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.
Azimulla Saheb Vs. Secretary of State for India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1892
Reported in: (1892)ILR15Mad405
Wilkinson, J.1. This is an application to review the taxation of the defendant's bill of coats in the above suit, to set aside the allocation of the taxing officer, and to lay down the mode in which and the principle on which the bill should be taxed.2. The suit was one by a private individual against the Secretary of State. At the first hearing the Secretary of State was represented by the Advocate-General instructed by the Government Solicitor, and the suit was dismissed, the plaintiff being ordered to pay the costs of the Secretary of State.3. The taxing officer's notes show that before him the plaintiff objected to defendant's bill of costs on the ground that defendant had incurred no costs, 'unless for the time of their officers' (whatever that may mean). The Government Solicitor replied that the taxing officer was not at liberty to go behind the order to tax, that costs were given as a penalty, and that it had for more than thirty years been the invariable practice of the Court t...
Synee Labatheen Routhan Vs. Thurai Raja Alias Ayyarappa Mekkan Gopalar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1892
Reported in: (1892)2MLJ190
Best, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the decree of the Subordinate Judge dismissing the suit for Rs. 45,687-8-0 claimed by plaintiff as profits (and interest thereon) for 6 years--Faslis 1291 to 1296--of 2 villages, Karuvoor and Marayakudi, to the possession of which plaintiff claims to be entitled as assignee of a lease (Exh B) executed by defendant's father to one Annamalai Chetti. B is dated 18th February 1872, which is also the date of the hypothecation bond A executed by defendant's father to the same Annamalai Chetti. By A, defendant's father hypothecated to Annamalai Chetti 10 villages, including Karuvoor and Marayakudi mentioned above, for a sum of Rs. 30,000 to be paid by the mortgagee to one Arunachelam Chetti to whom the amount was [as stated in A] due under previous bonds; and by B six of the ten hypothecated villages [Karuvoor and Marayakudi being two of the six] were leased to Annamalai Chetti for a period of 15 years, it being stipulated that the rent of...
Dandibhotla Suryanarayana Vs. Raja Narayya Appa Row Bahadur Zamindar G ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1892
Reported in: (1892)IIMLJ249
1. The first question argued in this second appeal is whether the plaintiff is a tenant within the meaning of Act VIII of 1865. It is contended that as the plaintiff is an Inamdar and not a cultivator of the land he cannot be regarded as a tenant of the Zamindar. The argument is founded upon a misconception of the decision of the Privy Council in Ramasami v. Bhaskarasami I. L. R 2 M 67. The sole question before the Privy Council was whether a certain document required registration. On behalf of the appellant (defendant in the case) it was argued that the document was a patta and that therefore it was exempted from registration. All that the Privy Council decided with reference to the constructions of Sections 3, 8 and 9 of Act VIII of 1865 was that the provisions were made upon the assumption that there is an existing relation which would warrant the application for a written patta. The case of Rama v. Venkatachalam, I. L. R 8 M 576, is distinguishable as in that case what the rentor c...
Suryanarayana Vs. Appa Rau
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1892
Reported in: (1893)ILR16Mad40
1. The first question argued in this second appeal is whether the plaintiff is a tenant within the meaning of Act VIII of 1865. It is contended that, as the plaintiff is an inamdar and not a cultivator of the land, he cannot be regarded as a tenant of the zamindar. The argument is founded upon a misconception of the decision of the Privy Council in Bamasami v. Bhaskarasami I.L.R. 2 Mad., The sole question before the Privy Council is whether a certain document required registration. On behalf of the appellant (defendant in the case), it was argued that the document was a patta and that therefore it was exempted from registration. All that the Privy Council decided, with reference to the construction of Sections 3, 8 and 9* of Act VIII of 1865, was that the provisions were made upon the assumption that there is an existing relation which would warrant the application for a written patta. The ease of Bama v. Venkatachalam I.L.R. 8 Mad. 576 is distinguishable as; in that case, what the ren...
Alla Peda Bapayya and ors. Vs. Vishnumukkala Chinna Basaviah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1892
Reported in: (1892)2MLJ210
1. It is urged that the judge is in error in holding that a tenancy is established as between plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3, and that the claim is therefore not barred by limitation. It is further urged that the decision in the former suit (O. S. No. 470 of 1884 and A. S. No. 123 of 1885), negatived the oral lease then set up by the plaintiff.2. We observe that plaintiff is the purchaser of the property at a revenue sale and that defendants 1 to 3 were the then defaulter's tenants. Subsequent to the sale they continued to hold under the defaulter and after his death under his widow the 4th defendant. It is clear therefore that their possession was in law that of the 4th defendant. In the former suit to which they and 4th defendant were also parties the plaintiff's title as against 4th defendant was upheld, though the suit was dismissed on the ground that notice to quit had not been given to the tenants.3. As the decree in the former suit clearly established plaintiff's title as again...
