Advanced Search Results
Muthalagappa Chettiar (Deceased) and ors. Vs. Navanestheswara Gurukkal
Chennai
Feb-28-1935
LimitationProperty
AIR1935Mad668; (1935)69MLJ42
Varadachariar, J.1. Though the distinction between 'easements of necessity' and 'quasi easements'is not very clearly adverted to in the plaint, the facts found by the Courts below clearly warrant the application of the principle of Section...
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskK.E.P.V. Venkatachalam Pillai Vs. Rajaballi M. Sajun
Chennai
Dec-17-1934
Civil
AIR1935Mad663; (1935)68MLJ504
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff brought this suit in the I District Munsif's Court at Tuticorin. His claim as against the defendant who carries on business in Rangoon was for shortfall in goods...
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskAnnamalai Mudaliar Vs. Krishtappa Mudaliar and ors.
Chennai
Sep-28-1934
Property
AIR1935Mad66
ORDERVenkatasubba Rao, J.1. The suit as framed is one for partition of the joint family property of a coparcener in possession, and that ' being so, the provision of the Court-fees Act, that applies, is Section...
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask18-section briefs on any result in this list
Kamaraju Gadda Ramayya and anr. Vs. Singaraju Subba Rao and ors.
Chennai
Nov-21-1934
Property
AIR1935Mad664; 157Ind.Cas.1100
Ramesam, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was brought by the plaintiff to recover certain items of jeroyati lands in the Vallur zamindari. These lands were originally purchased in 1874 under Ex. A...
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskR. Venkatesa Aiyangar Vs. P.R.Y. Manikkavachakam Chetty and ors.
Chennai
Jan-29-1935
Property
AIR1935Mad660; (1935)68MLJ738
King, J.1. These are connected appeals concerned with p property which has been subject to five successive mortgages. The first was a usufructuary mortgage executed in January, 1910, for Rs. 4,000; the second was a simple...
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskSree Rajah Inuganti Venkata Rajagopala Rama Suryaprakasa Rao Vs. Sree ...
Chennai
Jan-08-1935
Land Acquisition
AIR1935Mad669; 157Ind.Cas.1005
1. The plaintiff-appellant took a lease of a rice mill from the Polavaram zamindar under Ex. A in 1926 and by Ex. B. he assigned the lease to the defendants. It is not correct to construe...
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskAI Brief (18 sections) + Semantic Search - 7 days free
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›