Chennai Court December 1891 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.
Natha Varadiah and ors. Vs. Venkatasubbiah and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1891
Reported in: (1892)2MLJ136
1. Admittedly the minor plaintiff, the son of the 2nd defendant was not born in 1881 when the mortgage which is now impeached was executed by the 1st and 2nd defendants. The last male owner was Venkatachalam. The 1st defendant is the mother of Venkatachalam and the 2nd defendant besides being-the brother of 1st defendant married the sister of Venkatachalam. He was the nearest male heir on the death of Venkatachalam and had been for many years living in coparcenary with Venkatachalam and managing his affairs and the affairs of the family After the death of Venkatachalam, he continued to manage the affairs of the family, and the patta for the lands was transferred to his name jointly with the mother. It seems to us that the conveyance by the mother who only had a life estate with the consent of the immediate reversioner conveyed an absolute estate, and that it cannot be questioned by the plaintiff, who was born subsequent to the conveyance, even though he might, as sister's son, be entit...
Narayanachariar Vs. Ranga Aiyangar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1891
Reported in: (1892)2MLJ94
1. The District Judge is no doubt right in holding that Section 10 of Madras Act VIII of 1865 has reference to proceedings under Section 9 only, but it does not, in our opinion, follow that in a summary suit under Section 8 the Collector is debarred from adjudicating upon the question whether the relation of landlord and tenant exists between the parties.2. He is to try the case, and the plaintiff's case is that he is a tenant and entitled to a patta which defendant denies. To say that the Collector is to hold his hand and make no further enquiry, merely because the land-holder denies that plaintiff is his tenant, is to put it in the power of the land-holder always to deprive the tenant of the remedy by summary suit given him by Section 8. If upon inquiry the Collector finds that plaintiff does not hold the land under the land-holder, that may be a reason for dismissing the suit, but the issue whether plaintiff is or is not a tenant of defendant must be properly tried and determined on...
Oakshott and ors. Vs. the British India Steam Navigation Company
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-1891
Reported in: (1892)ILR15Mad179
1. The first question referred to us by the Full Bench of the Small Cause Court is whether a hearing of an application for a new trial by a Full Bench under Section 37 of the Presidency Small Cause Act XV of 1882 can be said to be the hearing of a suit within the meaning of Section 69 of the said Act, so as to entitle the Court to state a cast; for the opinion of the High Court either on its own motion or at the requisition of either party.2. Section 69 of the Presidency Small Cause Act provides for a reference to the High Court in two cases (1) when two or more Judges sit together in any suit and differ in their opinion as to any question of law or usage having the force of law, and (2) if any such question arises in any suit in which the subject-matter is over Rs. 500 in value and either party requires such reference. The concluding clause of the Section provides for the course to be adopted by the Court in both of the above cases: it is to draw up a statement for the opinion of the ...
Parathayi Vs. Sankumani and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-1891
Reported in: (1892)ILR15Mad294
1. We are of opinion that the plaintiff was bound to pay duty upon the value of his interest in the document, the invalidity of which he sought to have declared. He had executed an agreement to sell certain. property in discharge of mortgages executed on his behalf during his minority. His agreement virtually amounted to a ratification of those mortgages, which he cannot avoid, so long as the agreement executed, after he attained his majority, stands. A declaration of the invalidity of that document would afford plaintiff relief of a very substantial character, and we think that plaintiff was not entitled to sue for a bare declaration and to stamp his plaint accordingly. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs....
Krishnayya Vs. Unnissa Begam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-1891
Reported in: (1892)ILR15Mad399
1. We agree with the learned Judge that the decision in Ramasami v. Bagirathi I.L.R. 6 Mad. 180 was right, and see no reason why we should refer this case to the Full Bench because of the decision in Stowell v. Ajudhia Nath I.L.R. 6 All. 255. In that case the contest was between two mortgagees, the second mortgagee having been the first purchaser. After the sale to him the first mortgagee attached and brought the property to sale, and the mortgagee died prior to the sale. The second mortgagee had, however, purchased his interest subject to the first mortgagee's claim, and the death of the original owner could not affect the proceedings in any way. The remark of OLDFIELD, J., was not concurred in by STRAIGHT, J., and both Judges were agreed that the question whether the sale might be voidable at the instance of the legal representative did not arise for decision.2. The property might be liable in the hands of the legal representatives, but the right, title and interest of a deceased per...
Dronam Raju Lakshmi Narasimha Row Pantulu Vs. Damoji Purappu Atchanna ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-1891
Reported in: (1896)6MLJ774
1. The ruling quoted, Badhacharan v. Man Singh I.L.R. (1890) A. 392 has never been adopted in the courts either of this or of the other Presidencies, see Ramanadhaii Chetti v. Periatambi Shervai I.L.R. (1883) M. 250; Wajihan v. Bishivanath I.L.R. (1887) B. 457 and Rada Krishen Lall v. Bada Per shad Singh I.L.R. (1891) C 462; Shankara Bisto Nadgir v. Narsing Rao Ramachandra I.L.R. (1891) C 517 and we cannot follow it. The order of the Subordinate Judge must be set aside and that of the District Munsif restored. The appellant is entitled to his costs in this and in the Lower Appellate Court....
Krishna Vijaya Puchaya Naicker Vs. Marudanayagam Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-1891
Reported in: (1892)ILR15Mad135
1. The Pleader is really retained by the Court of Wards. We do not think any fresh vakalat is necessary....
Fischer Vs. Turner, Collector of Madura and Agent to the Secretary of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-1891
Reported in: (1892)ILR15Mad155
1. The suit is cognizable by a Small Cause Court....
Lakshmi Narasimha Vs. Atchanna and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-1891
Reported in: (1892)ILR15Mad240
1. The ruling in Radha Charan v. Man Singh I.L.R. 12 All. 392 has never been adopted as the correct view of the law in this Presidency, see Ramanadan v. Periatambi I.L.R. 6 Mad. 250 or in Calcutta and Bombay, see Wajihan alias Alijan v. Bishwanath Parshad I.L.R. 18 Cal. 462 and Shankar Bisto Nadgir v. Narsinghrao Ramchandra I.L.R. 11 Bom. 467--and we cannot follow it.2. The order of the Subordinate Judge must be set aside and that of District Munsif restored. Appellant is entitled to his costs in this and in the Lower Appellate Court....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›