Chennai Court February 1893 Judgments
R. M. C. T. Ramanadhan Chetti Vs. Streemathu Yerrania Gerbhayagi Ravik ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1893
Reported in: (1893)3MLJ185
1. The next contention is that appellant is entitled to erect the Chowk in dispute, It is admitted that appellant has occupancy right. It is a settled rule of law that no tenant, whether he has an occupancy right or not, is at liberty to erect houses upon agricultural holdings other than for agricultural purposes and thereby to alter the character of the holding. Every such tenant is under an implied obligation to do no act which is not consistent with the purpose for which the land was originally let for cultivation. That this was the law administered in this country is also clear from the cases cited by the District Munsif and from the unreported decision of this Court in Second Appeals Nos. 822 to 824 of 1890. It is argued by appellant's Pleader that the cases referred to relate to tenancies from year to year or for a term of years and not to tenants who have occupancy rights. The principle on which those cases were decided is that in an agricultural holding the tenant is under an o...
Tag this Judgment!Ramanadhan Vs. Zamindar of Ramnad and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1893
Reported in: (1893)ILR16Mad407
1. It is first urged on the appellant's behalf that the Courts below have failed to determine the real point in dispute, namely, whether appellant is or is not the owner of the land in question. In their written statements defendants contended that the zamindar was only entitled to the revenue or the tirwah and that he had no other right. The first issue raised for determination was whether defendants were tenants with occupancy right or tenants from year to year. There is no allusion in the judgments of the lower Courts to the contention that the appellant was the owner of the soil. Moreover, this point was not taken in the petitions of appeal either in this Court or in the lower Appellate Court. There is reason to think that the terms tirwah and revenue were used in the written statements as equivalent to rent payable to the zamindar. The contention now raised in second appeal appears to us to be inconsistent with the case set up in the Courts below; and we do not consider that we ou...
Tag this Judgment!Mantri Venkataswami Vs. Padda Krishnayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-1893
Reported in: (1893)3MLJ169
1. The relief asked for in the plaint is a direction that 'the deed of transfer Exhibit A or any other document that may be caused by the court to be written by defendant in the manner the court thinks proper' be registered by him and handed over to plaintiff. There is also a prayer for delivery of possession of the lands the mortgage of which is the subject of the transfer-deed Exhibit A. The lower courts have refused this latter relief but have given plaintiff a decree directing defendant to execute a fresh transfer-deed to plaintiff on the terms of Exhibit A at his own expense and present it for registration and on his part do all that is necessary to get it duly registered.2. The question is whether plaintiff is entitled to that relief or any other relief in this suit.3. The first prayer of the plaint, viz., for compulsory registration of the document A clearly cannot be complied with. We agree with the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Edun v. Mahomed Siddik, I. L. R, 9 C, 15...
Tag this Judgment!Chinnasami Pillai and anr. Vs. Hariharabhadra Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-1893
Reported in: (1893)3MLJ121
1. Appellants claiming to be executors appointed by the Will of one Kandasami Pillai, deceased, applied be the District, Court of Madura on 2nd July 1890 for probate of the said Will. Their petition was returned by the then Acting District Judge Mr. Twigg, on the ground that Act V of 1881 (the Probate and Administration Act) was not applicable to the District. This order, it is now admitted, was erroneous. In August 1892, appellants again applied to the District Court for probate of the said Will. The late District Judge of Madura, Mr. Weir, has refused their application on the ground that in the course of certain proceedings before Mr. Twigg under the Guardian and Ward's Act, (Act VIII of 1890) and the Succession Certificate Act (Act VII of 1889) intermediate between the former and the present applications for probate, it has been decided that the Will propounded is not a genuine Will, and that by virtue of this decision, the question as to the genuineness of the Will is resjudicata a...
Tag this Judgment!Venkatasami Vs. Kristayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-1893
Reported in: (1893)ILR16Mad341
1. The relief asked for in the plaint is a direction 'that the deed of transfer (Exhibit A) or any other document that may be caused by the Court to be written by defendant in the manner the Court thinks proper' be registered by him and handed over to plaintiff. There is also a prayer for delivery of possession of the lands, the mortgage of which is the subject of the transfer deed (Exhibit A). The lower Courts have refused this latter relief, but have given plaintiff a decree directing defendant to execute a fresh transfer deed to plaintiff on the terms of Exhibit A at his own expense and present it for registration and on his part do all that is necessary to get it duly registered.2. The question is whether plaintiff is entitled to that relief or any other relief in this suit.3. The first prayer of the plaint, viz., for compulsory registration of the document A, clearly cannot be complied with. We agree with the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Edun v. Mahomed Siddik I.L.R. 9 C...
Tag this Judgment!Chinnasami and anr. Vs. Hariharabadra and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-1893
Reported in: (1893)ILR16Mad380
1. The appellants, claiming to be executors appointed by the will of one Kandasami Pillai deceased, applied to the District Court of Madura, on 2nd July 1890, for probate of the said will. Their petition was returned by the then Acting District Judge. Mr, Twigg, on the ground that Act V of 1881 (The Probate and Administration Act) was not applicable to the district. This order, it is now admitted, was erroneous.2. In August 1892, appellants again applied to the District Court for probate of the said will. The late District Judge of Madura, Mr. Weir, has refused their application on the ground that in the course of certain proceedings before Mr. Twigg under the Guardian and Wards Act (Act VIII of 1890) and the Succession Certificate Act (Act VII of 1889), intermediate between the former and present applications for probate, it has been decided that the will propounded is not a genuine will, and that by virtue of this decision the question as to the genuineness of the will is res judicat...
Tag this Judgment!Karindan Kuttiassan and anr. Vs. Kariadan Suppi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1893
Reported in: (1893)3MLJ199
1. It is first urged on appellant's behalf that the suit is barred by limitation. We agree with the judge that the document sued upon is a promissory note as defined in Section 3 of the Act of Limitations, and that the contention that Article 73 is applicable cannot be supported. Exh. A provides for repayment in these terms, namely 'I shall pay you whenever you may demand after you attain the age of majority.' These words clearly indicate an intention to postpone the right to sue, and the case therefore does not fall under the ordinary rule that no demand is necessary as in the case of a note payable on demand. The intention to postpone the right of suit being clear, the question to what date the right has been postponed must be decided with reference to the language of the instrument. Upon the true construction of document A we are satisfied that the parties intended that there should be a demand after the creditor attained his majority. In Norton, v. Ellam, 2 M & W 461 Baron Parke ob...
Tag this Judgment!Sankaramurti Mudaliar Vs. Chidambara Nadan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1893
Reported in: (1894)ILR17Mad143
1. The lower Courts are in error in supposing that the present suit is of the nature of the suits which the committee are authorized to bring by Section 12 of Act XX of 1863. That section relates only to the rents of property transferred by the Board of Revenue or local agents of Government to the committee, and it is not alleged that the property in question in this suit was so transferred, and moreover this is not a suit for rent. The right to bring suits for the recovery of the property of a religious or charitable institution is vested as an ordinary incident of his office in the trustee or manager of such institution unless he is precluded by any special law from exercising it. There is nothing in the Act to take away such right from trustees appointed by the committee, and therefore plaintiff is entitled to maintain this suit. We reverse the decrees of the Courts below and remand the suit to the Court of First Instance for disposal on the merits. Costs hitherto incurred including...
Tag this Judgment!Kothenath Patinhare Vittil Sankaran Alayam Mootha Nair Vs. Mullakol Gr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-1893
Reported in: (1893)3MLJ213
1. The only question which it is necessary to consider in this appeal is whether appellant's claim is barred by limitation. He alleged that as the holder of Alayam Mutha Nair's stanom, he was the uralan of the Parakot Bhagavathi devasom, that in 1861-62 his predecessor in the stanom appointed respondent as pattamali (agent) and that respondent was managing the affairs of the temple as his pattamali and was therefore liable to render an account of his management and to be dismissed from his office by appellant. The respondent denied appellant's uraima right and impugned the document of 1861-62 as invalid. He also pleaded inter alia limitation in bar of the claim. The appellant's predecessor in the stanom had instituted Original Suit No. 269 of 1873 against respondent to set aside a demise of devasom property on kanom on the ground that the uraima right was vested in him, that he appointed respondent as pattamali in 1861-62, and that the latter had no authority to grant the kanom. In tha...
Tag this Judgment!Sankaran Vs. Krishna
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-1893
Reported in: (1893)ILR16Mad456
1. The only question which it is necessary to consider in this appeal is whether appellant's claim is barred by limitation. He alleged that, as the holder of Alayam Mutha Nair's stanom, he was the uralan of the Parakat Bhayavati devasom, that in 1861-62 his predecessor in the stanom appointed respondent as pattamali (agent) and that respondent was managing the affairs of the temple as his pattamali, and was, therefore, liable to render an account of his management and to be dismissed from his office by appellant. The respondent denied appellant's uraima right, and impugned the document of 1861-62 as invalid. He also pleaded, inter alia, limitation in bar of the claim. The appellant's predecessor in the stanom had instituted Original Suit No. 269 of 1873 against respondent to set aside a demise of devasom property on kanom on the ground that the uraima right was vested in him, that he appointed respondent as pattamali in 1861-62, and that the latter had no authority to grant the kanom. ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »