Chennai Court September 1920 Judgments
Kaithal Kuttiyali Vs. Kuzhatte Puthenveetill Thirumangalath Kashaartan ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-1920
Reported in: (1921)41MLJ202
1. The main question in these appeals depends on the construction of Ex. A. which is a lease or rather counter part of a lease known in Malabar as Taraga, the purpose of which admittedly was to enable the tenant or the lessee to reclaim the demised land and make improvements thereon. The words of this lease which was granted by the Stanomdar are these: - 'I shall well improve this paramba and plant & c, when the improvements have survived the period of decay and the cqcoanut trees begin to bear their first fruits, I shall take a Taraga after fixing the rent in accordance with the local custom on an inspection of the Kuzhikanoms.' The Subordinate Judge has held that this clause merely gives an option to the landlord to renew the lease if he so chooses.2. The appellant on the other hand contends that it is a binding covenant for renewal for another term of 12 years beginning from the expiry of the term of 12 years granted, that is 9th May 1902, the date ot Ex A. These words are almost id...
Tag this Judgment!Kaithal Kuttiyali Vs. Ummamma Amma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Mad80; (1921)ILR44Mad509
1. The main question in these appeals depends on the construction of Exhibit A, which is a lease or rather counterpart of a lease known in Malabar as taraga, the purpose of which admittedly was to enable the tenant or the lessee to reclaim the demised land and make improvements thereon. The words of this lease, which was granted by the stanomdar, are these:I shall well improve this paramba and plant, etc.; when the improvements have survived the period of decay and the cocoanut trees begin to bear their first fruits, I shall take a taraga after fixing the rent in accordance with the local custom on an inspection of the Kuzhikanoms.2. The Subordinate Judge has held that this clause merely gives an option to the landlord to renew the lease if he so chooses.3. The appellant, on the other hand, contends that is a binding covenant for renewal for another term of twelve years beginning from the expiry of the term of twelve years granted, by Exhibit A dated 9th May 1902. These words are almos...
Tag this Judgment!Bhogiravathu Somanna Vs. Nandivada Chelapathi Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Mad618; (1920)39MLJ710
ORDER1. The first question argued in this revision petition is whether the petitioner, who is a compositor, is an artificer, workman or labourer within the meaning of Act XIII of 1859. A compositor is defined in the Century Dictionary as one who sets up type. Mr. Shenai on petitioner's behalf contends that because he has to use his brains to some extent in order to set type, he does not come within the scope of the Act. Mr. Shenai has relied on the judgment of Ayling, J. in Kunhi Moidin v. Chamu Nair I.L.R. (1917) Mad. 182 but that is not in point. We think that a compositor in ordinary parlance would be regarded as an artificer, if not as a workman. This point therefore fails.2. The remaining argument is that Ex. A, the agreement between the petitioner and his master, simply creates a relation of debtor and creditor, not of a master with a workman who has received an advance. Reliance is placed on the construction put by the Courts on what are alleged to be similar agreements in In re...
Tag this Judgment!Bhogiravathu Somanna Vs. Kandivada Chtlapathi Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-1920
Reported in: 60Ind.Cas.52
ORDER1. The first question argued in this revision petition is whether the petitioner, who is a compositor, is an artificer, workman or labourer within the meaning of Act XIII of 185. A compositor is defined in the Century Dictionary as one who sets up type. Mr. Shenai on petitioner's behalf contends that, because he has to use his brains to some extent in order to set type, he does not some within the some of the Act. Mr. Shenai has relied on the judgment of Alying, J., in Natuthodi Kunhi v. Chamu Nair 43 Ind. Cas. 787 , but that is not in point. We think that a compositor, in ordinary parlance, would be regarded as ac artificer, if not as a workman. This point, therefore, fails.2. The remaining argument is that Exhibit A, the agreement between the petitioner and his master, simply creates a relation of debtor and creditor, not as a master with a workman who has received an advance. Reliance is placed on the construction put by the Courts on what are alleged to be similar agreements i...
Tag this Judgment!Batchu China Venkatrayudu and ors. Vs. Duvvuri Ramamurti and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Mad63; 61Ind.Cas.986; (1921)40MLJ149
1. This is an appeal from a decree giving the plaintiff, the Zemindar of Pittapur, a declaration that the suit lands are his jeroyiti lands and not the inam lands of the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant had inam lands in this village and the inam register Exhibit P, shows that his family had an extent of about 5 acres of land of which he had parted with 3 acres leaving him entitled to about 2 acres. The next thing that we know is that in 1891 he took jeroyiti lands from the Zemindar under two pattas numbered as 65 and 92 and he retained the lands under these pattas until 1898 when here linquished them under Exhibits B and B1 and they were forthwith applied for by the 2nd defendant under Exhibit C and C1 and werere-granted to him under Exhibit E. These Exhibits show that what was granted to the 1st defendant under patta No. 65 was kh. 5-5-0 or about 42 acres and under patta 92 kh. 1-19 or about 16 acres, i.e., 58 acres in all. It is very remarkable that immediately after this we find th...
