Privy Council Cases

The Goripalayam Durga Through Its Present Manager, Sheik Ibrahim Sahib ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1949)2MLJ153

1. These four second anneals arise out of four suits, two of which were instituted by two ryots for the grant of patta under Section 55 of the Madras Estates Land Act for Fasli 1353 and two by the landholder against the same two ryots for arrears of rent due for fasli 1352 to fasli 1353 under Section 77 of that Act. The ryots were the appellants in all the four appeals preferred to the District Judge of Madura from whose decision the landholder has preferred these four second appeals. The main question which arose for determination in all these four suits and appeals was whether the landholder was entitled to levy a charge for water drawn by the ryots from the tank of the Landholders for cultivating dry lands comprised in their holdings with wet crops. It has been found by the learned District Judge that the solum of the tank vested in the landholder; that the water stored in the tank became his and that for water drawn form the tank by them, the ryots were liable to pay water rate to ...

Miss Revathi by Next Friend and Guardian S. Parthasarathy Vs. M. Venka ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1949)2MLJ594

P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. This is an application by the owner of premises bearing municipal door No. 91, Mowbrays Road, Alwarpet, for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes in H. R. A. No. 264 of 1948, dated 24th August, 1948. That appeal arose out of an application filed by the petitioner before the Rent Controller, Madras, for eviction of the first respondent from the premises on the ground that he had committed default in the payment of the rent for January, 1947. One of the main pleas of the respondent was that the application was not maintainable because of the dismissal of a prior application made by the petitioner to the Rent Controller on 5th June, 1947. On that date, neither the petitioner nor her Advocate was present when the application was called, and therefore the petition was dismissed for default. The respondent also raised other pleas on the merits. The Rent Controller by his order dated 29th January, 1948, pas...

Sree Bhagavathi Amman Temple by Poojaris and Trustees and Others Vs. K ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1949)2MLJ609

Raghava Rao, J.1. The appellants here-Sri Bhagavathi Amman Temple represented by three of its pujari trustees-sued in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore for recovery of the lands described in plaint A schedule and for profits in respect thereof. The three trustees representing the temple alleged that defendants 1 to 11 were tenants at will liable to be evicted and that defendants 13 to 15 were their co-trustees who not having joined them in suing were impleaded as pro forma defendants. The 12th defendant was the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Board who like defendants 13 to 15 supported the case of the plaintiffs-trustees that the suit lands which had been originally granted by a Mysore King and were later confirmed by the East India Company and later still by the British Indian Government at the time of the Inam Settlement belonged to the deity in both the warams. It was also part of the plaint case that the decree of the District Munsif's Court of Dharapuram in O.S. ...

The Goripalayan Durga Through Its Present Manager, Sheik Ibrahim Sahib ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1951Mad630

Viswanatha Sastri, J.1. These four second appeals arise out of four suits, two of which were instituted by two ryots for the grant of patta under Section 55, Madras Estates Land Act for Fasli 1353 and two by the landholder against the same two ryots for arrears of rent due for fasli 1351 to fasli 1353 under Section 77 of that Act. The ryots were the appellants in all the four appeals preferred to the District Judge of Madura from whose decision the landholder has preferred these four second appeals. The main question which arose for determination in all these four suits and appeals was whether the landholder was entitled to levy a charge for water drawn by the ryots from the tank of the landholder for cultivating dry lands comprised in their holdings with wet crops. It has been found by the learned District Judge that the solum of the tank vested in the landholder; that the water stored in the tank became his and that for water drawn from the tank by them, the ryots were liable to pay ...

Miss Revathi by Next Friend and Guardian, S. Parthasarathy Vs. M. Venk ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1951Mad745

Rajamannar, C.J. 1. This is an appln by the owner of premises bearing municipal door No. 91 Mowbrays Road, Alwarpet, for the issue of a writ of 'certiorari' to quash the order of the Chief Judge of the Ct of Small Causes in H. R. A. No. 264 of 1948, dated 24-8-1948. That appeal arose out of an appln filed by the petnr before the Rent Controller, Madras, for eviction of the first resp from the premises on the ground that he had committed default in the payment of the rent for January 1947. One of the main pleas of the resp was that the appln was not maintainable because of the dismissal of a prior appln made by the petnr to the Rent Controller on 5-6-1947. On that date, neither the petnr nor her advocate was present when the appln was called, & therefore the petn was dismissed for default. The resp also raised other pleas on the merits. The Bent Controller by his order dated 29-1-1948, passed an order for eviction of the resp. He found that the resp committed default in payment of the r...

Thayyal and anr. Vs. Baggyathammal and anr.

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1949)1MLJ484

Mack, J.1. The petitioners are defendants 1 and 2 in O.S. No. 6 of 1948 on the file of the District Court, West Tanjore. They seek to revise the order of the District Judge on an application they filed to excuse delay in filing 19 documents. The learned District Judge excused the delay in the case of 11 documents as regards which there was no opposition from the plaintiff; but he declined to excuse the delay in the case of 8 documents, namely, Nos. 12 to 19 on the list. His order is a very brief one and reads as follows:The counter-petitioner does not oppose so far as items 1 to 11 are concerned. I have heard the pleader for the petitioner. I do not consider that the petitioners have made out sufficient grounds for the admission of documents at such a late stage. I admit items 1 to 11 and dismiss the petition for the rest. 2. The relevant facts are these : Issues were framed on 15th September, 1948, and time was given for the filing of documents till 18th October, 1948. This was done u...

Sree Bhagavathi Amman Temple by Pujaris and Trustees and ors. Vs. Kris ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1951Mad788

Raghava Rao, J. 1. The appellants here--Sri Bhagavathi Amman Temple represented by three of its pujari trustees--used in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore for recovery of the lands described in the plaint A schedule and for profits in respect thereof. The three trustees representing the temple alleged that defts. 1 to 11 were tenants at will liable to be evicted and that defts. 13 to 15 were their co-trustees who not having joined them in suing were impleaded as pro forma defts. Defendant 12 was the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Board who like defts. 13 to 15 supported the case of the pltfs.-trustees that the suit lands which had been originally granted by a Mysore King and were later confirmed by the East India Co. and later still by the British Indian Govt. at the time of the Inam Settlement belonged to the deity in both the warams. It was also part of the plaint case that the decree of the Diat. Munsif's Court of Dharapuram in O. S. No. 225 of 1939 on its file dat...

Koyithodi Amikutty Umma Vs. Viruthiyam Parambath Ramochen Nedungadi an ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1949)1MLJ486

Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. There are two points for determination in this second appeal. The first is whether the lower appellate Court was right in holding that the petitioner, conceding that he is entitled to restitution of any amount owing to the-alleged variation of the decree in O.S. No. 256 of 1937 could get the decree transferred from the Parappanangudi District Munsiff Court, which passed the decree, to the District Munsiff's Court, Calicut, for getting such restitution. The second is whether in fact, the decree in O.S. No. 256 of 1937 against the appellant was varied, and he was entitled to restitution of the original decree amount which he-had deposited. The first is a question of law, and the other is a mixed question of law and fact.2. By consent of both sides the question of law has been argued here. I am unable to agree with the finding of the lower appellate Court that a person entitled to restitution, by virtue of a variation in the decree amount, due to scaling down unde...

A. Unnooli Vs. M. Subramaniam and anr.

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1949)1MLJ527

Subba Rao, J.1. The respondents filed O.S. No. 1158 of 1946 on the file of the Court of the District Munsiff of Calicut for possession of the suit property. The 1st defendant is the usufructuary mortgagee. The second defendant is a lessee under the first defendant. The second defendant applied for stay of trial of the suit under Section 4(1) of Act XVII of 1946, but the learned District Munsiff dismissed the application on the ground that the first defendant was not a tenant within the meaning of the Act. The second defendant has preferred this revision petition.2. Subsequent to the filing of the revision petition a Bench of this Court held in Govindan Nair v. Appu Kutty Since reported in : (1949)1MLJ475 . (C.R.P. No. 1090 of 1947) that a usufructuary mortgagee is a tenant who is entitled to relief under Madras Act XVII of 1946. As this is a Bench decision I am bound by it. Mr. Ramakrishna Aiyar argued that even so the petitioner is not entitled to the relief, because he is only a subl...

Krishna Prasanna Chakrawarty Vs. Jan Mahammad

Court : Guwahati

1. These are two applications by one Krishna Praaanna Ohakravarty under the provisions of Section 526, Criminal P.C., praying for the transfer of two criminal cases pending against him in the Court of Mr. L. 8. Ingty, a Magistrate of the First Class at Kohima. The facts material to the application are these:2. On 24th April i9i8 the applicant drew a cheque in favour of one Mr. D. K. Nath on the Noakhali Union Bank, Dibrugarh, for Ba. 85,687-10-6 in pursuance of an award passed by one Mr. D. K. Nath in a criminal case no. 6 of 1948 in which one Jan Muhammed was the complainant. On receipt of the cheque by Mr. Nath the case against the applicant filed by Jan Muhammed was disposed of by an order of acquit-tal passed on 24th April 1948, For some reason or other the applicant then advised the drawee Bank to withhold payment of the cheque. One Biawanath Missir who apparently had some interest in the amount covered by the cheque filed a criminal case against the petitioner at Kohima on 13th ...