Chennai Court April 1924 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.
Chintakayala Thammiah Naidu Garu Vs. Attili Musaliah (Dead) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Mad818; (1924)47MLJ383
Wallace, J.1. The question in this case is whether a licensee under the holder of a Dharimila Inam in a Zamindari for a period of 10 years with a right to tap date trees is a tenant within the meaning of the Section 73 of the Madras Act v. of 1884, so as to be liable to his licensor for the land-cess payable by the latter under the Act. The plaintiff is an intermediate landholder and had under decree Ex. B to pay Rs. 131-2-6 to his landlord as land-cess for Faslis 1324 to 1326 plus costs of suit and he seeks to recover half of that sum from the licensees, the defendants.2. The word 'tenant' in the Act is defined to include all persons who occupy lands under a landholder. This definition is not illuminating, and considerations of the meaning of the word as used in other enactments do not afford much assistance either. It has no doubt been held, e. g., that the ryotwari holder of a tree patta is an occupier of land within the meaning of Section 6 of the Madras Forests Act [see Reference ...
Pitchakkuttiya Pillai and ors. Vs. Doraiswami Mooppanar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad230; (1924)47MLJ498
Wallace, J.1. This case arises out of an execution petition. The appellants, who were the plaintiffs, obtained a money decree against the respondents in 1919. The 1st plaintiff for himself and as guardian of his minor brothers, plaintiffs 2 and 3, put in an execution petition on 1st September, 1919, to recover the money. The 1st defendant was arrested and brought to Court under a warrant. On the warrant the appellant's vakil endorsed on 4th September, 1919, ' Judgment-debtor may be released. Decree fully satisfied.' The executing Court however then refused to record satisfaction on the ground that two of the applicants in the execution petition were minors. Neither party took any further steps to have the satisfaction of the decree recorded. On 22nd January, 1920 the 1st plaintiff for himself and as guardian of minor plaintiffs 2 and 3 again applied for execution. The judgment-debtor pleaded that the decree had already been fully satisfied. The executing Court originally proceeded on t...
Ramasubbu Nayaker Vs. Dorai Raj Alias Muniandi Naicker (Minor) by Rang ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1924
Reported in: (1924)47MLJ735
ORDERDevadoss, J.1. This is an application for stay of the execution of a decree pending the disposal of a First Appeal (unnumbered). Mr. Venkatrayaliah, on behalf of the respondent, has taken notice of this application for stay and has very strongly opposed the stay on the ground that Section 77 of the Registration Act is imperative and that the document must be presented within 30 days of the decree of the Subordinate Judge's Court. In other words, his contention is that this Court has no power to stay the execution of the decree and that if it does stay the non-presentation of the document within 30 days would make the document useless. I am unable to accept this contention. Section 77 of the Registration Act provides for the filing of a suit by a person who wants to get the document registered and for asking for relief and the relief that he asks is that the Registrar may be directed to register this document within 30 days after the passing of such order. This does not prevent a C...
G. Konda Reddi and anr. Vs. P. Pichireddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad184
Phillips, J.1. The appellants raise an objection that Exhibit A, which is a registration copy of a sale-deed executed in 1888, has not been properly proved, because the presumption under Section 90 of the Evidence Act cannot be drawn, as the document was less than 30 years old when it was first produced in Court. When the case was first tried, the Munsif naturally did not consider whether Section 90 was applicable because the document was obviously not 30 years old at that time. But after finding that the loss of the original was not satisfactorily proved, he refused to allow the sale to be proved by secondary evidence, whether oral or documentary in the shape of Exhibit A. Therefore, although this document was marked as Exhibit A, it was not treated as evidence in, the suit.2. On appeal the suit was remanded for re-trial and when it came on for re-trial the sale-deed, of which Exhibit A is a copy, was more than 30 years old; and it has been laid down so long ago as Minu Sirkar v. Rhed...
Chintakayala Kammaiah Naidu Garu Vs. Athiti Musaliah (Dead) Through Hi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1924
Reported in: 82Ind.Cas.391
Wallace, J.1. The question in this case is whether a licensee under the holder of a Dharimalla inam, in a zemindari, for a period of ten years with a right to tap date trees is a tenant within the meaning of Section 73 of the Madras Act V of 1884, so as to be liable to his licensor for the land-cess payable by the latter under the Act. The plaintiff is an intermediate landholder and had under decree Exhibit B to pay Rs. 131-2-6 to his landlord as land-cess for Faslis 1324 to 1326 plus costs of suit and he seeks to recover half of that sum from the licensees the defendants.2. The word 'tenant' in the Act is defined to include all persons who occupy lands under a landholder. This definition is not illuminating, and considerations of the meaning of the word as used in other enactments do not afford much assistance either. It has no doubt been held e.g., that the ryotwari holder of a tree patta is an occupier of land within the meaning of Section 6 of the Madras Forest Act (see Reference u...
Ramasubba Nayakar Vs. Doari Raj Alias Muniandi Nayakar Minor by Rengam ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1924
Reported in: 85Ind.Cas.192
ORDERDevadoss, J.1. This is an application for stay of the execution of a decree pending the disposal of a first appeal (unnumbered.) Mr. Vankatarayaliah on behalf of the respondent has taken notice of this application for stay and has very strongly opposed the stay on the ground that Section 77 of the Registration Act is imperative and that the document must be presented within 30 days of the decree of the Subordinate Judge's Court. In other words his contention is that this Court has no power to stay the execution of the decree and that if it does stay, the non-presentation of the document within 30 clays would make the document useless. I am unable to accept this contention. Section 77 of the Registration Act provides for the filing of a suit by a person who wants to get document registered and for asking for relief and the relief that he asks is that the Registrar may be directed to register this document within 30 days after the passing of such order. This does not prevent a Civil...
S. Peddappa Vs. Venkatappa and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Mad844
Madhava Nair, J.1. Plaintiff is the appellant. Plaintiff's suit was for the enforcement of an agreement to sail and in consequence for the establishment of his right to four-ninths share in the Zamin described in the Schedule or in the alternative for damages. The learned District Munaif gave him a decree for damages, but on appeal that has been set aside by the learned Subordinate Judge. This second appeal is against the decree dismissing the plaintiff's suit and is valued at Rs. 160, the damages disallowed by the lower appellate Court.2. Mr. Sesbaohariar, the respondents' vakil, raised a preliminary objection that there is no second appeal in this case as the suit is one of a Small Cause nature for a sum below Rs. 500 In deciding the question whether a suit is of a Small Clause nature or not, attention has to be paid to the nature of the suit, as it was presented in the first Court and not to the subsequent shape that it may have taken as a result of the findings of the lower Courts....
Bathula Pitchi Reddi and ors. Vs. Yellepeddi Bharata Sastri
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-1924
Reported in: (1924)47MLJ532
1. The question raised in this case is one of res judicata. The appellant represents the interests of one Pitchi Reddi. The respondent represents the interests of one Rami Reddi. Rami Reddi and Bapi Reddi brought a suit, O.S. No. 372 of 1904, and got it declared that certain alienations by the widow in possession to Pitchi Reddi and to some others respectively were not binding upon the reversioners. In that suit Pitchi Reddi and the other defendants raised the question that the property did not belong to the widow's husband, and therefore the reversioners had no right to the properties. They also raised the question that the suit was barred by limitation. There were the two main questions raised in that case. The District Munsif came to the conclusion that the siifit was barred by limitation and dismissed the suit express, by on the ground of limitation. He also gave a finding on the issue as to title against the plaintiffs-reversioners, holding that the properties did not belong to th...
Peruri Sooryaprakasam Vs. P.i. Muniswami Chetti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad42
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. This is an application by the sureties praying that they may be given two months' time to pay the amount of the decree, which they are liable to pay as sureties and that execution may be stayed for two months, in order to enable them to pay the amount.2. The suit was filed under Order 6-A of the Original Side Rules against the defendant and leave to defend was given, on condition that the defendant gave security. The applicants stood as sureties, A decree was ultimately passed and execution is now sought against the sureties.3. The affidavit of Chandrasekhara Chatty (one of the sureties), filed in support of the application, states that the defendant has been promising to settle the claim with the plaintiff and pay up the decree amount and the sureties therefore did not take any steps to find the money, that ten days before the filing of the present application notice was issued to the sureties to show cause why execution should not be issued against them, that...
Krishnaswami Naidu and ors. Vs. Perumal Alias Nammayya Naidu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad112
Phillips, J.1. This suit is brought for partition by the plaintiff against his brother, the 1st defendant, and the latter's minor sons. The Second Appeal was first of all dismissed for default on 26th April 1923, and it was afterwards restored to file on 26th March 1924. The 2nd respondent was given up and the appeal has now come on for hearing. Unfortunately the pleadings in this case are not before me.2. However, from the facts found by the learned Subordinate Judge and from the abstract of the pleadings in the judgment, the following appear to be the facts upon which the Second Appeal has to be decided.3. In 1910, the plaintiff brought a suit against the 1st defendant and their father for partition. He withdrew that suit with leave to bring another, but he failed to pay the costs, which was the condition on which leave to sue again was granted. He continued to live jointly with his father and brother, and, after the former's death, with the latter until disputes arose, which culmina...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »