Chennai Court September 1890 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.
Sri Raja Satrucharla Ramabhadra Razu Bahadur Garu and Do. Somasekhara ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-1890
Reported in: (1896)6MLJ179
ORDER1. The respondent is the Zamindar of Merangi, and the appellants are his paternal uncles. The latter brought a suit against the former in September 1883, for partition of the Zamindari, [172] and obtained a decree in December 1885, from the District Court of Ganjam, for a half share in the estate. The Zamindar then appealed, to the High Court, but the original decree was confirmed in March 1888. At his instance, an appeal to Her Majesty's Privy Council from the decision of the High Court was admitted under Section 603 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and it is still pending. In February 1889, execution of the decree under appeal to the Privy Council was stayed, as regards the partition of the Zamindari, upon security being given by the Zamindar, for the appellants' share of two year's mesne profits.2. The contest in thepresent suit is as to five years' mesne profits, claimed by the appellants, from the date of the partition suit. In their plaint in that suit, they asked for 10 year...
Leishman Vs. Holland
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-03-1890
Reported in: (1891)ILR14Mad51
1. This suit stands on an entirely different footing from that which has been prosecuted by the plaintiff against the company. Here the first question is whether the statements complained of by the plaintiff, which, in themselves, are certainly defamatory, were made under circumstances conferring on the defendant any privilege; and, secondly, it has to be seen whether they were made maliciously and with knowledge on the defendant's part that they were false.2. Agreeing with the Subordinate Judge, we are clearly of opinion that the statements were all in the nature of privileged communications, and that the plaintiff has failed to prove that the defendant believed them to be untrue when he made them or acted maliciously in making them. We dismiss the appeal with costs....
Puliyeri Kandiyil Panangadan Ambu Kurup Vs. Paloli Edathil Kunnummall ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-1890
Reported in: (1896)6MLJ29
Best, J.1. The question is whether the plaintiff's present suit is barred under Section 43 of the Code of Civil Procedure by reason of her omission to sue for possession of the land in her, former suit, ' in which the present appellant was also included as a defendant.2. The former suit (No. 508 of 1884, Tellicherry District Munsif's file) was for setting aside the summary order dismissing the plaintiff's claim to the land which had been attached in execution of a decree and subsquently sold. The statement in the plaint in that suit that the cause of action arose 'on and after the 4th December 1883,' (see para. 5 of Exhibit C) shows that it was in fact a suit brought under section 283 of the Code of Oivil Procedure--'to establish the right' of plaintiff to the property. It has been held that where a previous suit for a declaration of title and confirmation of possession of property has been dismissed on the ground that plaintiff was. [29] not in possession at the time of filing the sui...
Ambu Vs. Ketlilamma and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-1890
Reported in: (1891)ILR14Mad23
Best, J.1. The question is whether the plaintiff's present suit is barred under Section 43 of the Code of Civil Procedure by reason of her omission to sue for possession of the land in her former suit, in which the present appellant was also included as a defendant?2. The former suit (No. 508 of 1884, Tellicherry District Munsif's file) was for setting aside a summary order dismissing the plaintiff's claim to the land which had been attached in execution of a decree and subsequently sold. The statement in the plaint in that suit that the cause of action arose 'on and after the 4th December 1883,' (see paragraph 5 of Exhibit C,) shows that it was in fact a suit brought under Section 283 of the Code of Civil Procedure ' to establish the right ' of plaintiff to the property. It has been held that where a previous suit for a declaration of title and confirmation of possession of property has been dismissed on the ground that plaintiff was not in possession at the time of filing the suit, a...
Polu and ors. Vs. Ragavammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-01-1890
Reported in: (1891)ILR14Mad52
1. The District Judge has held that the case did not come within the ruling in Venkatagopal v. Rangappa I.L.R. 7 Mad. 365, because, although the rents have always been paid in money, there has been a variation in the amount of the money paid.2. It is argued, however, that there has, in fact, been no variation in this respect, inasmuch as the increases of payment arose from an increase in the extent of lands occupied, and that a decision on this question which was, it is said,-raised in the third issue was essential to a determination of whether there had been an implied contract to pay rent in money only. The question of the circumstances attending the variation has certainly not been gone into in either Court, and, if we considered it necessary, we should direct the question to be tried.3. It appears to us, however, not necessary to test this point by a re-trial. In a recent set of cases, which came before this Bench from Ganjam--see Nilakanta v. Mahadevi Second Appeal No. 508 of 1889...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›