Chennai Court January 1893 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.
Unde Rajaha Raja the Honorable Sir Raja Velugoti Srirajagopalakristna ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1893
Reported in: (1893)3MLJ131
1. We are of opinion that the suit is not sustainable under Section 49 of the Rent Recovery Act. The prayer of the plaint is hot for damages, but for the release and restoration of specific movable property together with some other subsidiary relief. The Revenue Court in which the suit was instituted is one of special and limited jurisdiction and such a suit as the present will not lie under Section 49.2. It might have been open to the plaintiff to prefer a petition under Section 32 for the release of the property--but in that case there would be no appeal.3. The suit must therefore fail, but as this point was not taken before the District Judge, and on the facts found the conduct of the defendants has not been free from blame, we shall not award costs in their favor.4. The decree of the District Court must be reversed and the suit dismissed, each party bearing his own costs throughout....
Rajah of Venkatagiri Vs. Yerra Reddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1893
Reported in: (1893)ILR16Mad323
1. We are of opinion that the suit is not sustainable under Section 49 of the Rent Recovery Act. The prayer of the plaint is not for damages, but for the release and restoration of specific moveable property, together with some other subsidiary relief. The Revenue Court in which the suit was instituted is one of special and limited jurisdiction, and no such suit as the present will lie under Section 49.2. It might have been open to the plaintiff to prefer a petition under Section 32 for the release of the property, but in that case there would be no appeal.3. The suit must, therefore, fail; but as this point was not taken before the District Judge, and on the facts found the conduct of the defendants has not been free from blame, we shall not award costs in their favour.4. The decree of the District Court must be reversed and the suit dismissed, each party bearing his own costs throughout...
Emani Subbiah, Alias, Suryanarayana, Minor by His Mother, Kallery Bapu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-1893
Reported in: (1893)3MLJ46
1. We think the Subordinate Judge is right in holding that the value of the whole property determined the jurisdiction and not the value of the moiety. An adopted son is an heir as well as coparcener of his adoptive father and the right which the plaintiff sought to establish was a right to the whole property. This second appeal fails and is dismissed with costs....
Palaniappa Vs. Lakshmanan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-1893
Reported in: (1893)ILR16Mad429
1. This was a suit brought by the appellant to compel the first, second and third respondents to refund Rs. 5,630, with interest thereon at 9 per cent. per annum, from Rs. 28,600 drawn by them out of the amount paid to the credit of Original Suit No. 7 1885, on the file of the Subordinate Court of Madura. The facts which have given rise to this claim may be briefly stated as follows: In 1885, respondents 4 to 6 desired to sue Adimulam Pillai and his sons, who owed them a large sum of money, upon a hypothecation bond for Rs. 43,000, but had no funds at their disposal to pay the expenses of the suit which they had to institute. They assigned to the appellant two-fifteenths of their interest in the hypothecation bond, and in return he advanced the funds necessary for the prosecution of their claim. The result was the institution of Original Suit No. 7 of 1885 by respondents 4 to 6 against Adimulam Pillai and his sons and against Father Laberthere. Although the decree passed therein was in...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›