Chennai Court March 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.
Athakutti Vs. Govinda and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1892
Reported in: (1893)ILR16Mad97
1. The only question raised in second appeal is whether second defendant is entitled to notice. We think not The defendants were allowed to occupy on condition of doing certain work. It is found that they did work up to five years ago.On ceasing to do work they were liable to eviction without notice. It is not the case of a tenant but the case of a licensee. This case may easily be distinguished from those in Abdulla Rawutan v. Subbarayyar I.L.R. 2 Mad. 346 and Subba v. Nagappa I.L.R. 12 Mad. 353, as in both those cases there was an agreement to pay rent. Here there was no agreement to pay rent, but the mirasidars permitted the defendants to occupy a certain house site so long as they did work. This second appeal fails and. is dismissed with costs....
Kammathi Vs. Mangappa and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1892
Reported in: (1893)ILR16Mad454
1. The Subordinate Judge declined to entertain the application which he had jurisdiction to entertain by reason of his erroneously supposing that a certificate was necessary before the application could be entertained. The case is within the principle enunciated by the Full Bench in Manisha Eradi v. Siyyali Koya I.L.R. 11 Mad. 220 as warranting the interference of this Court under Section 622 of the Code of Civil Procedure. We set aside the order of the learned Judge and also that of the Subordinate Judge and direct the latter to receive the application and deal with it according to law.2. Respondents will pay appellant's costs in this Court....
Kodali Brahmanna and ors. Vs. Rajah Rungiah Appa Row Bahadur
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1892
Reported in: (1892)2MLJ292
1. It is first urged that there is no evidence of an implied contract to pay rent at the rates entered in the pattas. Rent was paid at these rates for Faslis 1292 to 1296 inclusive. From this circumstance the judge presumed a contract to pay at the same rates for subsequent years, in the absence of evidence to the contrary. The question for determination is whether we can say in second appeal that there is no legally sufficient evidence in support of the finding. As observed by a Full Bench in Venkata-gopal v. Rangappa I L. R 7 M 365, 'Payment of rent in a particular form or at a certain rate for a number of years is presumptive evidence that the parties have agreed to pay and receive rent in that form or at that rate for subsequent years, either party being, of course, at liberty to rebut the presumption.' It is urged by the appellants' pleader that in that case rent had been paid at the same rate for more than 14 years, and that in Narasimha v. Ramasami I. L. R 14 M 44 and Apparau v....
Krishnabhupati Vs. Ramamurti and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1892
Reported in: (1893)ILR16Mad198
1. Two objections are taken to the decree of the District Judge. First, it is argued that the Judge was wrong in disposing of the case at the first hearing, inasmuch as the plaintiff's pleader objected (Section 154 proviso of the Civil Procedure Code). The pleader has put in an affidavit in support of his assertion. We see no reason why we should not accept this affidavit, and must hold therefore that the Judge was not justified in acting under Section 154.2. It is further contended that the plaint discloses a sufficient cause of action. We think that this is so. Reading together paragraphs 3 and 11 it appears that the plaintiff charges that first defendant fraudulently obtained a decree in Original Suits Nos. 13 of 1887 and 19 of 1888, the second defendant having colluded with him and assisted him to obtain that decree by giving evidence which plaintiff is in a position to prove false. There is no question of res judicata if the plaintiff can prove that the decree in the former suit w...
Badi Bibi Sahibal Ammal and ors. Vs. Sami Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-1892
Reported in: (1892)2MLJ235
1. This is an appeal against the decree of the District Judge of Trichinopoly by some of the defendants (Nos. 1, 3, 5 to 7, 15, 16, 18, 39 and 49). The suit was brought by the respondent on the hypothecation bond A, dated 80th October 1875, executed to the plaintiff by defendants 1 to 11 and 4 others to recover Rs. 33,541-6-0 made up of Rs. 19,000 principal due under A and Rs. 14,934-12-8 interest thereon together with Rs. 94-8-4 amount of Kist paid by the plaintiff in December 1886 and interest thereon. The plaintiff asked for a decree for the above amount on the responsibility of the hypothecated property and also that defendants be hold personally liable.2. The judge held the personal remedy to be barred, but passed a decree in plaintiff's favor for Rs. 31,381-6-0 with interest thereon at 7 per cent. per annum from date of plaint to date of payment plus Rs. 94-8-4 and interest thereon at the same rate from December 1886 and directed the sale of the hypothecated property (with certai...
Guduri Sambayya and anr. Vs. Gollapudi Gopalakrishnamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-1892
Reported in: (1892)2MLJ257
1. The suit brought by respondent was for restraining the appellants from obstructing him in raising a door across the lane in dispute, on the ground that the lane was his exclusive property.2. The Subordinate Judge has found that the lane does not belong to the respondent.3. Instead of dismissing the suit on that finding, he has declared that both plaintiff and defendants have rights of casement by long user over the lane and has decreed that neither party should interfere with the other in the exercise of this right.4. In a suit brought to establish a right of ownership of property it is not competent to the court to enter into and decide the question of right to an easement over the lane, see Lalji Ratanji v. Gangaram Tuljaram, 2 B. H.. C. R, 176. Though as observed in Virasvami Gramini v. Ayyasvami Gramini, 1 M. H. C. R 477 the courts are bound to take into consideration all the rights of the parties to a suit, both legal and equitable, and give effect thereto by their decrees, as ...
Badi Bibi Sahibal and ors. Vs. Sami Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-1892
Reported in: (1895)ILR15Mad257
1. This is an appeal against the decree of the District Judge of Trichinopoly by some of the defendants Nos. 1, 3, 5 to 7, 15, 16, 18, 39 and 49. The suit was brought by the respondent on the hypothecation bond, Exhibit A, dated 30th October 1875, executed to the plaintiff by defendants Nos. 1 to 11 and four others to recover Rs. 33,541-6-0 made up of Rs. 19,000 principal, due under Exhibit A, and Rs. 14,934-12-8 interest thereon, together with Rs. 94-8-4, amount of kist paid by the plaintiff in December 1886 and interest thereon. The plaintiff asked for a decree for the above amount on the responsibility of the hypothecated property and also that defendants be held personally liable.2. The Judge held the personal remedy to be barred, but passed a decree in plaintiff's favour for Rs. 31,381-6-0 with interest thereon at 7 per cent, per annum from date of plaint to date of payment, plus Rs. 94-8-4 and interest thereon at the same rate from December 1886, and directed the sale of the hypo...
Sambayya and anr. Vs. Gopalakrishnamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-1892
Reported in: (1892)ILR15Mad489
1. The suit brought by respondent was for restraining the appellants from obstructing him in raising a door across the lane in dispute on the ground that the lane was his exclusive property.2. The Subordinate Judge has found that the lane does not belong to the respondent.3. Instead of dismissing the suit on that finding, he has declared that both plaintiff and defendants have rights of easement by long use over the lane, and has decreed that neither party should interfere with the other in the exercise of this right.4. In a suit brought to establish a right of ownership of property, it is not competent to the Court to enter into, and decide the question of right to an easement over the same.5. Though, as observed in Virasvami Gramini v. Ayyasvami Gramini 1 M.H.C.R. 477, the Courts are bound to take into consideration all the rights of the parties to a suit, both legal and equitable, and give effect thereto by their decrees, as far as possible, they are not at liberty to grant a relief...
Srinivasa Vs. Annasami and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-1892
Reported in: (1892)ILR15Mad323
Arthur J.H. Collins, Kt., C.J.1. The points that are to be decided in this case are, first, upon the evidence taken by the District Magistrate is there a prima facie case disclosed against the accused under Section 372 of the Indian Penal Code? and, second, ought the High Court to order the District Magistrate to frame a charge? There were four persons accused--the first, the manager of a temple; the second and third, the natural father and mother of the girl Pichaimuthu; and the fourth, a dasi of the temple with whom Pichaimuthu has been living for some years.2. The case for the prosecution consisted of oral and documentary evidence; the witnesses were not cross-examined, and the District Magistrate held that the prosecution had failed to prove an offence, and, accordingly, discharged all the accused under Section 253 of the Criminal Procedure Code.3. With respect to the second and third accused no evidence implicating them was given, and the District Magistrate was right in dischargi...
Administrator-general of Madras Vs. Money and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1892
Reported in: (1892)ILR15Mad448
Handley, J.1. This is a suit by the Administrator-General to obtain the decision of the Court upon certain questions arising upon the construction of the will of William Garratt, who died at Bangalore in August 1888. Testator appointed Michael William Walker his executor and trustee, but Mr. Walker, after partly administering the estate by paying the debts and some of the legacies, transferred the remaining assets of the testator to the Administrator-General under the. provisions of Section 31 of the Administrator-General's Act, Act II of 1874.2. The first defendant, F.W. Money, a minor, is the son of a daughter of the testator, who predeceased him. Defendants 2 to 7, also minors, are children of another daughter of testator, Mrs. Wilkins, who also predeceased him. The eighth defendant, G.W. Money is a half-brother of first defendant, that is, a son of first defendant's father by another wife than the testator's daughter. Ninth defendant is the Administrator-General as the administrato...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »