Chennai Court December 1920 Judgments
Ramappa Vs. Abdulla Beari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Mad284; (1921)41MLJ127
1. In this case the learned District Judge has decreed a suit for possession subject to the evicted tenant being awarded compensation for an improvement made by him on the property. The tenant was in under a registered Chalgeni chit or yearly lease executed on the 4th Septmber 1915. It appears to be common ground that the term according to that chit came to an end on the 10th March 1916 and the improvement in question which, is chiefly a house, was admittedly built after the termination of the Chalgeni chit. But it was built while the tenant was holding over and that holding over was subsequently recognised and legalised by the landlord, because in his plaint he sues for the rent for 1917 and the rent for 1918 and it has been clear law for a very long time that a landlord who recognises a term even, by suing for the rent, let alone accepting it, cannot beheard to say that there was no valid subsisting lease during the period for which he sues for rent. Moreover he will be deemed to hav...
Tag this Judgment!Rustomji Dorebji Vs. W.H. Nurse and Parthasarathy Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-1920
Reported in: (1921)40MLJ173
Ayling and Coutts Trotter, JJ.1. The sole question we have to decide is what is the true construction of Section 89 of the Probate and Administration Act of 1881. Mr. Hakim at one time tried to argue that Act XII of 1855 must be deemed not only to give a fresh cause of action for and against representatives of those who had committed or suffered civil wrongs, but also by necessary implication to have prohibited the abatement of suits commenced by the wronged against the wrong-doer during the life-time of both by reason of the death of either party. It may have been an omission of the legislature but a close scrutiny of the text makes it reasonably clear that no provision was made in that enactment for the case of a suit already pending when one of the parties dies. We are thus left to the construction of Section 89 of the Act of 1881 which runs as follows:All demands whatsoever, and all rights to prosecute or defend any suit or any other proceeding, existing in favour of or against a p...
Tag this Judgment!Muhammad Ibrahim Sahib Vs. Shaik Dawood
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Mad278; (1921)40MLJ351
Ayling, J.1. In this case the Police preferred a charge sheet against two persons, Shaikh Davood and Mahamed Abu Baker for offences under Section 304 A' or 326 of the Indian Penal Code, by beating one Sultan Marakayar and causing his death. The Magistrate after hearing the prosecution evidence held that death was not the result of the beating and framed a charge under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code only. Accused entered on their defence and adduced evidence. After the close of the defence evidence the defence pleader drew the magistrate's attention to a ruling of the Punjab Chief Court reported in Labhu v. Emperor (1919) 52 I.C. 797 and argued that owing to the death of the person injured the charge against the accused must be held to have abated. The magistrate accepted this contention and closed the case without recording any judgment of conviction or acquittal.2. The present revision petition is filed by one Muhammad Ibrahim Sahib, son-in-law of the deceased Sultan Marakayar. ...
Tag this Judgment!Rustomji Dorabji Vs. W.H. Nurse and
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Mad1; (1921)ILR44Mad357
Coutts Trotter, J.1. The judgment I am about to pronounce is that of myself and my brother Ayling. The sole question we have to decide is what is the true construction of Section 89 of the Probate and Administration Act of 1881. Mr. Hakim at one time tried to argue that Act XII of 1855 must be deemed not only to give a fresh cause of action for and against representatives of those who had committed or suffered civil wrongs, but also by necessary implication to have prohibited the abatement of suits commenced by the wronged against the wrong-doer during the lifetime of both by reason of the death of either party. It may have been an omission of the legislature, but a close scrutiny of the text makes it reasonably clear that no provision was made in that enactment for the case of a suit already pending when one of the parties dies. We are thus left to the construction of Section 89 of the Act of 1881 which runs as follows:All demands whatsoever, and all rights to prosecute or defend any ...
Tag this Judgment!S. Soundararajan and ors. Vs. C.M. Natarajan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Mad258; (1921)40MLJ354
John Wallis, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a Judgment of Coutts Trotter, J. upholding the provisions of the will of the late C. Ratna Mudali which have been questioned on the ground that they are opposed to the Hindu Law notwithstanding the passing of Madras Act 1 of 1914, and also as infringing the provisions of Section 101 and S. in of the Indian Succession Act which have been applied by the Hindu Wills Act, 1870, to wills made by Hindus in a Presidency Town. The case has been very fully argued before us and the appellants have taken the fresh ground that Madras Act 1 of 1914, if not wholly ultra vires is ultra vires, in so far as it purports to affect the Presidency Town where the rules of Hindu Law as to succession and inheritance were made applicable by the Supreme Court Charter which could only be modified by the legislative authority of the Governor-General in Council under the provisions of the Indian Councils Act, 1861 read with Section 11 of the Indian High Courts Act, 1861. ...
Tag this Judgment!Muttuvaya Alias Mangalasseri Alias Narikkuni Edamana Illath Vishnu Nam ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1920
Reported in: 63Ind.Cas.931
1. These are appeals from a decree of the Temporary Subordinate Judge of Tellicherry. The suit was brought by four co-Uralars of a Malabar Desvaswom against the 5th co-Uralar, who has since died after the decree in the first Court and in whose place the present respondent, who succeeded him as Karnavan of the Tarwad, has been brought on record.2. This is a very old Devaswom and during the troubles in Tippu's time four of the Uralars fled to Travancore and the fifth remained behind and looked after the Devaswom. But when the others same bask he was considered to have, to some extent, lost caste by the others. On the other hand, the Devaswom was greatly indebted to him. There were disputes existing from a long time as to what his position was exactly to be in view of the great services he had rendered and as to the moneys due by the Devaswom to him. After some litigation these questions were at length settled by the Karar, Exhibit IV this case, in 1859, and the present suit was brought f...
Tag this Judgment!S.V. Sivarama Aiyar Vs. K.M. Subbiah and Sons
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1920
Reported in: 70Ind.Cas.346
John Wallis, C.J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of Courts-Trotter, J., awarding the plaintiffs damages for non-acceptance of goods sold. The contract provides for the sale of 20 bales 'Home Shipment May-July 1918 (our contract price Rs. 35-7-0)' and for five bales 'Home Shipment February, March and April 1918 four contract price Rs. 34)' and that on arrival, the defendants are to be advised and to pay and take delivery. There is a provision that the other terms and conditions are in accordance with Messrs. W.A. Beardsell's contract,' Messrs Beardsell being the importers and vendors to the plaintiffs. Under Beardsell's contract, each instalment is to be treated as a separate contract, and Messrs. Beardsell are relieved from liability for non-shipment owing to any of the causes specified and buyers are not to be entitled to cancel the contract owing to delay caused by any of the specified causes, 'provided that such delay in shipment shall not exceed three months.' 'The buyers al...
Tag this Judgment!Puraviya Goundan Vs. Poonachi Goundan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-1920
Reported in: (1921)40MLJ289
Abdur Rahim, J.1. The first and the most important question in this appeal is whether the temple to which the suit relates known as the Kamakshi temple situate in the village of Omandur in the Trichinopoly District is a public temple within the meaning of Section 92, Civil Procedure Code or a private temple belonging to the defendant Puraviya Goundan.2. The two plaintiffs who instituted the suit on behalf of the public also belong to the defendant's family. It is an ancient temple and appears to enjoy considerable reputation. At the earliest period of which we have evidence it was more or less of an unpretentious character but it has undoubtedly been expanding and growing in prosperity and fame for the last several generations. It has a number of subsidiary temples and shrines attached to it. The District Gazetteer says that ' the temple has some claim to architectural beauty and points out, what is an admitted feature of this temple, that it has no image or idol, the goddess Kamakshi ...
Tag this Judgment!Saminatha Pillai Vs. Sundaresa Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Mad479; 62Ind.Cas.911
1. In this case whatever view we might be inclined to take of the matter, if it came before us as res integra, we are bound by the decision of Srinivasa Aiyangar, J., in Civil Revision Petition No. 347 of 1915, which was not appealed against. He held that Exhibit A did not evidence an enforceable contract, and that the suit must be treated as one by the general trustee of a temple to enforce the obligation of a subordinate trustee or kattalaidar.'2. The only question then is, whether, viewed in this light, the suit is maintainable; and we are forced to the conclusion that it is not. The relief claimed is the recovery of the balance of amount due by defendant under the terms of his trust and not paid by him to the Gurukkal of the temple. (The breach of trust is denied.) If the relief is claimed as the amount of misappropriation, the amount is not ascertained and would have to be determined by enquiry in the suit; and this brings the case within the mischief of Section 92 of the Civil Pr...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Kone Vs. Narayana Dass
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Mad281; (1921)41MLJ172
ORDERNapier, J.1. This is a petition to revise the order passed by the District Magistrate of Tinnevelly setting aside an order passed by the Stationary Sub-Magistrate of Tinnevelly granting compensation under Section 250, Criminal Procedure Code. Two points are taken, one is that no notice wax given to the Accused in whose favour the order was passed; and secondly that no notice was Given to the Public Prosecutor.2. With regard to the first objection that no notice was given to the accused, the matter seems to me to be concluded by the decisions of this Court namely, Ambarragari Nagi redid v. Basappa I.L.R(1909) . Mad. 89 and Guruswami Naicken v. Thirumurthi Chetty : (1914)27MLJ629 . I can find nothing in the language of the learned Judges in Venratrama v. Krishna I.L.R.(1915) Mad. 1901 to throw any doubt on the correctness of those decisions.3. The question whether notice has to be given to the public Prosecutor is a different matter. The power of appeal is found in Section 250(3); '...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »