Chennai Court November 1892 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.
Peria Ammani Ammal and Adinadha Nainar. Vs. Krishnaswami Mudali Alias ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-1892
Reported in: (1893)3MLJ109
Best, J.1. In appeal No. 153 of 1890 :--The appellant is a sister of one Ramaswami Mudaliar, deceased, the respondent being a boy adopted by the widow of the said Rama-swami Mudaliar. The parties are Jains, The questions for decisions are (1) whether the adoption of the respondent made by the widow, admittedly without authority from her husband or consent of his kinsmen is valid and (2) whether the Will A executed by the widow is valid ?2. In the Lower Court the factum of the adoption and genuineness of the Will were both denied and so also in the mmorandum of appeal ; but at the hearing, the appellant's Vakil has withdrawn the objection to the lower oourt's finding that the adoption was in fact made and the Will executed by the widow of Ramaswami Mudaliar and has confined his arguments to the question of their validity.3. The Jains are seceders from Brahmanical Hinduism and their religious tenets have more affinity to the precepts of Buddhists than to those of the Brahmins. They do no...
Valaravutu Ramaswami Vs. Valaravutu Venkatesam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-1892
Reported in: (1893)3MLJ107
1. One Kurmi Naidu had six sons,--three by his first wife, namely, 1. Latchem, 2. Vonkatesam (1st defendant), 3. Thammi, and three by his second wife, namely, 4. Appanna (2ud defendant), 5. Ramauna (3rd defendant) and 6. Narayana Doss. The six brothers ' divided in 1872 or 1873. Plaintiff is the natural son of No. 1 Latchem and alleges that he was adopted by Thammi. His case is that Thammi and Narayana Doss re-united after the division ; that Thammi died during his minority and Narayana Doss managed their joint property till his death. Plaintiff now sues for the share of Narayana Doss on the ground that he is the only surviving member of the joint coparcenary.2. The adoption was disputed, but on this point both courts found in plaintiff's favor. The District Munsif held that plaintiff was entitled to only one-third of Narayana Doss's property on the ground that when reunion takes place among half-brothers the divided full brothers of the deceased take equal shares with the reunited hal...
Pandarathil Chithomah's son Nanu Nair Vs. Pulikiye Moorkattil Karnavan ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-1892
Reported in: (1893)3MLJ141
1. In 1878 the then karuavan of defendants' tarwad and the anandravans including defendants Nos. 1 to 5 and 8 borrowed Rs. 4000 from plaintiff and executed a mortgage-deed, Exh. A, mortgaging with possession items Nos. 1 to 15 of the plaint-lands and hypothecating items Nos. 16 to 20. As to the 15 items the mortgage purports to be a usufructuary mortgage, the surplus income after payment of Government revenue to be taken by plaintiff as interest. Actual possession of items Nos. 1 to 15 was not however given to plaintiff as they were under mortgage to a third party, but the karnavan and two of the anandravans executed a pattam-chit on the date of the mortgage agreeing to rent the lands from plaintiff. Plaintiff sued the executants of the pattam-- chit in Original Suit No. 308 of 1881,--Nedunganad District Munsif's Court, for the rent for the years 1054, 1055 and 1056 and obtained a decree. He again sued for the rent for the years 1057, 1058 in Original Suit No. 445 of 1882 in the same c...
Varadaraja Vs. Dorasami and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-1892
Reported in: (1893)ILR16Mad131
1. The sole question in the appeal is whether the defendants have occupancy right in their holding or whether they hold as tenants of the temple from year to year. It is clear from Exhibit B that in 1826 defendants' ancestor held the village on a five years' lease which expired in 1831. Exhibit G shows that in 1831 the same Vythilinga Mudali made an offer to hold the village for two years longer at a certain rate, and that the Tahsildar reported that no better offer was forthcoming. Exhibit III, dated 16th November 1831, is the Collector's reply to this arzi. In it the Tahsildar is informed that if Vythilinga Mudali does not accept for the same amount permanently, security for the two years' rent is to be demanded. From Exhibit III-A it is clear that a permanent muchalka was obtained from Vythilinga Mudali and was returned, not being in proper form, the Tahsildar being directed to take another, and the same direction was repeated in Exhibit III-B, the second muchalka being also incorre...
Peria Ammani Vs. Krishnasami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-1892
Reported in: (1893)ILR16Mad182
Best, J.1. In Appeal No. 153 of 1890, the appellant is a sister of one Ramasami Mudaliar, deceased, the respondent being a boy adopted by the widow of the said Ramasami Mudaliar. The parties are Jains. The questions for decision are (1) whether the adoption of the respondent made by the widow, admittedly without authority from her husband or consent of his kinsmen, is valid; and (2) whether the will (Exhibit A) executed by the widow is valid.2. In the lower Court, the factum of the adoption and genuineness of the will were both denied and so also in the memorandum of appeal; but at the hearing the appellant's vakil has withdrawn the objection to the lower Court's finding that the adoption was in fact made and the will executed by the widow of Ramasami Mudaliar and has confined his arguments to the question of their validity.3. The Jains are seceders from Brahmanieal Hinduism and their religious tenets have more affinity to the precepts of Buddhists than to those of the Brahmans. They d...
Nanu Vs. Raman and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-1892
Reported in: (1893)ILR16Mad335
1. In 1878 the then karnavan of defendant's tarwad and the anandravens, including defendants No Section 1 to 5 and 8, borrowed R Section 4,000 from plaintiff and executed a mortgage-deed (Exhibit A), mortgaging with possession items 1 to 15 of the plaint lands and hypothecating items 16 to 20. As to the fifteen items the mortgage purports to be a usufructuary mortgage, the surplus income after payment of Government revenue to be taken by plaintiff as interest. Actual possession of items 1 to 15 was not, however, given to plaintiff, as they were under mortgage to a third party, but the karnavan and two of the anandravens executed a pattamchit on the date of the mortgage agreeing to rent the lands from plaintiff. Plaintiff sued the executants of the pattamchit in Original Suit No. 308 of 1881, Nedunganad District Munsif's Court, for the rent for the years 1054, 1055 and 1056 and obtained a decree. He again sued for the rent for the years 1057 and 1058 in Original Suit No. 445 of 1883 in ...
Ramasami Vs. Venkatesam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-1892
Reported in: (1893)ILR16Mad440
1. One Kurmi Naidu had six sons--three by his first wife, namely, (i) Latchem, (ii) Venkatesam (first defendant) (iii) Thammi--and three by his second wife, namely, (iv) Appanna (second defendant), (v) Ramanan(third defendant) and (vi) Narayana Doss. The six brothers divided in 1872 or 1873. Plaintiff is the natural son of Latchem, and alleges that he was adopted by Thammi. His case is that Thammi and Narayana Doss reunited after the division; that Thammi died during his minority and Narayana Doss managed their joint property till his death. Plaintiff now sues for the share of Narayana Doss, on the ground that he is the only surviving member of the joint coparcenary.2. The adoption was disputed, but on this point both Courts found in plaintiff's favour. The District Munsif held that plaintiff was entitled to only one-third of Narayana Doss' property on the ground that when reunion takes place among half-brothers, the divided full brothers of the deceased take equal shares with the reun...
Mr. Agling, President of the Taluq Board, Sivagunga and Ramasami Aiyar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-1892
Reported in: (1893)3MLJ12
1. Both courts have found that the land in dispute is the private property of the plaintiff. We do not think that Section 156 of the Madras Act V of 1884 applies. The cases contemplated in that section are suits for compensation or for damages ; and the principle is to allow public bodies time for tender of amends to the parties so as to avoid litigation. See Chunder Sikhur Bundopadhya v. Obhoy Ohurn Bagchi I. L. R 6 C 8 followed in S. A. No. 1476 of 1891, and Price v. Khilat Chandra Ghose, 5 B. L. R App. 50 ; Sorabji Nassarvanji Dundas v, The Justices of the Peace for the City of Bombay 12 B. H. C. R 250 ; and Joharmal v. The Municipality of Ahmednagaf I. L. R 6 B 580.2. This principle cannot apply where the object of the suit is to obtain a declaration of title to immovable property and for an injunction to restrain interference with immovable property.3. No questions as to misdescription or defect of parties are taken in the courts below and the point does not affect the merits of t...
President of the Taluk Broad and anr. Vs. Narayanan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-1892
Reported in: (1893)ILR16Mad317
1. Both Courts have found that the land in dispute is the private property of the plaintiff and that finding must be accepted in second appeal.2. We do not think Section 156, Madras Act V of 1884, applies. The cases contemplated in that section are suits for compensation and for damages, and the principle is to allow public bodies time for tender of amends to the parties so as to avoid litigation--see Chunder Sikhur Bundopadya v. Obhoy Churn Bagchi I.L.R. 6 Cal. 8 followed in Syed Ameer Sahib v. Venhatarama see ante, p. 297, Price v. Khilut chandra Ghose 5 Beng. L.R. App. 50 Sorabji Nassar-vanji v. The Justices of the Peace for the City of Bombay 12 Bom. H.C.R. 250 and Joharmal v. The Muncipality of Ahmednagar I.L.R. 6 Bom. 580.3. This principle cannot apply when the object of the suit is to obtain a declaration of title to immoveable property and for an injunction to restrain interference with immoveable property. No question as to misdescription or defect of parties was taken in the ...
Vythilinga and anr. Vs. Venkatachala and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-1892
Reported in: (1893)ILR16Mad194
1. The plaint sets forth that plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 and defendant No. 1 have taken on lease certain lands in the shrotriem village of Kolathangananullur from the shrotriemdars and have been put into possession of a great portion of the lands comprised in the said lease, but that defendants Nos. 2 to 9 obstructed plaintiffs in obtaining possession of the suit lands, notwithstanding that they have been warned not to do so by the shrotriemdars. Hence this suit for possession.2. Defendants Nos. 2 to 9 claimed to be in possession and enjoyment of the suit lands under tenancy rights derived from their ancestors, and contended that the shrotriemdars, as grantees of the village from the Udayarpalliem Zamindar, are entitled to the melvaram on the lands only, but not to the lands themselves.3. Four issues were framed, but the District Judge states that issues 1 and 2 were dropped and that the suit was fought out on issues 3 and 4. On these he found that defendants Nos. 2 to 9 were raiyats with...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›