Chennai Court February 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.
C.D. Sarangapani Aiyangar and anr. Vs. Sadagopa Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1922
Reported in: AIR1922Mad398; (1922)43MLJ152
1. The appellants in this case are the plaintiffs who sought in no less than three courts to get a declaration that they are entitled to go on to their neighbour's land to gather the fruits, that fall there from such portion of a tree which belongs to the plaintiffs. It is not pretended that this right can be acquired by prescription but it is said that it arises by severance and that necessary implication is that a servitude was created ipso facto by the act of severance. In our opinion, the right claimed is not an easement within the meaning of the Act, and when it is claimed, as it is put here as an easement and not as the creation of an express agreement or contract between the parties, we are of opinion that the claim is a right which is unknown to law as pointed out in Lemmon v. Webb (1895) A.C. 1.2. We, therefore, think that the appeal fails and must be dismissed with costs....
Perumal Moopan Vs. M.K. Venkatachariar B.A. the Assistant Registrar of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1922
Reported in: AIR1922Mad193; (1922)42MLJ563
1. It is clear that when A.S. No. 345 of 1916 was filed and disposed of the Co-operative Credit Society of Kalathur had gone into liquidation and was represented by the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies as liquidator. The appellant in that appeal made the society a respondent but alleged that it was represented by its former President whose powers to represent the society had ceased before the filing of the appeal. The decision of the District Munsif in favour of the society was reversed and the transfer of the decree made by the President acting on behalf of the society was recognised.2. The Registrar of Co-operative Credit Societies applied to the District Judge to set the decree in A.S. No. 345 of 1916 aside owing to the society not having been properly represented and to rehear the appeal after bringing him on record as the proper person to represent the society. He applied under Section 151, Order 22, Rule 10 and Order 47, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.3. As re...
Radhakrishnaswami Naidu Vs. V. Annamalai Chettiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1922
Reported in: 70Ind.Cas.365
1. The first intention of the 8th defendant-appellant, with which we have to deal is that the Court sale in favour Of the decree-holder-respondent is null and void, because, although the 8th defendant was on record at the date of the sales a minor, he had in fact attained majority sometime previously. The lower Court found that the 8th defendant had attained majority after the decree was obtained against him and Mr. Bashyam Aiyangar in arguing the appeal has not asked us to interfere with that finding. He has argued only that the 8th defendant was prejudiced in the production of his evidence, because witnesses whom he had brought to Court refused to stay for the adjourned hearing on the next day preferring to return to a festival in their village The lower Court was, we think, quite right in refusing to adjourn for the issue of process to these witnesses to a later date. It was open to the 8th defendant to pay his witnesses date and obtain orders from the Court requiring them to attend...
Kadan Koiathil Saidali Kutti Vs. Charavcor Mathamkoth Manakkal Godan N ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1922
Reported in: AIR1922Mad172; 70Ind.Cas.713
Kumaraswamy Sastri, J.1. I do not think that there is anything in Section 5 of the Malabar Compensation for Tenants' Improvements Act which ousts the jurisdiction of a Civil Court in a suit between the landlord and tenant to grant a temporary injunction restraining the tenant from making changes in the property.2. The finding of both Courts is that the changes sought to be made are not bona fide for purposes of agriculture but to harass the plaintiff. I do not think this is a case for interference under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.3. The petition is dismissed with costs....
In Re: Mattam Shinna Viraiah and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad87(1); 71Ind.Cas.63
ORDERKrishnan, J.1. In this case the petitioners before us were committed to the Sessions Court of Anantapur, accused Nos. 1 and 2. charged, under Section 476, Indian Pena' Code, for using as genuine a forged document, a Will, which he knew to be forged or had reason to believe to be forged in certain proceedings for the transfer of patta with regard to certain landed properties and accused Nos. 3, 4 and 5 under Section 467, Indian Penal Code, with forging of that document. The petitioners contend before us that the case cannot be proceeded with against them without a proper sanction being obtained under Section 195, Clause 1(c), Criminal Procedure Code. It is clear from the record that the Will was produced by accused Nos. 1 and 2 in certain proceedings for the transfer of patta, before the Revenue Authorities and that though the Deputy Tahsildar had the enquiry in these proceedings conducted through the Revenue Inspector, he passed the final orders refusing mutation of names in the p...
In Re: Naramban and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1922
Reported in: 71Ind.Cas.877
ORDERWalter Schwabe, C.J.1. In this petition the District Magistrate has ordered, the committal of all the seven accused to the Sessions on a charge of dacoity. He also held that the trial of the three accused against whom the Sub-Magistrate has framed charges of theft and violence is void. He also says that ail the proceedings before the Sub-Magistrate are vitiated, because he did not record his reasons for the discharge of the accused, as is required by Section 209, Criminal Procedure Code. As regards this latter objection, as I understand, it is not the practice to record the reasons for the discharge of different accused, who are discharged during the trial until the end of the trial. This seems an unobjectionable practice and in this case apparently was going to be adopted by the Sub-Magistrate, and in fact, has now been adopted. It is true that at the time the application was made to the District Magistrate no such record existed. But that might be a ground for his calling for th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›