Tag this Judgment!N.S. Venkatrama Aiyar Vs. Chella Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Mad413; (1921)40MLJ479
Oldfield, J.1. Plaintiff, here respondent, in his plaint described his claim as for money due with reference to a memo. This memo, Exhibit A, is, there is no doubt, so worded as to come within the definition of a promissory note and we have not been shown how in the circumstances of the case it can be otherwise regarded. It however bears no stamp; but no objection being taken and issue formally joined as to its admissibility in evidence, the District Munsif treated it as an agreement, collected duty and penalty accordingly and exhibited it. There is no doubt that he erred in doing so. But we have to decide whether Section 36 Indian Stamp Act (II of 1899) debarred the lower appellate Court and debars us from correcting his error, that is, whether Section 36 is applicable, even when the instrument admitted in evidence is one which like Exhibit A, is not only not duly stamped, but could not in any circumstances be rendered 'admissible by payment of duty under Section 35. The answer to thi...
Tag this Judgment!Batchu Chinna Venkatrayudu and Two ors. Vs. Duvvuri Ramamurti and Two ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-1920
Reported in: (1921)ILR44Mad340
1. This is an appeal from a decree giving the plaintiff, the Zamindar of Pittapur, a declaration that the suit lands are his jeroyiti lands and not the inam lands of the first defendant.2. [Their Lordships dealt with the evidence and proceeded as follows:].3. On the whole we see no reason to differ from the conclusion of the Subordinate Judge that there has been a wrongful transfer by the first defendant of the jeroyiti lands held by him in the zamindari to his inam lands in the same village. The Subordinate Judge has given the plaintiff a declaratory decree for the whole extent of the lands claimed by him and it is admitted that he has failed to make any allowance to the extent of the inam lands in the village which the first defendant undoubtedly is entitled to. The question then is what is the inam area to which he should be held entitled. As we have said the whole area of his family inam was shown in the inam register (Exhibit P) at about five acres of which he retained two acres. ...
Tag this Judgment!Sivathal Periyava Nadar and ors. Vs. Nana, Chuna Velmuruga Nadar and o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Mad682; 64Ind.Cas.618
Napier, J.1. This is a suit brought by six persons, members of the Nadar community of the village of Palayampatti, against six other members, alleging that they have violated the caste rules governing the treatment of caste temple and by their action have interfered with the ordinary practice in connection with the temple and the plaintiffs' right. In their suit they allege that there are 200 persons, who were not included in the plaint, who are interested and concerned in the plaint mentioned temple and they ask under Order I, Rule 8, to sue in a representative character. Permission was given and notices were issued, and it appears that a certain number of persons applied to be joined as plaintiffs and others as defendants. The suit went to trial and issues were framed as follows: Issue (2) whether the suit is not cognigable in civil Courts, (3) whether the suit is not properly brought in a representative character, and (4) whether the suit as framed is not maintainable; and there wer...
Tag this Judgment!R. Singariah Chetty Vs. Chinnabbi Alias Muni Reddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Mad105; 60Ind.Cas.780
William Ayling, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit on a mortgage-bond executed by the guardian of defendants Nos. t and 2 in favour of plaintiffs. Before its institution, the mortgaged property had been brought to sale by fifth defendant in execution of decree obtained by him against defendants Nos. 1 and 2 (Original Suit No. 69 of 1914 on the file of the District Munsif of Tirupati) and purchased by defendants Nos. 3 and 4. Toe latter opposed the suit alleging (1) that the suit mortgage was only a fictitious document without consideration, and (2) that the suit was otherwise not mainatainable. The first, defence, though successful in the Court of first instance, was found against by the Subordinate Judge in appeal; and we are not now concerned with it. The Subordinate Judge, however, in giving a decree for plaintiffs omitted to consider the objections to the maintainability of the suit; and it is with these, which have been pressed on us by Mr. Ananthakrishna Aiyar on behalf of thi...
Tag this Judgment!Alagappa Chetty Vs. Alagappa Chettiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1920
Reported in: 60Ind.Cas.130; (1920)39MLJ573
1. The suit in which this second appeal has arisen was instituted by the endorsee of a hundi in order to enforce the payment of the hundi. The case is pressed Only against the second defendant who is the endorser. The hundi itself is not forthcoming but the defendant in his written statement admitted that such a hundi had been issued, but that it was made payable to bearer on demand and as such it was an invalid document by virtue of Section 26 of the paper Currency Act. That section is absolutely clear and there can be no doubt that it applies to a hundi of this character. The point is settled by a ruling of this Court in Chidambaram Chettiar v. Ayyasami Thevan 3 Ind. Cas. 74 . But it was argued by Mr. Anantba krishna Aijar, that the endorser is estopped from denying the validity of his instrument. The authority for the proposition is an observation of one of the learned Judges in Arunachalam Chettiar v. Narayanan Chettia 51 Ind. Cas. 300 That observation is purely by way of obiter an...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »