Chennai Court July 1884 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.
Morison Vs. the Administrator-general of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-14-1884
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad515
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J. and Muttusami Ayyar, J.1. The facts of this case are fully stated in the able judgment of our learned colleague. We agree with him that while the evidence shows that the will propounded by the respondent was procured, by the persuasion of Mrs. Corbett, the influence she exerted was not such as to deprive the testator of the exercise of his judgment and volition, and was not therefore undue influence as defined in the Indian Succession Act and in the cases Boyse v. Rossborough 6 H.L. 2 and Hall v. Hall L.R. I P. & D. 481. Inasmuch as no sufficient ground has been shown for the appeal, we must dismiss it and direct that the costs of this appeal be borne by the appellant....
Haji Vs. Mussa
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-08-1884
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad512
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. On referring to the plaint we find that we were misinformed as to the nature of the suit, and that the plaintiffs claimed not a declaratory decree, but a decree for the surrender of the land granted on kanam. The suit as brought therefore was not barred as to the kanam as we at first supposed. This claim it was the intention of the Court of First Instance to award. The decree has not been drawn up in conformity with the judgment, but the decree may now be corrected unless the plaintiffs' suit fails upon other grounds.2. The fourth defendant claims under this kanam only, but the land has been purchased by the fifth defendant, subject to the kanam, and if these defendants can show that the tarwad have lost their right to question the sale, they have no longer any interest in the land which will entitle them to dispute the kanam.3. The sale at which the fifth defendant purchased took place on the 20th October 1879 and was confirmed on the 21st November 1879....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›