Chennai Court July 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.
Kaliaperumal Naidu Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1919
Reported in: 55Ind.Cas.599
ORDER1. The accused was tried and convicted for having made building constructions after the expiry of the two months' time mentioned in the license issued to him by the Vice Chairman.2. Several objections have been raised against the legality of the trial and conviction.3. It is only necessary to deal with one of the objections, namely, that preferred under Section 280 of the District Municipalities Act (Madras Act IV of 1884), 'No person shall be tried for any offence against the provisions of this Act or of any bye-law made under Section 255 except upon complaint made by the Police or by the Municipal Council or by the Chairman or by a person expressly authorised in this behalf by the Municipal Council or by the Chairman.'4. In this case, this complaint, so far as it relates to the charge on which petitioner was tried and convicted, was made by a Municipal servant (the Sanitary Inspector), who was expressly authorised by the Chairman to complain against the petitioner (see Exhibit F...
Solai Ammal Vs. Jogi Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1919
Reported in: 56Ind.Cas.675
1. This second appeal can be disposed of on a short point. The 1st defendant and defendants Nos. 2 and 3 bad disputes concerning the possession of certain property whose income is the sub-jest-matter of this litigation. The Magistrate was appealed to. He held that the evidence as to possession on both sides was unsatisfactory and directed under Section 140 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, that a Receiver should be in charge of it. This was on the 30th January 1909. Subsequently a suit was brought by defendants Nos. 2 and 3 against the 1st defendant in December 1911, partly for a declaration and partly for possession, the declaration relating to the property now in question and possession to property which the 1st defendant was alleged to have trespassed on. The suit was eventually withdrawn without obtaining permission to sue again. After the date of this withdrawal, the Receiver appointed by the Magistrate delivered possession of the properties to the 1st defendant in March 1913. Th...
Hallingal Moosa Kutti Vs. the Secretary of State for India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-1919
Reported in: (1919)37MLJ332
1. Two questions of some importance have been agued before us in this case. By Exhibit A the 1st defendant took a lease of certain lands near a Railway station from the Government. The lease was for three years and provided for a rent of Rs. 150 per annum. It contained a clause that the defendant should not erect buildings on the land. Notwithstanding this undertaking he put up buildings on it. The suit is by the Secretary of State for ejectment. The defendant pleaded that as Exhibit A was not registered it was not admissible in evidence; and secondly that the provision restraining the defendant from erecting buildings is obnoxious to Section 19 of Act I of 1900 of the Malabar Compensation for Tenants' Improvements Act. Both these contentions were over-ruled by the Courts below. We think they are right.2. It was argued for the appellant that the first question relating to registration is covered by Munshilal v. The Notified Area of Baraut I.L.R. (1914) All. 176. With all respect to the...
The Secretary of State for India in Council Vs. Kallingal Moosa Kutti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-1919
Reported in: (1920)ILR43Mad65
Seshagiri Ayyar, J.1. Two questions of some importance have been argued before us in this case. By exhibit A the first defendant took a lease of certain lands near a railway station from the Government. The lease was for three years and provided for a rent of Rs. 1.50 per annum. It contained a clause that the defendant should not erect buildings on the land. Notwithstanding this undertaking he put up buildings on it. The suit is by the Secretary of State for ejectment. The defendant pleaded that as exhibit A was not registered it was not admissible in evidence; and secondly that the provision restraining the defendant from erecting buildings is obnoxious to Section 19 of Act I of 1900, the Malabar Compensation for Tenants Improvements Act; both these contentions were over ruled by the Courts below. We think they were right.2. It was argued for the appellant that the first question, relating to registration, is covered by Munshi Lal v. The Notified Area of Baraut I.L.R. (1914) All. 176....
Nandigam Subbarayudu Vs. Kannam Saheb and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-1919
Reported in: 54Ind.Cas.22
1. The view of the lower Courts that the Agraharam falls under Clause 2(e) of Section 8 of the Estates Land act is clearly erroneous. See Bila Sanyasi Naidu v. Agnihotram Venkatacharyulu 23 Ind. Cas. 96 : 26 M.L.J. 258 : (1914) M.W.N. 318 : 1 L.W. 241.2. It may fall under Clause 2(d), if the land revenue alone had been granted as inam by the Zemindar before the Permanent Settlement.3. On the question of the burden of proving whether the land revenue alone was so granted or both the Warms were granted in the case of villages granted in inam to Brahmins before the Permanent Settlement, there 13 some conflict of opinion in the decisions of this Court.4. The Subordinate Judge is requested to submit a finding on this question as a question of fact, allowing both sides to adduce further evidence. When both sides have been given an opportunity to adduce evidence, the question of burden of proof should not ordinarily be made mash of by Courts of fact in arriving at conclusions. The Subordinate...
Ramaswami Naicken and ors. Vs. Venkataswami Naicken and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-21-1919
Reported in: (1919)37MLJ271
1. Following the Full Bench decision in Arumugam Chetty v. Muthu Koundan (1918) 37 M.L.J. 166, we hold that this second appeal fails and dismiss it. The learned Advocate-General who appeared for the appellant did not argue the second appeal, but contended that as it was filed after the Privy Council decision Sahu Ram Chandra v. Bhup Singh I.L.R. (1917) All. 437 : 33 M.L.J. 14 and on the strength of Badagala Jogi Naidu v. Bondalam Papiah Naidu : (1918)35MLJ382 , in which Spencer and Krishnan, JJ., interpreted the Privy Council ruling to mean that a deed of mortgage cannot be relied on as an antecedent debt, this Court should not direct the appellant to pay the respondents' costs. Mr. K. Srinivasa Aiyangar on the other hand contended that unless there was misconduct on the part of the successful party or unless it would be manifestly unjust on the merits of the case to visit the defeated party with costs, costs should follow the event. There can be no doubt that the rule enunciated in Se...
Ramasami Naiken and Two ors. Vs. Venkatasami Naiken and Three ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-21-1919
Reported in: (1920)ILR43Mad61
Seshagiri Ayyar, J.1. Following the Full Bench decision in Armugham Chetty v. Muthu Koundan : (1919)37MLJ166 , we hold that this Second Appeal fails and dismiss it. The learned Advocate-General who appeared for the appellants did not argue the Second Appeal, but contended that as it was filed after the Privy Council decision--Sakhu Ram Chandra v. Bhup Singh I.L.R. (1917) All. 437 and on the strength of Badagala Jogi Nayudu v. Bandalam Papiah Nayudu in which Spencer and Krishnan, JJ., interpreted the Privy Council ruling to mean that a deed of mortgage cannot be relied on as an antecedent debt, this Court should not direct the appellant to pay the respondents' costs. Mr. K. Srinivasa Ayyangar, on the other hand, contended that unless there was misconduct on the part of the successful party or unless it would be manifestly unjust on the merits of the case to visit the defeated party with costs, costs should follow the event. There can be no doubt that the rule enunciated in Section 35 of...
Kamalmbal Vs. Dorasami Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-21-1919
Reported in: 56Ind.Cas.26
1. The only point for decision in this case is whether Original Suit No. 49 of 1916 has - been validly compromised between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant by a lawful agreement written under Order XX III, rule 3, of the Code of Civil Procedure, as alleged by the 1st defendant. Plaintiff's case is that though there was a mediation between the parties and an agreement was arrived at on some of the points in dispute, there were still-other points outstanding to be settled, and, therefore, there was no completed contract. The Subordinate Judge decided in favour of the 1st defendant that Exhibit A signed by the parties evidenced a completed agree-merit and gave a decree in its terms. Hence the appeal to us by the plaintiff.2. The plaintiff admits Exhibit A, but con-tends that that it is only a memorandum of the points provisionally agreed to by her and that the matter remained in a state of negotiation still and that it was only after certain further points were settled after consultati...
A.T.S.P. Anthappa Chetty Vs. Ramanathan Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-1919
Reported in: (1919)37MLJ536
1. This and two other appeals were argued this morning at some length Most of the points arising for decision are common to all the three appeals and have been very elaborately argued by Mr. A. Krishnaswami Aiyar for the appellant in A. A. O. No. 170 of 1918. The lower appellate Court remanded each of the appeals for retrial and appeals purporting to be under Order 43 Rule 1(u) have been preferred to this Court. It was held in A. A. O. No. 243 of 1918 that where the order of remand was made not on a preliminary point, no appeal lies against it. Mr. A. Krishnaswami Aiyar conceded that if an order can be predicated as not falling within Order 41 Rule 23, and if it is to be held that the Court has an inherent power of remand apart from the said rule, there is no right of appeal, Further this point is concluded by authority.2. The main argument of the learned vakil related to the inherent power of the Court to make a remand other than under the conditions mentioned in Rule 23 of Order 41; ...
Maharajah of Bobbili Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-11-1919
Reported in: (1920)ILR43Mad529
Shaw, J.1. This is an appeal against a decree of the High Court of Madras, dated 27th October 1915, which affirmed a decree of the District Judge of Vizagapatam, dated 9th December 1909. The suit was brought by the Maharaja of Bobbili, viz., the present respondent, for the refund of a sum levied under the Madras Irrigation Cess Act (VII of 1865), and paid under protest, and for a declaration that he was entitled to use the water from a certain channel for irrigation of the village of Narayanapuram, free of the cess.2. The respondent was the owner of a village called Narayanapuram in the district of Vizagapatam. For upwards of a century the lands of this village have been irrigated by the water of the Suvarnamukhi river flowing through an artificial channel known as the Sakarapalli channel. The river runs through the respondent's estate (amongst others), and its banks and bed in its course through that estate admittedly belong to him.3. The history of the facts may be stated in one or t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›