Arumuga Vs. Chockalingam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1892
Reported in: (1892)ILR15Mad331
Muttusami Ayyar, J.1. This was a suit by a purchaser at a private sale from the son of a purchaser at a Court sale, who had not obtained possession from the judgment-debtors. Both the Courts below held that it was barred by Article 138, second schedule of the Act of Limitations. I think that the decision is correct and that the appellant's contention that Article 136 governs the claim is not tenable. If the suit was brought by the auction purchaser, Article 138 would clearly apply. There is no reason to think that when it is brought either by his son or a purchaser claiming under him, the article ceases to be applicable. Reading Articles 136 _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ [Article: _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Description of Suit. | Period of | Time from which period begins to run. | limit...
Ammani Kanniammal Vs. Veerasami Naiken and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1892
Reported in: (1892)2MLJ114
1. The only question which had to be decided in this suit was that of estoppel. It is not denied that the plaintiff did represent to the parents of the 2nd defendant in 1876 that she had the authority of her husband to adopt, that acting upon the belief that such representation was true, they gave the 2nd defendant in adoption and that the plaintiff then brought up the 2nd defendant as her adopted son, and as such married him to the girl of her choice, and as her adopted sort he for years performed the funeral ceremony of her husband. Having so acted she cannot now be heard to deny that the adoption was invalid. We have been referred to the cases reported at 11 B. H. C. R 190, Sadashiv Moreshvar Ghate v. Hari Moreshvar Ghate, and I. L. R 11. B 381, Ravji Vinayakrav Jaggannath Shankarsett v. Lakshmibai in both of which it was held that the conduct of the person who actively participated in the adoption estopped him from disputing the validity of the adoption. It seems to us that this is...
Kannammal Vs. Virasami and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1892
Reported in: (1892)ILR15Mad486
1. The only question which had to be decided in this suit was that of estoppel. It is not denied that the plaintiff did represent to the parents of the second defendant in 1876 that she had the authority of her husband to adopt; that acting upon the belief that such representation was true, they gave the second defendant in adoption; and that the plaintiff then brought up the second defendant as her adopted son, and, as such, married him to the girl of her choice, and as her adopted son he, for years, performed funeral ceremony of her husband. Having so acted, she cannot now be heard to deny that the adoption was valid. We have been referred to the dicisions in Chitko v. Janki 11 Bom. H.C.R. 199 and Ravji Vinayakrav Jaggannath Shankarsett v. Lakshmibai I.L.R. 11 Bom. 381, in both of which it was held that the conduct of the person who actively participated in the adoption estopped him from disputing the validity of the adoption. It seems to us that this is just such a case as Section 1...
Seetharama Vs. Venkatakrishna and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1892
Reported in: (1893)ILR16Mad94
1. The Courts below are clearly wrong in dismissing the suit altogether against defendant No. 2. There has been no decision in either Court on the question which properly arises.2. The plaintiff claims on the footing of a mortgage of 1882, alleging that on the execution of that mortgage money was advanced to pay off Swaminada Ayyar's mortgage of 1877, which mortgage was again executed to pay off Subbayyar's mortgage of 1876. The second defendant's mortgage of the 10th February 1877 was prior to Swaminada Ayyar's, but subsequent to Subbayyar's mortgage. What the plaintiff claimed was that he, having paid off the mortgage of 1876, was entitled to that extent to priority over defendant No. 2. The cases relied upon are Gokaldas Gopaldas v. Puranmal Premsukhdas I.L.R. 10 Cal. 1035 and Bupabai v. Audimulam I.L.R. 11 Mad. 345. We must ask the District Judge to decide with reference to the law laid down in those cases and Section 101 of the Transfer of Property Act whether in fact the plaintif...
Thama Vs. Kondan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-1892
Reported in: (1892)ILR15Mad378
1. We think that the recital of the admission in the judgment C was a relevant fact as evidence of the jenmi's title under Section 35 of the Evidence Act fsee Lekraj Kuar v. Mahpal Singh I.L.R. 5 Cal. 744, Parbutty Dassi v. Purno Chunder Singh I.L.R. 9 Cal. 586, Byathamma v. Avulla (see ante, p. 19).2. The Judge was therefore wrong in excluding the evidence from consideration. It is for him to consider the binding effect of the admission and also the question raised in the second ground of appeal.3. We must reverse the decree and remand the appeal to the lower Appellate Court for disposal. Costs will follow the result....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »