Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1944Mad441
Chandrasekhara Ayyar, J.1. The question in this second appeal preferred by the plaintiff is whether he is entitled to drain off the water falling on the northern side of the well shown as W in the plan through the sluice C to the defendant's southern portion round the well so that it may ultimately pass through the drainage channel D. The District Munsif held that he had this right; but the Subordinate Judge came to a contrary conclusion.2. That the right was being enjoyed for 20 years prior to the suit peaceably and uninterruptedly, which is the case put forth in the plaint, has been negatived by the Subordinate Judge for adequate reasons. But he has also held that this is not an easement of necessity, because the plaintiff's house abuts on a street and it should be easy for the plaintiff to carry the water falling on his side of the well to the street.3. Easements of necessity are those described in Clauses (a), (c) and (e) of Section 13 of the Act and illustrations (a), (b) and (m) ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1936Mad498
Pandrang Row, J.1. This is an appeal from the decree of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Ramnad at Madura dated 13th July 1931 allowing the appeal from the decree of the District Munsif of Sattur dated 29th January 1929 made in O.S. No. 472 of 1926, a suit by a former shroff in the Municipal office at Virudhanagar to recover a certain sum of money due to him by the Municipal Council. The amount sought to be recovered was Rs. 1,070 odd. The trial Court gave the plaintiff a decree for only Rs. 436 odd and disallowed the rest of the claim. As regards this amount there is no controversy in the present second appeal. The plaintiff appealed to the Subordinate Judge in respect of the balance which was disallowed by the trial Court and the Subordinate Judge allowed the appeal with costs. The present second appeal is by the Municipal Council and the amount to which the appeal relates is Rs. 499 with interest thereon. This sum of Rs. 499 was the sum found missing from the safe which was in ch...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1921Mad118; 61Ind.Cas.829
1. The preliminary objection is that there is no appeal against the order in the case remanding the suit to the District Munsif for trial of the question whether the default, consisting in non-performance of the agreement, which, as found by the lower Appellate Court, was in fast arrived at between the plaintiff and the defendant, was due to the default of the plaintiff or the defendant. What is or is not a preliminary point it is not always easy to determine. The only definition that has been attempted, so far as it has been brought to our notice, is that given by Muthusami Aiyar, J., in Ramachandra Joshi v. Hazi Kassim 16 M. 207 , where he says that a preliminary point means some point either collateral to the merits which precluded their determination altogether, or some particular question which, though relating to the merits, precluded their general determination.' It seems to us that this is a fairly accurate definition, which we find has also been adopted in the resent decision ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1916Mad1125; 29Ind.Cas.336
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. The Joint Magistrate has not considered the question of possession, or found that the accused had any common object. There were 20 accused; but the Joint Magistrate has not considered the case of each accused or evidence. The whole case is disposed of in two short paragraphs. In Jamait Mullick v. Emperor 35 C.P 138 : 12 C.W.N. 134 : 6 Cri. L.J. 427 it was held that when there are several accused, it must appear on the face of the judgment that the case against each of the accused has been taken into consideration and reasons should be given, as far as may be necessary, to show that the Appellate Court has devoted judicial attention to the case of each of the accused'. Farkan v. Somsher Mahomed 22 C.P 241 is also in point.2. I set aside the judgment of the Appellate Court and direct that the appeal be re-tried and judgment written according to law....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1921Cal66,66Ind.Cas.909
1. Rule No. 664 of 1920. This rule is directed against an order of District Judge of Bankura setting aside an order of the Munsif of Khatra granting an application for review. One Kanta Mal obtained a preliminary mortgage decree on 14th June 1916 against defendant No. 1, the mortgagor, and defendant No. 2 a subsequent transferee who is the petitioner in this Rule. Kanta admittedly died on 8th February 1917. On 18th November 1918 Kanta Mal's sons applied for a final decree in that mortgage suit, On 21st December 1918 they applied for substitution of their names as plaintiffs in the place of Kanta Mal. This application was allowed without notice to either defendant and on 25th January 1919 a final mortgage-decree was passed. On 24th February 1919 the defendant No, 2 applied for a review of that mortgage decree and that application was allowed. Then the sons of Kanta Mal appealed from that order granting the review. That appeal was successful and the present rule is directed against the o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
J.N. Sarma, J. 1. This appeal has been filed under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, against the order passed by the Income-tax AppellateTribunal, Guwahati Bench, in I. T. A. Nos. 283 and 284/Gauhati of 1995, dated January 20, 1999, for the assessment years 1989-90 and 1990-91. 2. The brief facts are as follows : The assessee and her husband constructed a four storeyed building at Hospital Road, Silchar, making equal contribution by way of investment. The building was completed in the month of June, 1990. The cost of the construction was shown at Rs. 8,42,000 up to June, 1990, in support of which the assessee filed a valuation report from a registered valuer. The Assessing Officer made a reference to the Valuation Officer, the Income-tax Department under Section 55A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for ascertaining the cost of construction made by the assessee in the building. The Departmental Valuation Officer determined the cost of construction of the building at Rs. 17,49,884 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1914Bom111(1); (1914)16BOMLR516; 25Ind.Cas.369
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. We cannot say that as a matter of law there was sufficient cause for extending the time under Section 5, and we do not think there was any objection to the learned Judge entertaining the question after he had provisionally admitted the appeal to the file in the absence of the respondent. We are of opinion that this is a second appeal and not a first appeal, because it is an appeal from a decree of an appellate Court. We dismiss the appeal with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1956)IILLJ229Bom
Chagla, C.J. 1. This is a petition by an employee of what was once the Imperial Bank of India and is now the State Bank of India, challenging the decision of the Labour Appellate Tribunal with regard to a question which arises out of the Bank award given by the Sastri tribunal. It appears that two demands were put forward by the employees of the Imperial Bank with regard to the pension fund. In order to understand these demands it is necessary to consider the history of this fund. Up to 1931 the pension fund was maintained by the bank out of its own revenues. But after 1931 the bank passed a resolution to the effect that every employee who wanted to join this pension fund must contribute 5 per cent of his salary to this fund and, therefore, after 1931 the pension fund was maintained by the contributions of the bank and the 5 per cent contributed by the employees. In connexion with this fund two demands put forward by the employees of the Imperial Bank were (1) that the employees' compu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2001(1)BomCR435
A.M. Khanwilkar, J. 1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the judgment and order dated 28-10-1987 passed by the Collector, Akola in Revenue Appeal No. BRA-13(3) Murtizapur /7/86-87.2. Briefly stated, the petitioner landlord filed application before the Rent Controller on 10-10-1983 purporting to seek permission for taking action against the respondent under Clause 13(3)(ii) of the C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949, since according to the petitioner, the respondent was habitual defaulter. The reason mentioned in the said application for granting such permission was that the respondent was in arrears in the past for which the petitioner had to file two separate civil suits for recovery of arrears and both the suits were decreed in favour of the petitioner. It is further stated that since January 1983 onwards till filing of the application, the respondent had failed to offer rent for nine months to the petition...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1939All592
Thom, C.J.1. This is a defendants' appeal arising out of a suit for possession of property. The plaintiff is one Mt. Khatununisa and she claims the property as the hair of her deceased husband. As his heir she is entitled to one-eighth of the property. She alleges that she has been in possession of the whole property in dispute in lieu of dower which she averred was Rs. 3000. The defence was that the plainfiff had been divorced by her deceased husband during his lifetime and she was not smtitled to anything in lieu of dower or to any share in her deceased husband's estate. The learned Civil Judge in the lower Appellate Court upon a consideration of the evidence has held that the defendants had failed to prove that the plaintiff's husband had divorced her. He has held further that the dower was not Rs. 3000 but Rs. 35-4-0 and that this amount had been paid. He held finally that the plaintiff was not in possession of the property in dispute in lieu of dower. He accordingly granted decree...
Tag this Judgment!