Chennai Court March 1925 Judgments
K.S. Suppuswami Iyer Vs. the Corporation of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1925
Reported in: 91Ind.Cas.7
Phillips, J.1. The main point argued in this appeal is that the regulations passed by the Standing Committee of the Madras Corporation in respect of the rates levied for the supply of water are ultra vires. Under Section 169, Clause (5) 'for all water supplied under this section, in excess of a maximum determined by regulations of the Standing Committee, payment shall be made * * * * *'. The section relates to water supply for domestic consumption and the contention for the appellant is that there can only be one maximum for the supply of such water. He takes no objection to the regulation in so far as it provides a varying maximum in accordance with the rental value but yet he contends that there can be only one maximum. The very fact of the word 'a' being used before 'maximum' would show that there was not intended to be one only maximum; otherwise the words would be the 'maximum.' If the latter were the wording it might possibly be contended that the maximum must be a definite numbe...
Tag this Judgment!K.G. Muhammad Hussian Sahib and ors. Vs. P. Baba Sah and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad336; 91Ind.Cas.595
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment of the Chief Justice restraining the defendants by an injunction from proventing the plaintiffs from building upon their lands. The plaintiffs are Dharmakarthas of the Balasubramaniswami temple in Pudupet situation Narayana Naicken Street. The defendants are interested in a mosque which was separated from the temple by three houses and a road which was about 16 feet broad where it took off from Narayana Naicken Street and was tapering off. It was about 13 feet broad by the time it reached the end of the mosque. The temple originally was in a small building but subsequently the Dharmakarthas acquired three houses which brought the temple property to the street which separated the mosque from the three houses. Having purchased the property the Dharmartkarthas wanted to erect a mantapam after demolishing the three houses which adjoined the original temple. In this they were obstructed by the Muhaminadans who were interested i...
Tag this Judgment!Nilambur Thacharakavil Manavedan Thirumalpad Avergal Vs. Parry and Com ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1277; 90Ind.Cas.729; (1925)49MLJ390
Spencer, J. 1. This suit was brought by Nilambur Rajah for recovery of possession together with damages for use and occupation of 20 acres of land and for value of buildings and machinery removed by the defendant upon a certain area which had been granted on lease by the plaintiff's predecessor on 14th August, 1879, to Mr. Minchin for gold washing for a period of 36 years which expired on 14th August, 1915.2. In 1862 the plaintiff's predecessor granted a lease of 500 cawnies in the same locality for a rent of Rs. 500 to be paid for coffee cultivation to the same Mr. Minchin for a period of 91 years. That lease has not expired and will not expire till 1953. Messrs. Parry and Company, who are the defendants in this suit, obtained as assignment from Mr. Minchin of all his rights in both leases. The contention on the part of the plaintiff, who is the appellant in this Court, is that the grant of a mining lease implied a surrender of the lease for coffee cultivation for the area over which ...
Tag this Judgment!Gokuldoss Goverdhan Doss (Dead) and anr. Vs. Dwarakadoss Goverdhan Dos ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1249; (1925)49MLJ457
Spencer, J.1. These are appeals against the order of Mr. Justice Waller adjudicating the firm of Muralidoss Ramdoss & Co., insolvent, and finding that the two brothers Gokuldoss and Dwarakadoss were partners in it. The counter-petitioners 3 & 4, namely Govindoss Krishnadoss alias Babu, who is the son of Krishnadoss Muralidoss, and Ramdoss, son of Dwarakadoss Goverdhan Doss, being minors, were excluded. O.S. A. No. 86 is by the first counter-petitioner Gokuldoss and O.S. A. No. 87 is by the second counter-petitioner Dwarakadoss Goverdhan Doss. As he died after filing the appeal his son Ramdoss is allowed to continue it. The facts which appear from the affidavits on either side are, that the first counter-petitioner Gokuldoss's deceased father Goverdhan Doss and his deceased uncle Muralidoss Ramdoss were carrying on business in buying and selling houses and lands in Madras under the trade name of Ramdoss Muralidoss & Co., and after their deaths the first counter-petitioner and Krishnados...
Tag this Judgment!Munigadu Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1144
ORDERDevadoss, J.1. This is an application to revise the order of the Panchayat Court, convicting the petitioner and sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs. 2. The contention of Mr. Somayya for the petitioner is that the jurisdiction of the Panchayat Court depends upon the amount of loss or damage caused by mischief. If the loss or damage exceeds Rs. 10, that Court would have no jurisdiction. Under Section 76 of the Madras Act, II of 1920 a Panchayat Court is empowered to try, among other offences, one under Section 426, Indian Penal Code when the lees or damage caused thereby does not exceed Rs. 10, and under the same section, the Court is bound to mention the amount of loss or damage caused by mischief. In this case, there is no mention of the value of one amount of loss or damage by mischief alleged to have been committed by the petitioner. The Public Prosecutor contends 'that the provisions of the Cr.P.C. ought not to be made applicable in revising the proceedings before the Panchayat ...
Tag this Judgment!Gokaldoss Govardhandoss Vs. Parry and Co. and the Official Assignee of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1925
Reported in: (1925)ILR68Mad795
Spencer, J.1. These are appeals against the order of Mr. Justice Waller adjudicating the firm of Murlidoss Bamdoss & Co., insolvent, and finding that the two brothers Gokuldoss and Dwarkadoss were partners in it. The counter-petitioners 3 and 4, namely, Govindoss Krishnadoss alias Babu, who is the son of Krishnadoss Murlidoss, and Ramdoss, son of Dwarkadoss Govardhandoss, being minors, were excluded. O.S. Appeal No. 86 is by the first counter-petitioner Gokuldoss and O.S. Appeal No. 87 is by the second counter-petitioner Dwarkadoss Govardhandoss. As he died after filing the appeal, his son Ramdoss is allowed to continue it. The facts which appear from the affidavits on either side are that the first counter-petitioner Gokuldoss's deceased father Govardhandoss and his deceased uncle Murlidoss Ramdoss were carrying on business in buying, and selling houses and lands in Madras under the trade name of Ramdosss Murlidoss & Co., and after their deaths the first counter-petitioner and Krishna...
Tag this Judgment!Nilambur Thacharakavil Manavadan Thirumalpad Vs. Messrs. Parry and Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1925
Reported in: (1925)ILR68Mad815
Spencer, J.1. This suit was brought by Nilambur Raja for recovery of possession together with damages for use and occupation of 20 acres of land and for value of buildings and machinery removed by the defendant upon a certain area which had been granted on lease by the Plaintiff's predecessor on 14th August' 1879 to Mr. Minchin for gold washing for a period of 36 years which expired on 14th August 1915.2. In 1862 the plaintiff's predecessor granted a lease of 500 cawnies in the same locality for a rent of Rs. 500 to be paid annually for coffee cultivation to the same Mr. Minchin for a period of 91 years. That lease has not expired and will not expire till 1953. Messrs. Parry & Co., who are the defendants in this suit, obtained an assignment from Mr. Minchin of all his rights in both leases. The contention on the part of the plaintiff, who is the appellant in this Court, is that the grant of a mining lease implied a surrender of the lease for coffee cultivation for the area over which g...
Tag this Judgment!Salakshi Ammal Vs. Doraimanikka Nadan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad51; 90Ind.Cas.829; (1925)49MLJ341
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit which relates to the trusteeship of a charity founded under the will of one Sappanimuthu Nadan who died leaving two sons. The material portion of the will so far as it relates to the trust properties runs as follows:The lands mentioned herein as relating to the said charities should not in any way be alienated by the abovementioned two persons or their heirs by means of sale, otti, hypothecation, security, partition, etc., but they should enjoy them hereditarily and conduct the abovementioned charities. 2. After the death of the testator his two sons were conducting the charities. One of the sons died leaving a minor son who died leaving the plaintiff, his mother as his heir. This suit is filed by the plaintiff who was the widow of one. of the deceased sons and whose right is as mother of her son for a declaration that she is jointly entitled as trustee to conduct the management of these properties.3. The defence is that on the ...
Tag this Judgment!N.M.R. Nagappa Chetty and ors. Vs. V.A.A.R Firm
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1215; (1925)49MLJ306
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. This is a suit filed by the plaintiffs for the recovery of Rs. 17,919-11-1 with costs and interest due in respect of dealings between the plaintiffs' firm and the 1st defendant. The 2nd and 3rd defendants are the sons of the 1st defendant and they are members of a joint undivided Nattukottai trading family.2. The only point now taken in appeal is whether Ex. E is an acknowledgment of liability which requires to be stamped and therefore ought not to have been admitted in evidence. There is no other defence to the plaintiffs' action. The learned Chief Justice who tried the case overruled the plea that Ex. E requires a stamp and admitted it in evidence. We think that we cannot in appeal go into the question whether it was rightly or wrongly admitted. Section 36 of the Stamp Act is clear. It says that, where an instrument has been admitted in evidence such admission shall not, except as provided by Section 61, be called in question at any stage of the same suit or ...
Tag this Judgment!Chinna Munuswami Nayudu Vs. Sagalaguna Nayudu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad699; (1926)51MLJ229
Spencer, J.1. On 28th January, 1891, Venkatasubrahmanya Aiyar,on behalf of himself and his minor son Krishnaswami Aiyar, sold the village of Siyatti to Venkata-pathi Nayudu for a consideration of Rs. 10,000. On the same day the parties executed what is termed a counterpart document,by which the purchaser Venkatapathi Nayudu agreed to reconvey the village for the same consideration of Rs. 10,000 if the vendor made an application for that purpose in the month of Ani 30 years later. Venkatasubrahmanya Aiyar died in 1899, leaving Krishnaswami Aiyar, his only son, surviving him. Krishnaswami Aiyar assigned his interest under the counterpart agreement, Ex. B (1), to the plaintiff in this suit for a consideration of Rs. 19,200 out of which Rs. 10,000 were to be paid to get a reconveyance according to the terms of that document.2. The plaintiff's suit was dismissed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Chingleput on the ground that there was no completed agreement, but only a standing offer...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »