Chennai Court May 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.
Streenivasa Ragavachariar Vs. Sambasiva Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-04-1891
Reported in: (1896)6MLJ407
ORDER1. Our attention has been again called to Nobin Chunder's ease (1868) Beng. L.R. 1008 and also to the cases of Ganqacharan Roy v. Jagarnath (1869) 3 Beng. L.R. 208 and Ram Kisliore Dutt Roy v. Girish Chunder Hoy (1870) 4 Beng. L.R. 136. Those cases proceed on the view that each of several widows or daughters for the time being represents the inheritance so that an alienation by one renders the possession of the alienee after her death adverse to the others and that if they neglect to sue for 1% years and become barred, the reversioner is also barred. The principle appears to be that the possession is that of a trespasser against all persons representing the inheritance other than the alienor. It has also been ruled by the Privy Council that when the possession is that of a trespasser against a Hindu widow who represents the inheritance, such possession is adverse not only against .her but also againist the reversion. On this view our decision is erroneous and we grant the review b...
Kuttadi Kunhi Umah Vs. Pilasheri Vitil Amed and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-04-1891
Reported in: (1896)6MLJ494
1. Both the courts below are in error in holding. that the first defendant's purchase is not. governed by the doctrine of lis pendens. It was held in Raj Kishen Mookerjee v. Radha Madhub Holdar (1874) 21 W.R. 349 that a purchaser under an execution was bound by lis pendens, and the same opinion was expressed by this Court in Manual Fruval v. Sanagapalli Latchmidevamma (1872) 7 M.H.C.R. 104, in which the plaintiff made his purchase at an execution sale held by a District Munsif. The. result is that the 1st defendant must be treated as if he were a party to the plaintiff's suit and bound by the decree and the execution proceeding therein.. But it is urged that prior to the date of the plaintiff's suit there was an attachment made by the 1st defendant, that a claim was preferred by the plaintiff and that the property under attachment was thereupon ordered to be sold subject to the mortgage. These proceedings created only a power in the judgment-creditor in Original Suit No. 472 of 1879 to...
Virayya Vs. Hanumanta and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-04-1891
Reported in: (1891)ILR14Mad459
1. The judgment of the District Judge is not so full as might be desired, but there is a clear finding by the District Munsif in favour of the adoption and the District Judge accepts the finding. It is then argued that the adoption is not valid, because defendant No. 2 was the father's brother's son of defendant No. 1, and that, under the law of Niyoqa, the nephew could not be appointed to beget issue on his paternal aunt. Our attention is drawn in this connection to the cases of Sriramulu v. Ramayya I.L.R. 3 Mad. 15 and Minakshi v. Ramanada I.L.R. 11 Mad. 49. In these cases the law of appointment was referred to explain and account for the existing usage and law in regard to adoption. But in the case before us no exception was taken to the adoption in either of the Courts below on the ground that it was contrary to the usage obtaining among the people, nor was any evidence recorded on the point. Having regard to the observation of the Privy Council in Collector of Madura v. Mootoo Ram...
Kunhi Umah Vs. Amed and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-04-1891
Reported in: (1891)ILR14Mad489
1. Both the Courts below are in error in holding that the first defendant's purchase is not governed by the doctrine of lis pendens. It was held in Raj Kishen Mookerjee v. Radha Marthub Holdar 21 W.R. 349 that a purchaser under an execution was bound by lis pendens, and the same opinion was expressed by this Court in Manual Fruval v. Sanagapalli Latchmidevamma 7 M.H.C.R. 104, in which the plaintiff made his purchase at an execution sale held by a District Munsif. The result is that the first defendant must be treated as if he were a party to the plaintiff's suit and bound by the decree and the execution proceeding therein. But it is urged that prior to the date of the plaintiff's suit there was an attachment made by the first defendant, that a claim was preferred by the plaintiff, and that the property under attachment was thereupon ordered to be sold subject to the mortgage. These proceedings created only a power in the judgment-creditor in Original Suit No. 472 of 1879 to bring the m...
The Collector of North Arcot and anr. Vs. Yerra Nagi Reddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-01-1891
Reported in: (1896)6MLJ771
1. The question is whether the kurnam in a permanently settled Zamindari is a village servant employed in revenue duties within the meaning of Section 52 of Act II of 1864, It has been held by the District Judge that the section does not apply to such kurnams but only to kurnams in unsettled Districts. It is clear that, independently of Regulation XXIX of 1802, the kurnam was, as he is now admittedly every where except in lands settled under Regulation XXV of 1802, a revenue servant. By the preamble of Regulation XXIX of 1802, passed after the passing of Regulation XXV it is declared that the office of kurnam is still of great importance and that it is expedient to provide for the continuance of it, and the Regulation goes on to [750] indicate the duties which are to be performed by the Kurnam. Some of those duties or duties which may aptly be called revenue duties. The Regulation VI of 1831 further tends to show that these kurnams were regarded as revenue servants, for the Regulation ...
Collector of North Arcot and anr. Vs. Nagi Reddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-01-1891
Reported in: (1892)ILR15Mad35
1. The question is whether the karnam in a permanently settled zamindari is a village servant employed in revenue duties within the meaning of Section 52 of Act II of 1864. It has been held by the District Judge that the Section does not apply to such karnams, but only to karnams in unsettled districts. It is clear that independently of Regulation XXIX of 1802, the karnam was, as be is now admittedly everywhere except in lands settled under Regulation XXV of 1802, a revenue servant. By the preamble of Regulation XXIX of 1802, passed after the passing of Regulation XXV, it is declared that the office of karnam is still of great importance, and that it is expedient to provide for the continuance of it, and the Regulation goes on to indicate the duties which are to be performed by the karnam. Some of those duties are duties which may aptly be called revenue duties. The Regulation VI of 1831 further tends to show that these karnams were regarded as revenue servants, for the Regulation rela...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›