Chennai Court February 1891 Judgments
Achayya Vs. Hanumantrayudu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1891
Reported in: (1891)ILR14Mad269
1. Both Courts concur in finding that no occupancy right has been established. It is urged by the appellant's pleader that it lay on the plaintiff to show that second defendant was liable to be ejected, and that the second defendant ought not to have been called on in the first instance to prove his occupancy right. We are unable to assent to this view. It is not denied that the land belongs to the agraharamdar, and that the plaintiff obtained a lease from him. There was also evidence in the case to show that the second defendant's possession commenced about 1843. There is no apparent foundation for the presumption that his enjoyment was immemorial.2. We cannot therefore say that the Courts below were in error in holding that the onus of proving occupancy right rested on second defendant in this case. The District Judge, however, decided against the plaintiff on the ground that as a mere lessee he was not entitled to sue to eject the second defendant, his lessor not having been in poss...
Tag this Judgment!Mahadevi and anr. Vs. Vikrama
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1891
Reported in: (1891)ILR14Mad365
1. The plaintiff is the Maharajah of Jeypore in the Vizagapatam district. He instituted the present suit to recover possession of the Kalyana Singapore Pergunnah with arrears of rent. The plaint set forth that the pergunnah was granted by the plaintiff's ancestors to the father-in-law of the first defendant on condition of service tenure, and the payment of rent; that in consequence of the denial of the plaintiff's title by the first defendant's husband, the plaintiff instituted Original Suit No. 22 of 1864 to establish his right to the pergunnah, and to recover rent at the rate of Rs. 5,000 per annum, that the suit was decided in his favour, and that Rs. 5,000 were paid annually until the death of the first defendant's husband in 1884; that in July 1885 the plaintiff gave notice to the first defendant that her services were no longer required, and that she should either execute an agreement to take the pergunnah on lease for the annual sum of Rs. 20,000, or give up possession, and tha...
Tag this Judgment!Ratnasabhapathi Vs. Venkatachalam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1891
Reported in: (1891)ILR14Mad271
1. The subordinate Judge finds that the ground was originally part of the Public street, and as such the property of the Municipality, but he decided against the plaintiff on the ground that the defendant had been in possession for forty years and had thereby acquired a title bye prescription. He found further that, though the rent deed was genuine, it was not shown to have been obtained under coercion; yet he held that it was a lease for more than one year, and was legally inoperative as it was not registered, It is urged on appeal that, upon the true construction of document A, the tenancy created by it was determinable at any moment at the option of the lessor, and that it was not therefore subject to compulsory registration.2. In support of this contention reliance was placed on Apu Budgavda v. Narhari Annajee I.L.R. 3 Bom. 21, Jagjivandas Javherdas v. Narayan Hall L.R. 2 Ex. D. 355. On referring to those cases, we consider that the contention is well founded. No doubt, the words '...
Tag this Judgment!Karunakara Menon Vs. Secretary of State for India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1891
Reported in: (1891)ILR14Mad431
1. This was a suit brought by the appellant to establish his title as against the Crown to the shrotriem village of Coromandel in the District of Chingleput. The village was included in what was originally called the late East India Company's jaghire which was ceded by His Highness the Nabob Wallajah to the British Government in 1763. In 1760 the Nabob granted the village free of assessment and with all sources of revenue to one Fakruddin Mohamed Abubakar, Kazi of Madras, as an endowment for his office. In 1761 the Nabob re-granted it to the said Kazi's son, Mohidin Abubakar, for his personal benefit and that of his descendants without the condition of service. In 1779 the British Government, referring to the first grant, confirmed the village in perpetuity to Mohidin Mohamed Abubakar and such of his direct heirs of suitable qualification and fitness on account of the office which he filled. Mohidin Mohamed Abubakar since held the office of Kazi and died in 1808, and his son Mohamed Ab...
Tag this Judgment!Abdool and ors. Vs. Mahamed
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1891
Reported in: (1891)ILR14Mad404
1. Two preliminary objections are taken.2. As to limitation we observe that the appeal time expired during the annual vacation of the High Court, and the appeal petition was presented on the first day the Court re-opened. It is, therefore, in time--Reference under Forest Act V of 1882 I.L.R., 10 Mad., 210.2. The next objection is that no evidence was recorded under Section 72 of the Insolvent Act, and under Section 73 we are not at liberty to refer to the notes of evidence taken by the learned Commissioner.3. It has been so held in several cases--by this Court in Best & Co. v. Kaliana Chetti Appeal No. 36 of 1880, unreported and by the High Court of Calcutta in re Ajudhia Prasad 7 B.L.R. 74, and by the Bombay High Court in re Lakhmidas Hanzraj 5 Bom. H.C.R., 63 and Kalliandas Kirparam v. Trikamlal Gulabrai 9 Bom. H.C.R. 307.4.The second objection must be allowed.5. The appellants' vakil admits that unless he is permitted to refer to the notes of evidence, he cannot support the appeal. ...
Tag this Judgment!Chidambram Pillai and anr. Vs. Sabapathi Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1891
Reported in: (1896)6MLJ231
1. In this case the landlord's title was denied; -and the circumstance that it was denied for the first time in the written statement is immaterial, The decisions in 2 Madras series Abdulla Rawutan v. Subbarayar I.L.R. (1878) M. 346 Madras series are not in point, inasmuch as in those cases, the right to demand rent was admitted though the precise nature of the holding was disputed. This case is governed by 2 M.H.C.E. 109, and by I.L.E. 9 B. 527. We dismiss the second appeal with costs.NOTE.--See also Baba v. Visvanath Joshi I.L.R. 8 B. 228, in which it was held on the authority of Vivian v. Moat L.R. 16 Oh. 730, that a tenant denying his landlord's title in the course of the suit is not allowed to plead that he is entitled to notice. Woodfall's Landlord and Tenant, 9th Ed; p. 325, Doed Trustees of the Bedford Charity v. Payne 7 Q.B. 287. Per contra. See Kali Krishna Tagore v. Golam Ally I.L.R. 13 0. 218. Paidal Kidavu v. Parakal Imbichunni Kidavu 1 M.H.G. R 13....
Tag this Judgment!Rajah M. Bhaskara Setupati Vs. Valasubramaniya Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1891
Reported in: (1896)6MLJ250
1. We see nothing in the language of Section 11 of Reg. XXV of 1802 to exclude the jurisdiction of other Courts than the Court of Adawlut in suits by Karnams improperly removed from office, as is done in express words in the case of suits by a Zamindar to remove a Karnam from office. And there are numerous reported cases, in which such suits by Karnams have been [240] instituted in District Munsiffs' Courts without objection. We think the Subordinate Judge was right in overruling the objection to jurisdiction.2. The second appeal is dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Kunhalikandegath Pudiapurayil Kunhamod Kutti Vs. Pallikkalageth Avaran ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-1891
Reported in: (1896)6MLJ353
1. We agree with the Acting District Judge that the suit is not properly one for a declaratory decree under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act. The ground of action really is that the defendant by fraud has obtained an advantage in proceedings in a court having jurisdiction which must necessarily make that court an instrument of injustice, and the remedy would appear to I.L.R. (1886) M 354 : (1885) 11 R. 7A 884 : (1879) L.R. 5 C. 86. be by way of injunction to restrain the party from executing the decree. The Court cannot itself be made a party to the suit. See Duronidhur Sen v. The Agra Bank I.L.R. (1879) C. 86 and references thereunder; Daniell' Chancery Practice,' 3rd Edition, 1218; 4th Edition, 1471 ; Drury on Injunctions, 96'; Story's Equity Jurisprudence, 899--900.2. We cannot allow the plaint to be amended as to do so would change the character of the suit.3. The second appeal must, therefore, be dismissed with costs. NOTE-Dan's.Ch. Pr. 6th Edn.1531, and Bigelow on Fraud,1888...
Tag this Judgment!Kunhamed Vs. Kutti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-1891
Reported in: (1891)ILR14Mad167
1. We agree with the Acting District Judge that the suit is not properly one for a declaratory decree under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act. The ground of action really is that the defendant by fraud has obtained an advantage in proceedings in a Court having jurisdiction which must necessarily make that Court an instrument of injustice and the remedy would appear to be by way of injunction to restrain the party from executing the decree. The Court cannot itself be made a party to the suit--see Dhuronidhur Sen v. The Agra Bank I.L.R. 5 Cal. 86; and references thereunder. Daniell's Chancery Practice, 3rd edition, p. 1218 (4th edition, p. 1471). Drury on Injunctions, p. 96. Story's Equity Jurisprudence, 899-900.2. We cannot allow the plaint to be amended, as to do so would change the character of the suit.3. The second appeal must, therefore, be dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Vanangamudi Vs. Ramasami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1891
Reported in: (1891)ILR14Mad406
1. It is contended for the respondent that the order appealed against is not a final order and that no appeal lies under Section 15 of the Letters Patent. We do not consider that this contention can be supported. The effect to be given to the word ' Judgment' in Section 15 was considered by Mr. Justice BITTLESTON in Desouza v. Coles 3 M.H.C.R. 386 and it was held that the word has the general meaning of any decision or determination, whether final or preliminary, affecting the rights or the interest of any suitor or applicant. It was also pointed out that that meaning is suggested by the language of the Charter in Clauses 15, 39 and 40. Though the order now before us called for a report from the Subordinate Judge, yet it contained the preliminary adjudication that the appellant was not entitled to recover any rent for the village of Koonur, and that the decree of the Subordinate Judge must be reversed so far as it related to that village.2. On the merits, we are unable to support the o...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »