Chennai Court December 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.
Sankaranarayana Pillai Vs. Ramaswami Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad444; (1923)44MLJ258
Walter Salis Schwabe, K.C., C.J.1. This case is of considerable importance because circumstances of a similar nature have been before the Courts on several occasions and they have given rise to some considerable divergence of opinion.2. The facts are that a suit came before the District Munsif as to whether the defendants had unlawfully diverted some water from the land of the plaintiff and so injured his land. When the case came before the District Munsif certain plans and documents were put before him and then the plaintiff and some of the defendants agreed in writing and the pleader acting for the other defendants, I have no doubt, agreed to what appeared in writing that the learned Munsif should himself go and inspect the land. The terms of the agreement signed by the plaintiff and two of the defendants are contained in an affidavit which ran as follows:--'We agree to the matter being decided according to the opinion which the Court might entertain on the aforesaid local inspection...
Sankaranarayana Pillai Vs. Ramaswamiah Pillai and Three ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1922
Reported in: (1924)ILR47Mad39
Walter Salis Schwabe, Kt., K.C., C.J.1. This case is of considerable importance because circumstances of a similar nature have been before the Courts on several occasions and they have given, rise to some considerable divergence of opinion.2. The facts are that a suit came before the District Munsif as to whether the defendants had unlawfully diverted some water from the land of the plaintiff and so injured his land When the case came before the District Munsif certain plans and documents were put before him and then the plaintiff and some of the defendants agreed in writing and the pleader acting for the other defendants, I have no doubt, agreed to what appeared in writing that the learned Munsif should himself go and inspect the land. The terms of the agreement signed by the plaintiff and two of the defendants are contained in an affidavit which ran as follows:We agree to the matter being decided according to the opinion which the Court might entertain on the aforesaid local inspecti...
Hota Veerabhadrayya and Ors. Vs. the Hon'ble Sri Rajah Kocherla Kota R ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad674; 73Ind.Cas.66
Philips, J.1. These four appeals relate to a triangular dispute between the zemindars of Polavaram, Gutala and Gangole, who will hereafter be styled by their territorial names. In 1824 before the creation of the Gangole estate,' the proprietors of Polavaram and Gutala entered into a compromise with regard to the use of the water of the natural streams passing their two estates, and in 1829 an agreement is Said to have been entered into by the two proprietors. In order to understand the case, it is necessary briefly to state the respective positions of the lands, and the streams passing through them. One stream, Kovvada Kalva, with which we are chiefly concerned, runs from west to east through, first of all, the Gutala estate, subsequently through Polavaram and again through Gutala and Polavaram. A feeder channel, Nakkalagayya Kalva, joins Kovvada Kalva at a point in the Polavaram estate, and another channel, Pedralla Kalva, also does the same but further to the east. Apparently, water ...
M. Krishnaji Reddiar Vs. Muthuveera Reddiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad490; (1923)44MLJ344
Krishnan, J.1. This revision petition is based upon Rule 4 of the Rules framed by the Local Government for the conduct of enquiries with reference to elections to District Boards, etc., under the Madras Local Boards Act, XIV of 1920, published in the Fort St. George Gazette, dated 14th June, 1921. It is contended that Rule 4, Sub-rule 1, was not complied with inasmuch as the* deposit of Rs. 200 required under it was not made within time and that under Sub-rule 2 the Court was bound to dismiss the petition and Sub-rule 3 did not apply as the provisions of Sub-rule 1 were not complied with.2. The facts on which this question arises are as follows: The petitioner before me was elected as a member of the Taluk Board of Cuddalore. An objection petition was filed to his election by the counter petitioner urging certain grounds against its validity. The election was held on the 12th of May and the result published 6n 15th of May. According to Rule 2 of the above mentioned rules, 14 days were ...
E. Venkatrama Aiyar Vs. A. Elumalai Naicker and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1922
Reported in: (1923)44MLJ357
Walter Salis Schwabe, K.C., C.J.1. The Chief Justice The plaintiff claims a certain land which he says he purchased at a Court-auction. The land purchased was mortgaged by the judgment-debtor, the second defendant, to the decree holder, who obtained a mortgage decree and brought the land to Court-auction. The land was described probably in the mortgage as ' nanja 55 ' though it is not quite clear that the word ' nanja ' in the mortgage itself necessarily applied to the number 55: but it was certainly so described in the decree, in the notice of sale and in the certificate of sale. Before the sale and after the suit, the first defendant, the appellant, bought from the judgment-debtor, his brother-in-law, the land described as No. 55 Punja. In this village, the numbers used for description of lands run consecutively irrespective of whether the land is punja or nanja. There is no other No. 55 in this village. The land is in fact punja and not nanja. In my judgment the word 'Nanja' used in...
Javadi Soorayya and ors. Vs. Tavvala Surya Rao Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad623; (1923)45MLJ41
Spencer, J.1. The order sought to be revised is an order of the Subordinate Judge of Ellore remanding certain suits for disposal by the District Munsif. The question whether the Civil Court had jurisdiction to try these suits, which were for rent and ejectment of tenants depends on the question whether the Agraharam of Pentapad in the Zamindari of Nuzwid was an estate within the meaning of the Madras Estates Land Act. The Subordinate Judge has found that the grant in question was a grant of both Melvaram and Kudivaram. In this case the original grant is before us and is marked as Ex. D. It purports to be a grant by Apparayanimgaru, Zamindar of Nuzwid in the year 1744 of the Mouza village of Patha Pentapad to a Brahmin named Tirumalasingaracharyulu Ayyavarlamgaru.2. Reliance is placed for the appellants on the fact that this is a grant to a Brahmin and that it is described as a Mauza village, also on the fact that in Ex. IX, an abstract of Revenue collections in the years 1777 to 1781, ...
E. Venkatarama Iyer Vs. A. Elumalai Naicker and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad442; 72Ind.Cas.464
Walter Schwabe, C.J.1. The plaintiff claims a certain land which he says he purchased at a Court-auction. The land purchased was mortgaged by the judgment-debtor, the second defendant, to the decree-holder, who obtained a mortgage-decree and brought the land to Court-auction. The land was described probably in the mortgage as 'Nanja' 55 though it is not quite clear that the word 'Nanja' in the mortgage itself necessarily applied to the number 55 : but it was certainly so described in the decree, in the notice of sale and in the certificate of sale. Before the sale and after the suit, the first defendant, the appellant, bought from the judgment-debtor, his brother-in-law, the land described as No. 55 Punja. In this village the numbers used for description of lands run consecutively irrespective of whether the land is Punja or Nanja. There is no other No. 55 in this village. The land is in fact Punja and not Nanja. In my judgment the word 'Nanja' used in the mortgage and in the decree an...
In Re: Paravada China Venku Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad327; 72Ind.Cas.525
ORDERKrishnan, J.1. In this, case the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, acting solely oil the evidence taken by the Second Class Magistrate who had sent up the case to him under Section 346 of the Code of Criminal Procedure because he could not himself try the offence disclosed by the evidence, discharged the accused. The Prosecuting Inspector who was conducting the case, for the Crown seems to have agreed to this course. The District Magistrate, however, set aside the order of discharge on the ground that the course pursued by the Magistrate was illegal and has ordered a fresh enquiry. It is argued before me that the view taken by the District Magistrate is wrong.2. Now, it may be taken as a general principle of the Code of Criminal Procedure that evidence taken by one Magistrate is not evidence in a trial before another Magistrate unless some provision of law expressly makes it so. Mere consent of parties will not do. See In re Kottammal Kolathmgal Ummar Hajee 69 Ind. Cas. 636 : 16 L.W. 697...
Javvadi Soorayya and ors. Vs. Tavvala Surya Rao Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1922
Reported in: 72Ind.Cas.795
Spencer, J.1. The order sought to be revised is an order of the Subordinate Judge of Ellore remanding certain suits for disposal by the District Munsif. The question whether the Civil Court had jurisdiction to try these suits, which were for rent and ejectment of tenants, depends ea the question whether the Agraharam of Pentapad in the Zemindari of Nuzvid was an 'estate' within the meaning of the Madras Estates Land Act. The Subordinate Judge has found that the grant in question was a grant of both melvaram and kudivaram. In this case the original grant is before us and is matked as Exhibit D. It purports to be a grant by Apparayanim Garu, Zemindar of Nuzvid, ui the year 1744 6f the Mauza village of Patha Pen-taped to a Brahmin named Tirumalasingaracharyulu Ayyavarlam Garu.2. Reliance is placed for the appellants on the fact that this is a grant to a Brahmin and that it is described as a Mauza village; also on the fact that in Exhibit IX, an abstract of revenue collections in the years...
Pothane Puthan Vittil Kunhu Pothu Nassiar and anr. Vs. Adrasseri Raru ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1922
Reported in: 72Ind.Cas.727
1. The lower Court was called on to find on the question whether the appellant (fifth and sixth defendants) were bona fide purchasers for consideration without notice of the fraud involved in Exhibit III. In returning its finding it has dealt separately with the question whether the fifth and sixth defendants were bona fide purchasers and whether they had notice. The attempt to separate these two questions is not usually sound. For it is seldom possible to form an adequate or correct opinion of the conduct of a transferee without considering whether his good faith extends to his possession of actual or constructive notice with reference to the whole circumstances of the case. It is, however, sufficient for us to deal with the portion of the finding which relates to the fifth and sixth defendants possession of notice. For the lower Court has, in our opinion, entirely mistaken the legal position created by the facts.2. The lower Court says that the fifth and sixth defendants would not, e...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »