Chennai Court January 1922 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.
Pericherla Suryanarayana Raju and anr. Vs. Ganapathy Raju and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad113; 70Ind.Cas.655
Devadoss, J.1. In this case the plaintiffs sued to establish their right to irrigate Survey Nos. 30 and 32 with the water of a certain pond, and to restrain the defendants from interfering with the, plaintiff's use of the water and for damages. The defendants who are owners of Survey No. 31 pleaded that the plaintiffs had no right to use the water of the pond for irrigating their fields.2. The following issues were framed:Whether the plaintiffs have an easement right to take the water of the suit tank to Survey Nos. 30 and 32 through the sluice A and the channel B?3. Whether the channel C was newly dug and whether plaintiffs can object to it?4. To what damages if any, are the plaintiffs entitled?5. The District Munsif found issue 1 against plaintiffs that channel C existed for more than 20 years before the date of suit and that the damages suffered by plaintiffs amounted to Rs. 30. In consequence of his finding on issue 1 he dismissed the plaintiffs' suit. On appeal the Subordinate Jud...
S.V. Kallabiran Pillai Vs. K. Peria Venkataramana
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1922
Reported in: 68Ind.Cas.183
1. This is an application to revise the order of the Subordinate Judge of Tinnevelly under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. In this case, the plaintiffs brought a suit order Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act to recover possession of a temple building on the strength of title as trustees from the Vanamamalai Jeer and his servants who dispossessed them. The defendants contended 'that the plaintiffs were neither trustees of the temple nor the hereditary Archahas of temple, that they were merely ordinary servants in Perumal temple and the shrines attached thereto and that they were removed for misconduct by the first defendant, the deer, and that they were not entitled to recover possession of the temple.2. The Subordinate Judge held that the plaintiffs were not the trustees of the plaint temple and that first defendant was the trustee and that the Archakaship of the plaint Hanumar temple was hereditarily vested in the plaintiffs, family. He also found that 'the plaintiffs were ...
Abdul Kadir Sahib Vs. U.T.M. Somasundaram Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad76; (1922)43MLJ467
Walter Salis Schwabe, K.C., C.J.1. This second appeal is referred to me by reason of a difference of opinion between Spencer and Krishnan, JJ., the referring Bench. The question referred is whether the suit is barred by limitation.2. The first Article of the schedule to the Limitation Act which is relied upon is Article 11. The effect of that article is that, where an order is made under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, on a claim preferred to or objection made to the attachment of property in execution of a decree, the limitation is one year from the date of the order. The facts of this case are these: Property which was mortgaged to the present plaintiff was seized in execution by the present defendant and brought to sale. The sale was advertised to take place on the 20th of November 1913. On that day an application was filed on behalf of the plaintiff asking that the proceeds of the sale which was about to take place should be held in Court because he claimed they belonged to him und...
Kotasseri Ezhuthassan Veetil Sankaran Nambi and anr. Vs. Kanholi Illat ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1922
Reported in: AIR1922Mad259; 73Ind.Cas.491; (1922)43MLJ572
Spencer, J.1. This suit was brought for redemption of a kanam and for setting aside a prior renewal granted by the 19th and 24th defendants. The suit was decreed in the District Court, and in second appeal several objections have been taken.2. The 4th plaintiff is a minor and the 5th plaintiff was put forward in the District Munsif's court as his agent. But in the District Court, he was brought on record as the next friend of the 4th plaintiff and allowed to prosecute the suit. It is objected that this procedure was not legal on the ground that the property in suit was that belonging to a devaswom belonging to an Illom and that the 4th plaintiff as a minor was not competent to represent the illom. Order 32, Rule 2 provides that 'where a suit is instituted by or on behalf of a minor without a next friend, the defendant may apply to have the plaint taken off the file'. But there is no legal objection to the course taken by the District Court of impleading the 5th plaintiff as the next fr...
K.L.A. Payne Vs. A.A. Payne
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1922
Reported in: AIR1922Mad350; (1922)42MLJ562
1. This case comes to this Court under S 17 of the Indian Divorce Act of 1869 under which every decree nisi for dissolution of marriage made by a District Judge shall be subject to confirmation by the High Court.2. The District Judge of Coimbatore made a decree nisi for the dissolution of marriage on 25th January 1921. Under Section 7 of the Act, the District Courts and High Courts, in all suits and proceedings under the Act, act and give relief on principles and rules which in the opinion of the said courts are as nearly as may be conformable to the principles and rules on which the Court for Divorce and Matrimonial Causes in England for the time being acts and gives relief. In this case we are not satisfied that the respondent was ever in fact served with a petition for divorce. As far as we can see, it was stated by the petitioner that the respondent's last known address was care of Messers. Cox & Co., Bankers in London; and it would appear that a registered letter was despatched co...
Joseph Nicholas Vs. Sivarama Ayyar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1922
Reported in: (1922)ILR65Mad527
1. This Appeal is against the lower Court's dismissal of the plaintiff's suit for damages in connexion with the defendants' application for attachment before judgment. The facts are that the attachment before judgment was ordered by the District Munsif of Calicut on 10th February 1919 and that first defendant accompanied by an Amin proceeded to the plaintiff's shop. The lower Court has dealt at considerable length with what happened there. It is not necessary to repeat its observations on the evidence. We need only say that there is a preponderance of evidence, including that of an European sergeant, whom we have no reason for distrusting, to the effect that the Amin proceeded so far as to take out the plaintiff's cloths from the shelves of his shop and began to measure them, when the plaintiff who had heard by then of what had happened paid the amount of the claim. We therefore reject the defendants' case on this point that nothing was done towards making the attachment at all. It is ...
Joseph Nicholas Vs. M.R. Sivarama Aiyar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1922
Reported in: AIR1922Mad206; 66Ind.Cas.760
1. This appeal is against the lower Court's dismissal of the plaintiff's suit for damages in connection with the defend-ant's application for attachment before judgment. The facts are that the attachment before judgment was ordered by the District Munsif of Calient on the 10th February 1919 and that 1st defendant accompanied by an Amin proceeded to the plaintiffs shop, The lower Court has dealt at considerable length with what happened there, It is not necessary to repeat its observations on the evidence. We need only say that there is a preponderance of evidence, including that of an European Sergeant whom we have no reason for distrusting, to the effect that the Am in proceeded so far as to take out the plaintiff's clothe from the shelves of his shop and began to measure them, when the plaintiff who had heard by then of what had happened paid the amount of the claim. We, therefore, reject the defendants' case on this point, that nothing was done towards making the attachment at all. ...
Egala Nagappa Naidu and ors. Vs. P. Muniswamy Iyer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-1922
Reported in: AIR1922Mad16; 65Ind.Cas.720
1. This second appeal arises out of a suit for the specific performance of a contract for the sale of suit land executed by the second defendant; on 10th October 1913 in favour of plaintiffs. The first defendant, to whom the land was sold by the second defendant on 14th March 1916, is the contesting defendant. The District Munsif decreed the suit; but, on appeal by the first defendant, the Subordinate Judge held there was no contract and dismissed the suit. The plaintiffs appeal.2. The alleged contract is evidenced by Exhibit A, the material portion of which runs as follows; 'In respect of the lands which you and others had sold to my mother Ammoyammal on the 2nd October 1902, you executed a cultivation muchilka to me on the 10th October 1913 specifying the land with particulars of numbers. The amount mentioned in the said sale-deed is Rs. 600. And the amount of small loans taken from time to time is Rs. 200. On payment being made of the total amount of Rs. 800 (Eight hundred), within ...
Muthanan Servai Alias Tiruneelakantan Servai Vs. B. Raja Rajeswara Set ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-1922
Reported in: AIR1922Mad263; (1922)43MLJ158
Walter Salis Schwabe Kt., K.C., C.J.1. This is a claim by the Rajah of Ramnad against the farmers or tenants of villages in that Zamindari to recover from them the money value of certain annual payments received by them from the ryots of those villages. In 1894 two cowles were executed by the then Rajah in favour of those farmers. Before the cowles the Rajah or Zemindar received 48 per cent, of the total produce, the ryots or actual cultivators of the land keeping the other 52 per cent. Of that 48 per cent one-fourth or 12 per cent of total was received by the Rajah for certain purposes 3 per cent for charities and 9 per cent for the payment of village officers whom the Rajah was liable to pay. By the cowles the Rajah let for a term of years, all his interest in the villages to the farmers. The villages are defined by boundaries and most of the land in them was in the occupation of ryots, but there were offices, buildings, tanks, trees and possibly waste land and jungle, which were in ...
Angatiparambath Kanniyalli Chathu Vs. thekkse Illath Neelakandhan Alia ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-1922
Reported in: (1922)42MLJ457
Devadoss, J.1. The plaintiff alleges that he is the jenmi of the plaint property and that he applied to have the land registered in his name in 1917 and that on the , objection of the defendant the Revenue Authorities refused to change the registry. He therefore sues for a declaration that he is the jenmi of the plaint land. Both courts dismissed the suit as being barred by limitation under Article 120. The plaintiff has preferred this Second Appeal.2. It is found that the plaintiff's father applied in 1903 for change of revenue registry to his name and the Settlement Officer ordered that the registry should stand as it did. It is contended on his behalf that the suit is not barred by limitation as there was a fresh cause of action in 1917. He relies upon Rajendra Kishore Rai Chaudhuri v. Abdul Razac Chaudhuri (1915) 22 C. L. J. 283 . The facts in that case were the plaintiffs claimed title to some property by purchase at a sale in execution of a mortgage decree. They took possession b...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »