Chennai Court September 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.
Ayyanna and anr. Vs. Nagabhooshanam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-1892
Reported in: (1893)ILR16Mad285
1. It is contended for the respondent that no appeal lies to this Court from the order rejecting the appeal. We are unable to accede to the contention. An order rejecting a plaint is treated by Section 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure as a decree, and we are of opinion that the order rejecting an appeal must also be treated as a decree under the provisions of Section 582. We observe that the Subordinate Judge rejected the appeal after it had been filed by the District Judge, which he was not at liberty to do. The principle laid down in Gulab Rai v. Mangli Lal I.L.R. 7 All. 42 governs this case. The preliminary objection is disallowed.2. It is urged on behalf of the appellants that, though in the vakalat filed in the Court below, the names of two vakils are entered, and though the vakalat was accepted only by one of them, yet the presentation of the appeal by the Pleader, who accepted the vakalat, is a sufficient presentation within the meaning of Civil Procedure Code, Section 541. It i...
Sobhanadri Appa Rau Vs. Gopalkristnamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1892
Reported in: (1893)ILR16Mad34
1. In this suit plaintiff, a zamindar, seeks to recover from defendants, the holders of an agraharam village within the limits of his zamindari, arrears of jodi or quit-rent.2. The main question in issue is whether the plaintiff' is legally entitled to recover from defendants kattubadi at the rate claimed by him. Plaintiff claims jodi at the rate of Rs. 6 per putti on the grain yielded by the village. Defendants maintain that the jodi was fixed by the Inam Commissioner in 1866 at Rs. 135 per annum, which sum was entered in the inam title-deed (Exhibit I), and that only jodi at this rate can be demanded from them. The Subordinate Judge held that the amount of jodi specified in the inam title-deed is binding on the zamindar and has decreed for him at that rate only. Plaintiff appeals.3. It is argued for appellant that the Inam Commissioner had no power to determine the amount of jodi payable to the zamindar; that all that was deputed to him by Government was the power to determine the ma...
Chandayil Madathil Ramakrishna Patter. Vs. Thandupurakal Unni Check
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-1892
Reported in: (1893)3MLJ27
1. We are of opinion that the courts below are in error in holding that Exh. III is more than a license. The ground of decision apparently is that whereas the grant of the right to trap elephants upon the plaintiff's land is a mere license, the right to carry away the elephants and reduce them to possession is something more. In coming to this conclusion the courts have, we think, overlooked the definition of 'license' contained in Section 52 of the Indian Basements Act. The right granted is not more than a license unless it amounts to an easement or an interest in 'the' property, i.e., in the immovable property. The right to carry away the elephants and reduce them to possession is not an interest in immovable property nor does it amount to an 'easement' as defined by Section 4 since it is not attached to the ownership of any immovable property for the better enjoyment of that property.2. In Doe v. Wood, 2 B & A, 724, it was held in a case of grant of mining rights that the grant of a...
Ramakrishna Vs. Unni Check
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-1892
Reported in: (1893)ILR16Mad280
1. We are of opinion that the Courts below are in error in holding that Exhibit III is more than a license. The ground of decision apparently is that, whereas the grant of the right to trap elephants upon the plaintiff's land is a mere license, the right to carry away the elephants and reduce them to possession is something more. In coming to this conclusion, the Court have, we think, overlooked the definition of 'license' contained in Section 52 of the Indian Easements Act. The right granted is not more than a license, unless it amounts to an easement or an interest in the property, i.e., in the immoveable property. The right to carry away the elephants and reduce them to possession is not an interest in immoveable property, nor does it amount to an 'easement' as defined by Section 4, since it is not attached to the ownership of any immoveable property for the better enjoyment of that property.2. In Doe v. Wood 2 B. & Ald., 724, it was held in a case of grant of mining rights that the...
Tirugnana Sambanda Pandara Sannadi Avergal and ors. Vs. Nallathambi Pi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-1892
Reported in: (1892)2MLJ272
1. It is urged that, upon the finding that the mortgage-debt was not wholly satisfied from the rents and profits, the suit should have been dismissed on the ground that no right of redemption had accrued at the date of the suit and that no decree for redemption ought to have been made. In support of this contention reliance is placed on Section 62, Clause (a) of Act IV of 1882. That clause is in these terms, 'where the mortgagee is authorised to pay himself the mortgage-money from the rents and profits of the property', the mortgagor has a right to recover possession of the property, when such money is paid.' The real question is whether the words 'when the money is paid' mean when the money is paid from rents and profits or include a payment by the mortgagor. The context lends weight to the contention that the payment is contemplated to be made in the mode indicated by the contract. Clause (b) also supports the contention. It premises a case in which 'the mortgagee is authorised to pa...
Tirugnana Sambandha Pandara Sannadhi and ors. Vs. Nallatambi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-1892
Reported in: (1893)ILR16Mad486
1. It is urged that upon the finding that the mortgage-debt was not wholly satisfied from rents and profits, the suit should have been dismissed on the ground that no right of rsdemption had accrued at the date of the suit, and that no decree for redemption ought to have been made. In support of this contention, reliance is placed on Section 62, Clause (a) of Act IV of 1882. That clause is in these terms:--'Where the mortgagee is authorized to pay himself the mortgage-money from the rents and profits of the property, the mortgagor has a right to recover possession of the property when such money is paid.' The real question is whether the words 'when the money is paid,' mean when the money is paid from rents and profits, or include a payment by the mortgagor. The context lends weight to the contention that the payment is contemplated to be made in the mode indicated by the contract; Clause (b) also supports this contention. It premises a case in which the mortgagee is authorized to pay ...
Nagappa Vs. Subba and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-1892
Reported in: (1893)ILR16Mad304
1. Strictly speaking the suit should have been dismissed, as plaintiffs sued for possession of the land and failed to make out any right to such possession. But as the District Judge has given plaintiffs a decree declaratory of their kumki right over the lands in question, we shall not interfere since it is found such right exists and defendant is not prejudiced by the declaration, because the decree expressly exempts from its operation the buildings with which alone he is concerned.2. There is no question of limitation, for the suit is brought within twelve years from the time of defendant's interference with plaintiffs' rights. It is argued that kumki right is in the nature of an easement and, therefore, the suit is barred by Section 15 of the Easements Act, In our opinion, it is not an easement but a right exercised over Government waste by permission of Government.3. The second appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.4. As to the memorandum of objections, the Judge was right in ho...
Ramachandra Aiyar Vs. Narainasami, Minor by His Guardian Bhagirathi Am ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-1892
Reported in: (1892)IIMLJ279
1. The Subordinate Judge has found that the channel in dispute was newly dug, that appellant's statement that an old channel had existed is not proved, that the diversion of water from the Pathatharam channel caused a material diminution in the supply necessary for the cultivation of plaintiff's lands and that actual damage was sustained in consequence in Fasli 1295. Upon these facts it is clear that the order of the Sub-Collector was in excess of the powers possessed by him for the regulation of the supply of water for irrigation purposes among ryots holding under Government. As observed in Kristna Ayyan v. Vencatachella Mudali, 7 M. H. C. R 60, the Government has an undoubted right to distribute the water of Government channels, but that power does not include the power to disturb existing arrangements to the prejudice of any tenant during the continuance of the tenancy. This is also the view taken by the Bombay High Court in The First Assistant Collector of Nusik v. Shamji Dasrath P...
Ramachandra Vs. Narayanasami and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-1892
Reported in: (1893)ILR16Mad333
1. The Subordinate Judge has found that the channel in dispute was newly dug; that appellant's statement that an old channel had existed is not proved; that the divertion of water from the Pattatharam channel caused a material diminution in the supply necessary for the cultivation of plaintiff's lands, and that actual damage was sustained in consequence in fasli 1295. Upon these facts it is clear that the order of the Sub-Collector was in excess of the power possessed by him for the regulation of the supply of water for irrigation purposes among raiyats holding lands under Government. As observed in Krishna Ayyan v. Venkatachella Mudali 7 M.H.C.R. 60 the Government has an undoubted right to distribute the water of Government channels, but that power does not include the power to disturb existing arrangements to the prejudice of any tenant during the continuance of the tenancy. This is also the view taken by the Bombay High Court in The First Assistant Collector of Nasik v. Shamji Dasra...
Perumal Kone Vs. Kaveri Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-01-1892
Reported in: (1892)2MLJ281
Best, J.1. The following are the facts of this case:-- First defendant mortgaged the plaint house to 2nd defendant in 1884 under Exh. II for a sum of Rs. 350. Exh. II was written on the 28th July 1884, but was not signed by 1st defendant till 5th December of that year--after criminal proceedings had been instituted against 1st defendant by 2nd defendant for cheating (see Exh. W). On the 6th December 1884, 1st defendant's Vakil put in a statement (Exh. VI).admitting that 1st defendant had executed the document for Rs. 350, but pleading that she had only been paid Rs. .304-8-0. The complaint of 2nd defendant was thereupon dismissed, on the ground that the dispute between the parties was of a civil nature (Exh. T). 2nd defendant then presented the document for registration; but 1st defendant denied its execution and the District Registrar, after enquiry, declined to register it. This was on the 23rd April 1885. On the following day 1st defendant executed to the 1st plaintiff the document ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »