Chennai Court October 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.
Abdul Rahiman Sahib Vs. Anna Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-23-1893
Reported in: (1894)4MLJ26
1. This was a suit to enforce the acceptance of a patta under Act VIII of 1865. The land in respect of which the patta was tendered admittedly belongs to a mosque called Kazi Abdulla Azari's mosque. Appellant claimed to be respondent's landlord under a permanent lease granted to him by one Abdul Rahiman and his three sisters whom he described to be entitled to the land. He further alleged that respondent was a tenant cultivating about 4 acres of land. It was conceded that appellant duly tendered a patta but respondent denied that the former was his landlord. He contended that Abdul Rahiman granted a lease for 35 years to one Raghavendra Row who sublet the land to him. The first issue in the case was whether appellant's lessors were competent to execute the permanent lease in his favor and the Deputy Collector decided the question in appellant's favor, observing that Abdul Rahiman who granted the lease to Raghavendra Row was only one of four Inamdars, whilst all the four Inamdars grante...
Padinhathri Narayanan Nambudri and ors. Vs. Padinhathri Damodaran Namb ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-23-1893
Reported in: (1894)4MLJ79
Muthusami Aiyar, J.1. This was a suit to set aside a revenue sale held under Act II of 1864. The sale was held in June 1888 and this suit was brought on the 12th August 1889. It is found that at the date of sale there were arrears of revenue due to the Government to the extent of Rs. 51-1-7 and i is clear that the Collector had jurisdiction to, sell the land under Act II of 1864. It is found, however, by the Lower Appellate Court that the sale was not duly notified as required by the Act and to this extent the procedure followed by the Collector was irregular. Both the lower courts find that tho 7th defendant pur-chased the land benami for tho 8th and. 9th defendants of whom the former is the Adhikari of tho Amsom wherein the land brought to sale is situated. Appellants imputed fraud to the Adhikari but tho courts below have negatived it. It is further found that appellants were aware of the sale and its confirmation more than six months before suit. Tho question for decision in this a...
Sri Raja Venkata Kumara Mahipati Surya Rau Vs. Sri Raja Rau Chellayamm ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-1893
Reported in: (1894)ILR17Mad150
1. This was a suit brought by the late Zamindar of Pithapuram to recover possession of an estate called the Kolanka estate. The plaint prayed also for a decree for mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 26,400 per annum for fasli 1297 and subsequent years till delivery of possession. The appellant is the present minor Zamindar of Pithapuram, and respondent is his paternal grandfather's brother's son's widow. The subjoined pedigree shows how the parties are related to each other and to the other members of their family: Sri Raja Niladri Rau Bahadur Garu, who died in 1828. | Sons | __________________________________________ | | Sri Raja Rau Venkata Kumara Venkata Rau Mahipati Surya Rau Garu. Bahadur Garu. Widow, | Lakshmi Narasu Amma | Garu. Sri Raja Rau Venkata | Mahipati Gangadhara Sons Rama Rau Bahadur Garu, | original plaintiff. ________________________________ | | | | Venkata Mahipati Venkata Mahipati | Dharma Rau, who Surya Rau, who | died in 1881 without died in 1887. Widow, Sri Raja R...
Samia Pillai Vs. Chockalinga Chettiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-1893
Reported in: (1894)4MLJ8
1. The question for decision in this case is whether the last application for execution made on the 6th February 1891 was in accordance with law within the meaning of Article 179 of Schedule II of the Limitation Act so as to amount to a step in aid of execution sufficient to prevent the present application being time barred.2. That the application was presented by the party entitled to execute the decree and in order to obtain execution is not denied, but it is contended that as 1st defendant who was dead at the time was named as the party against whom execution was sought, the , application must be treated as a nullity, and consequently the present application held to be time barred.3. The Subordinate Judge observes that the mention of the deceased first defendant's name in column 9 of the application was, probably, a mistake, made by the Vakil's gumastah. It was no doubt a bona fide mistake. Whore there has been in fact an application for execution made by the party entitled to make ...
Haji Kasim Saiba Vs. Jurni Deog Luis
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-1893
Reported in: (1894)4MLJ1
Best, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of the District Judge directing the appellant, who was plaintiff in the suit, to refund to the respondent, who was the 1st defendant, money paid by the latter on account of rent admittedly due on the laud of which respondent was tenant. The land belongs to the Puthige Mutt at Udipi, and had been mortgaged to appellant by Sumatindra Swami as trustee of the Mutt. The validity of Sumatindra's appointment to the trusteeship was under litigation at the time of the mortgage, and was eventually decided against him. The rent in question was claimed also by Sudindra Swami, who was eventually declared the rightful trustee. He was consequently included as 2nd defendant in the suit. The money was deposited in court by the respondent with the request that it might be paid to whichever of the claimants might be found entitled to it. The Court of First Instance dismissed the plaintiff's i.e., appellant's suit but on appeal that decision was reversed, and ...
Raman Vs. Kunhayan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-1893
Reported in: (1894)ILR17Mad304
1. The Subordinate Judge is in error in thinking that the petitioner is estopped by his previous petition No. 545 of 1891. There was no occasion for mentioning in that petition the irregularities now relied on as vitiating the sale, as that petition was filed for the purpose of obtaining an adjournment with a view to raising the money by private arrangement. In a similar case the Calcutta High Court also held that omissions in such a petition did not create an estoppel I.L.R. 7 Cal. 613 We set aside the order and direct the Subordinate Judge to allow the parties to adduce evidence with reference to the alleged irregularities and to dispose of the case in accordance with law. The costs of this appeal will abide and follow the result....
Kovvuri Basivi Reddi Vs. Poosarla Peda Tammanna and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-1893
Reported in: (1894)4MLJ76
1. This was a suit brought by the appellant upon a promissory note, Exhibit CC, which 12th respondent executed in his favor for Rupees 8094 and annas 2 on the 17th June 1889. The promissory note recites that the amount was due for the price of 13 heaps of salt, which appellant had engaged to deliver to 12th respondent. Respondents are merchants who traded in salt in 1887, 1888 and 1889 at Bimlipatam under the style of P.P. Tammanna, Chilaka Sanyasi Nayadu and Co., and they had a branch establishment at Cocanada where 12th respondent carried on business as their agent and managing partner. On the 18th April 1887 appellant agreed to sell and 12th respondent to buy for three years such salt as the former might supply under the agreement SS.:- Appellant's case was that the 13 heaps of salt now in dispute were sold and delivered by him to 12th respondent as the agent or managing partner at Cocanada of the other respondents, that the promissory note sued on was executed for its price and tha...
Subba Row Vs. Palaniandi Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-1893
Reported in: (1893)4MLJ71
1. The preliminary objection is taken that no second appeal lies. The language of Section 26 appears to us to support the contention. The intention was, we think, to confer on the District Court the same appellate jurisdiction over an order of an inferior court as is conferred by Section 19 on the High Court over the order of a District Court.2. There is 'no provisidn in the Act for a second appeal in any case. Both Section 19 and Section 26 declare that the orders of District Courts shall be final.3. The material words in Section 19, Clause 3, are 'subject to the provisions of Sub-section 1 and of Chapters XLVI and XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure as applied by Section 647 of that Code an order of the District Court under this section shall be final.' Section 269, Clause 3, is to the same effect, but the words 'subject to the other provisions of this Act' are omitted.4. It is contended that the wcrd 'final' is intended to preclude any other suit. This may be. But we are of opinion...
Venkatanarasimha Naidu Vs. Suranna
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-1893
Reported in: (1894)ILR17Mad298
1. The preliminary point in this case is whether orders passed under Madras Act VIII of 1865 by a Collector are open to revision under Section 622 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. The question was answered in the negative in Velli Periya Mira v. Moidin Padsha I.L.R. 9 Mad. 332 which was followed in Appandai V. Srihari Joishi I.L.R. 16 Mad. 4513. It has now been contended that the revision mentioned in Section 76 of Act VIII of 1865 (Madras) means revision by the Court which made the order and not revision by a superior Court. We are unable thus to limit the scope of the word by introducing words which are not to be found in the section.4. As to the contention that Act VIII of 1865 is a local Act and cannot override the provisions of Section 622 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the powers conferred on this Court under the Letters Patent, we need only refer to Section 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure.5. We do not see sufficient ground for dissenting from the decision in Velli Periya Mi...
Sankunni Nayar and Raman Nambiar Vs. Narayanan Nambudri and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-1893
Reported in: (1894)ILR17Mad282
Best, J.1. These two appeals are against the same decree, the appellant in No. 779 being the second defendant, and appellant in No. 943 the first defendant.2. The suit was brought by plaintiff for possession of two items of land alleged to be the jenm property of plaintiff's house and demised by plaintiff's ancestor on kanom for Rs. 412-9-2 to a former karnavan of defendants 2 to 15 in Kollam 1040 (1864-65). Plaintiff's case is that on the land being sold (in 1874) in execution of decree in Original Suit No. 232 of 1868, obtained against plaintiff's father, it was purchased by first defendant's late karnavan Raman Nambiar benami for plaintiff's mana (house), the said Raman Nambiar having been appointed by plaintiff's mother manager of plaintiff's mana, plaintiff being an infant aged two years in 1048 (1872-73) when his father died; that Raman Nambiar continued as such manager till 1054 (1878-79), when first defendant was appointed as his successor and is still the kariastan; that in 10...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »