Chennai Court September 1882 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Marakar and ors. Vs. Munhoruli Parameswaran Nambudri
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-1882
Reported in: (1883)ILR6Mad140
1. At the hearing of the second appeal, which was on the 8th February of this year, we were not aware and were not informed of the decision of the Chief Justice and Mr. Justice KlNDERSLEY in Kunhamu v. Keshavan Nambudri I.L.R. 3 Mad. 246.2. That is a decision by the Chief Justice and Mr. Justice KINDERSLEY that there is no authority to support a kanamdar's claim to be allowed to make further advances before the jenmi is entitled to demise the land to another tenant on kanam or otti.3. Had we been aware of this decision, we should probably not have thought it necessary to remit the issue, as the point was directly in question in that suit and disposed of.4. Mr. Sankaran Nayar indeed took the distinction that in the case referred to, the demise taken by plaintiff to whom the jenmi had let the land without calling on the kanam-holder to exercise the option of making further advances, was an otti demise, but the only difference between an otti and a kanam-holder is that the former makes hi...
Arunachala Pillai Vs. Vythialinga Mudaliyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-1882
Reported in: (1883)ILR6Mad27
1. The plaintiff herein sought to obtain a decree establishing a custom to drain the water of his village of Thamangalam through the villages of Kothamangalam and Sukravaramkotlai belonging to the temple of Sri Navanetheswaraswami of which the first and second defendants are the Panchayatdars, the remaining defendants being the tenants; and for a perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants from any interference with the plaintiff's alleged right.2. The defence was to the effect that the plaintiff was entitled to no such right as that set up by him; that the suit was barred by limitation; that as the plaintiff, with his father, his uncle, and his brother's sons, together formed an undivided Hindu family, the plaintiff was not entitled to bring this suit without joining the other members of his family; and that the other mirasidars of Thamangalam should also have been joined as defendants in the suit. The sixteenth defendant, the appellant herein, also pleaded that if the plaintiff g...
Subbayya Vs. Venkatesappa and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-1882
Reported in: (1883)ILR6Mad49
Muttusami Ayyar and Tarrant, JJ.1. The question we have now to decide in this appeal is whether the claim is barred by Section 43 of Act X of 1877. The facts upon which this question arises are clearly set forth in the judgment appealed against. On the 1st July 1878 there was a settlement of accounts between the plaintiff and the defendants, and a debt acknowledged to be due by the latter to the former. The non-payment of this debt constituted a cause of action which might be made the subject of a suit. And the same day it is alleged that the plaintiff and the defendants entered into a contract of partnership, and the partnership trade, which was carried on under this contract, ceased in August 1878. The termination of the partnership and the defendants' omission to account for its assets was another distinct cause of action. Thus, prior to the date of the agreement mentioned in Suit 127 of 1878, the plaintiff was at liberty to institute two different suits upon the two transactions, f...
Appa Pillai and anr. Vs. Ranga Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-1882
Reported in: (1883)ILR6Mad71
1. The point of limitation was not argued, but it was contended on behalf of defendants--appellants--that there was a contract valid by Section 25 of the Contract Act, and that plaintiff could not recover.2. The facts found and admitted were that first defendant's father and the plaintiff, on 29th November 1876 executed the document, Exhibit I, in favour of first defendant and his son, second defendant, reciting that plaintiff and his brother had borrowed and received money on the sale and hypothecation of certain of the family lands, and that, as first defendant and his son were the only heirs to the family estate, plaintiff and his brother renounced all right in the property in favour of first defendant and his son and agreed to remain under the management and protection of first defendant.3. Plaintiff in this suit sought to set this arrangement aside and to recover his share of the property.4. The District decreed for plaintiff.5. In appeal, the District Judge was of opinion, on the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›