as Dharmadayam inams by an order passed some time in 1903. These two and eight other villages were made wakf for the maintenance of a mosque, and for feeding the poor and similar purposes in the days of the Carnatic Nawab Wallajah. The history of the grant is set out in the enclosure to the Inam Register, Exhibit I. There was a man called Rahimtulla Sahib Pirzada, otherwise described as the Hazarath, who was regarded as a holy man and it was to him that the Fouzdar of Nawab Wallajah at first made a grant of two villages,--not those with which we are concerned,--so that he might feed Syed Mahomedans and other poor men and ' ascribe its virtue to Prophet Mahomed.' Then it appears eight other villages including the two in question were pur...
Kumaramuthu Pillai and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-1919
Reported in: 50Ind.Cas.834
ORDERSadasiva Aiyar, J.1. These are five connected revision petitions. In Criminal Revision Case No. 351 of 1918, the Public Prosecutor moves this Court for enhancement of the sentences passed upon the five accused, the accused Nos. 3, 4 and 5 being Police Constables while the 1st and 2nd accused are a Sub-Inspector of Police and a Head Constable. The Assistant Sessions Judge of Tinnevelly convicted them under sections 348 and 330 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced them to imprisonment till the rising of the Court and to pay fines of Rs. 1,000, 200, 25, 25, 25 respectively. The Sessions Judge on appeal, while confirming the convictions and sentences, remarked at the end that 'the sentences for such grave offences are in my opinion wholly inadequate.' The revision petition Sled by the Public Prosecutor for enhancement of the sentences had been made to this Court on the 8th July 1918 before the Sessions Judge pronounced his appeal judgment in August 1918. The Sessions Judge says in ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »