Chennai Court December 1887 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.
Chidambara Pillai and ors. Vs. Tiruvengadathiengar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-1887
Reported in: (1897)7MLJ1
1. The appellants, defendants, are the cultivating ryots of Periyakurvadi, a village in the District of Tanjore, and the respondents, plaintiffs, are trustees of Rajagopalaswami's temple at Mannargudi in the same District. It is admitted that the miras of the village is in the name of the temple and that the annual payment made by the appellants to the respondents is made both on account of the melvaram (Government share of the produce) and of mirasvaram (proprietor's share of the produce). The village in suit is not then of the class of villages in which the temple endowment is limited, to the melvaram right. It is also not disputed that Periyakuruvadi is a taraf or assessed village and that, although no assessment is now paid, it is be cause of the recent assignment of the revenue due on the village in lieu of the annual money allowance paid by Government to the temple. It is clear, therefore, that the village was not one originally granted as inam for the support of the temple. We m...
Ramasami Chetti Vs. Sokkanada Chetti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1887
Reported in: (1896)6MLJ762
1. The sole point for our determination in this second appeal is, whether or not the suit is based on a contract in writing, within Article 116 of the Limitation Act. If it is, the claim is not barred. If it is not, the claim is barred. The facts found are that the landlord entered into a contract with the appellants's then representative in 1880, having agreed to lease to the latter certain lands for rent, and that in pursuance of such lease the lessee entered on the lands, but allowed the rent to fall into arrears.2. The lessee executed and had registered a document in which he acknowledged his lessors's title, and the agreement to hold on the terms stated, but the lessor executed no instrument agreeing on his part to allow the lessee to hold as such.3. It appears then clear that the contract cannot be said to be a contract in writing,' within the meaning of the words used in Article 116, Schedule II, of the Limitation Act. Part of the contract is in writing in the sense that the les...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›