Court : Chennai
Decided on : Apr-15-1915
Reported in : 30Ind.Cas.544
1. The learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the appellants' petition to set aside the decree of the Small Cause suit, because appellants having been called on to deposit money and the time granted for doing so having been extended until 3rd December 1912, no deposit was made before the petition was taken up for orders on that date. Dakins v. Wagner 3 Dow. and R. (1791) 4 Bro. C.C. 358; Isaacs v. Royal Insurance Co. (1870) 39 L.J. Ex. 189. are authorities for holding that, when time is given for the performance of any act till a certain date, it includes that date. The learned Subordinate Judge, therefore, had no jurisdiction to pass his order of dismissal before 4th December 1912. We must allow the Letters Patent Appeal and set aside the Subordinate Judge's order dismissing the petition before him; costs to abide the result of the Small Cause suit....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Aug-06-1915
Reported in : AIR1916Mad186; 30Ind.Cas.609
Oldfield, J.1. This is an appeal from the decision of two learned Judges, given under Section 98 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in accordance with the confirming judgment of one of them, Sankaran Nair, J. The question is whether water-cess was legitimately levied by Government, the appellant, from plaintiffs for the water of the Vamsadhara river, which they have admittedly used in their inam village for the irrigation of (1) second crop, (2) wet (or irrigated) crops grown on dry (or ordinarily unirrigated) land. The decision of this question will be a sufficient adjudication on the plaintiffs claims to a refund of past collections and an injunction as to the future.2. Plaintiffs did not dispute that they used the water of the Vamsadhara, as alleged. The dispute is, therefore, only whether it belongs to and can be charged for by Government. Government has relied on Section 2 of Act III of 1905 in support of its ownership of the water and Section 1, Act VII of 1865, in support of its ri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Sep-07-1915
Reported in : (1916)ILR39Mad843
John Wallis, C.J. 1. In this case the amount or value of the subject matter of the suit in the Court of First Instance was less than Rs. 10,000 bat the amount or value of the subject matter in dispute in appeal to His Majesty/in Council exceeds that sum owing to the claim for mesne profits for the period between the institution of the suit and the petition for a certificate. It is clear that the case does not satisfy the provisions of the first paragraph of Section 110, Civil Procedure Code, but we are asked to grant the certificate on the ground that in the circumstances the decree of the High Court involves 'directly or indirectly some claim or question to or respecting property of like amount or value' within the meaning of the second paragraph. If this contention be accepted, a certificate must be granted in any case in which the amount or value of the subject matter in dispute on appeal to His Majesty in Council is not leas than Rs. 10,000, whether or not the amount or value of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Sep-07-1915
Reported in : AIR1916Mad869; 31Ind.Cas.38
1. The respondent's learned Counsel took a preliminary objection that no appeal lay as the order appealed against was not a judgment. We overrule the preliminary objection as we are satisfied that an order setting aside the abatement of a suit is a judgment as interpreted by the Full Bench in the case Tuljaram Row v. Alagappa Chettiar 8 Ind. Cas. 340 (1910) M.W.N. 696, though it may be, to use the words of the learned Chief Justice in the above case, an order on an independent proceeding 'which is ancillary to the suit.'2. The respondent's learned Counsel concedes that till his client (the Administrator-General of Madras) obtained Letters of Administration in March 914, his client was not the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff and that the deceased's widow and his two sons and his other children were his legal representatives. The suit abated six months after the plaintiff's death, that is, in May 1912. The present application was made by the Administrator-General in April ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Sep-07-1915
Reported in : 31Ind.Cas.296; (1916)30MLJ317
John Wallis, C.J.1. In this case the amount or value of the subject-matter of the suit in the Court of first instance was less than Rs. 10,000, but the amount or value of the subject-matter in dispute on appeal to His Majesty in Council exceeds that sum owing to the claim for mesne profits for the period between the institution of the suit and the petition for a certificate. It is clear that the case does not satisfy the provisions of the first paragraph of Section 110, Civil Procedure Code, but we are asked to grant the certificate on the ground that, in the circumstances, the decree of the High Court involves 'directly or indirectly, some claim or question to or respecting property of like amount or value' within the meaning of the second paragraph. If this contention' be accepted, a certificate must be granted in any case in which the amount or value of the subject-matter in dispute on appeal to his Majesty in Council is not less than Rs. 10,000, whether or not the amount or value o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Oct-27-1915
Reported in : (1916)30MLJ163
John Wallis, C.J.1. This appeal was heard in the first instance by Sir Arnold White, Chief Justice, and Mr. Justice Oldfield and after certain questions had been decided, the further hearing was adjourned to await the decision of the Letters Patent Appeal No. 39 of 1913 from the decree in A.S. No. 124 of 1906 in which owing to a difference of opinion between Miller and Sankaran Nair, JJ., the learned Judges who heard the appeal, the decree of the Lower Court was confirmed in accordance with the opinion of Sankaran Nair, J. His decision has since been reversed by Oldfield and Bakewell, JJ., dissentiente Sadasiva Aiyar, J., and the present appeal has now come before this Bench for further argument and disposal.2. The important and difficult questions in these, appeals as to which there has been much difference of opinion, relate to the effect and construction of the. Madras Water Cess Act, VII of 1865 as amended and of the Madras Land Encroachments Act, III of 1905 and have nothing to do...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Oct-27-1915
Reported in : 32Ind.Cas.279
John Wallis, C.J.1. This appeal was heard in the first instance by Sir Arnold White, Chief Justice, and Mr. Justice Oldfield and after certain questions had been decided, the further hearing was adjourned to wait the decision of the Letters Patent Appeal No. 39 of 1915 [Secretary of State v. Kannepalli Janakiramayya 30 Ind. Cas. 609; 29 M.L.J. 389; 18 M.L.T. 277 from the decree in A.S. No. 124 of 1906 [Secretary of State v. Kannepalli Janakiramayya 18 Ind. Cas. 770; 24 M.L.J. 365; 13 M.L.T. 235 in which owing to a difference of opinion between Miller and Sankaran Nair, JJ., the learned Judges who heard the appeal, the decree of the lower Court was confirmed in accordance with the opinion of Sanknran Nair, J. His decision has since been reversed by Oldfield and Bakewell, JJ. dissentient Sadasiva Aiyar, J., and the present appeal has now come before this Bench for further argument and disposal.2. The important and difficult questions in these appeals, as to which there has been much diff...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Dec-07-1915
Reported in : 33Ind.Cas.906
John Wallis, C.J.1. The first question in this appeal is, whether a suit for damages for cutting and carrying away trees is a suit for land or other immoveable property within the meaning of Clause 12 of the Letters Patent as held by Sankaran Nair, J., as, if so, the suit was properly dismissed as the land on which the trees were growing was situated outside the jurisdiction. I do not think the question whether a decision involving the question of title in such a suit would be res judicata in a subsequent suit for the land, is very relevant to an inquiry what is included in the words suit for land or other immoveable property,' and assuming that a suit for cutting and carrying away trees does not come within these words, a decision in such a suit on a question of title by a Court other than the Court within the limits of whose jurisdiction the land is situated would not in my opinion under Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure be res judicata in a subsequent suit in the proper Cour...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Dec-21-1915
Reported in : 34Ind.Cas.634
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. With regard to the preliminary objection which was raised by Mr. Jackson, when that point was taken, the case was argued upon the assumption that the suit had been dismissed under Order IX, Rule 8, which deals with default of appearance, and, therefore, I propose, whatever may have been the real position, to deal with the argument which was presented to us by the learned Counsel upon the basis that the order by Mr. Justice Imam dismissing the suit was made under Order IX, Rule 8. That order was made on the 5th of February 1915. Then an application was made on the?5th of March of this year to set aside that order of dismissal. That was heard by the learned Judge and was refused, and the plaintiff appealed from that order of refusal to restore the case and set aside the dismissal, and a preliminary point has been taken by the learned Counsel for the defendant that no appeal lies from such an order.2. It was argued by the learned Counsel for the defendant, Mr. J...
Tag this Judgment!