Chennai Court August 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.
Raman Menon Vs. Chathunni
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-15-1893
Reported in: (1894)ILR17Mad184
1. The plaintiff's case was that, according to the customary law prevailing among the Tiyans, the first defendant was entitled to a definite share in the property. The defendants denied the alleged custom and pleaded that the properties were indivisible. The issue (fifth) on the point was too vague to direct the attention of the parties to the real question which had to be tried, and the evidence adduced was inconclusive. The Subordinate Judge remarks that the witnesses were not asked the real question at issue, but on the authority of two unreported cases has come to the conclusion that the ordinary rule of Marumakatayam against compulsory partition is equally applicable to Tiyans who follow Makkatayam. We do not think that a question of such general importance should have been decided in this way, and we shall, therefore, ask the present Subordinate Judge to return a finding on the following issue: Whether, according to the customary law followed by the parties to this suit, compulso...
Chathanath Iluvapadi Ammu Alias Madhavi Amma Vs. Chathanath Kunhunni M ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-1893
Reported in: (1894)4MLJ43
1. The first question is one of valuation which is important with reference to the jurisdiction of this Court to hear the appeal. The plaint was valued for the purposes of jurisdiction at Rs. 4069 odd, but the decree is for over Rs. 5,000, the Subordinate Judge having allowed a money claim for Rs. 5,129 as against a claim of Rs. 1,000 on which alone stamp duty was paid. The subject value of the suit must therefore be taken as equal to the amount of the decree, and the appeal therefore lies to this Court. The plaintiffs must pay into this Court within one month from this date the stamp duty on the total amount of Rs. 6,198-13-6 less the sum already paid by them in the Lower Court or their suit will stand dismissed.2. The next question raised by appellants is that there was misjoinder in that each set of plaintiffs should have brought a separate suit for its share. The District Judge had decided this question against the apellants and we agree in that decision.3. The next point is limita...
Kunnigarath Kunhayen Haji Vs. Athilan Mayan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-1893
Reported in: (1894)4MLJ21
1. We are clearly of opinion that a lease of a coffee garden is not an agricultural lease within the meaning of Section 117 of the Transfer of Property Act. It is argued that Section 108 does not apply because the money sought to be recovered is not rent and the property was not destroyed. Looking at the plaint and the karar B, we thiak the relation of lessor and lessee was asserted and in fact existed. It is rent which the plaintiff seeks to recover. It is not disputed that the whole of the plants situated in the part included in the karar was absolutely destroyed and the 2nd defendant in consequence abandoned the garden. If as a matter of fact, the land only had been the subject of the demise it might be doubtful whether Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act applied. But that is not the case. As far as we can gather from karar B, the lease was of the coffee plants only. Wo think therefore the Subordirato Judge is right and accordingly dismiss the appeal with costs....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›