Chennai Court February 1894 Judgments
Vunde Rajaha Raja the Honourable Sir Rajah Velugoti Sri Rajagopalakris ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-1894
Reported in: (1894)4MLJ198
1. In the course of the argument it was agreed that the only document as to which any question of registration arises is Exhibit VI, the kabuliat signed by the plaintiff and given to the defendant.2. The question is whether that document although not registered can be admitted in evidence in support of the plaintiff's claim. If the plaintiff's action was founded on an alleged title in virtue of a lease granted by the defendant and his case were that as lessee he had been unlawfully ejected from the demised land, there can be no doubt that the document (VI) could not be admitted in evidence. The plaintiff would then be seeking to use it as evidence of a transaction affecting immovable property. But it is clear that that is not the case made in the plaint. The plaint sets out the agreement for a lease of the village which was to run from Fasli 1299 and last for five years. It is stated that certain things were done in pursuance of the agreement, among other things, that the plaintiff was...
Tag this Judgment!Seetharama Raju Vs. Bayanna Pantulu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-1894
Reported in: (1894)ILR17Mad275
1. The defendant owned some land called Burripollem Agraharam, which, in 1875, he exchanged for the plaint land situated in the village of Thandrangi. In 1888 a re-exchange of these same lands was made between the defendant and the plaintiff, but the defendant then took upon lease for one year the Thandrangi lands, the ownership of which he had parted with in the re-exchange, and executed a cowle to the plaintiff, agreeing to give the land up if so required at the end of his year's lease, which expired on the 31st March 1889. Defendant having failed either to take a fresh lease of the land or to vacate it, this suit was brought for the recovery of its possession, together with the mesne profits for the two years for which the defendant had held over. The lower Court decreed for the plaintiff as prayed.2. Defendant appeals on several grounds, his chief contention being that he was not willing to make the re-exchange, and that the cowle he executed, admitting his tenancy of the plaint la...
Tag this Judgment!Branson Vs. Appasami and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1894
Reported in: (1894)ILR17Mad257
1. This is an action by a solicitor to recover from the defendant costs incurred by the next friend of the defendant in litigation undertaken on his behalf. The principal suit thus prosecuted in the interests of the defendant was instituted in 1882, and was still pending in 1887, when, in the month of November, the defendant came of age. In January 1888 the defendant having resolved to abandon the suit, caused an application to be made by other solicitors for the dismissal of the suit. The learned Judge, who tried the case now under appeal, found with regard to the first issue that it was not shown that the proceedings undertaken on the defendant's behalf were necessary and proper for the protection of his interest, and it was argued before us that this finding was contrary to the weight of evidence. In the view taken by us it is not necessary to discuss this question, for assuming that the circumstances relating to the defendants' estate were such as to justify and require the proceed...
Tag this Judgment!Tadakamalla Narasimha Row and anr. Vs. Sambarow Rama Row and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-1894
Reported in: (1895)5MLJ79
1. The only contention before us is that th suit will not lie as plaintiffs' remedy is by execution of the raz decree. When plaintiffs sought to execute the decree, they wer met with the objection that the proper remedy was by suit an this objection was held to be valid. Now when a suit is brough defendants turn round and plead that the proper remedy is b execution.2. We are of opinion that he is estopped by the former orde and cannot be allowed to blow hot and cold.3. We dismiss this appeal with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Padammmah and ors. Vs. themana Ammah and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1894
Reported in: (1894)ILR17Mad232
1. This was a suit to have it declared that a kanom granted by the first defendant to second and third defendants was not binding on the plaintiff's' tarwad. The first defendant, since deceased, was the karnavati of the tarwad and both appellants and respondents were her anandravars. It was contended for defendants, inter alia, that a suit for merely a declaratory decree could not be maintained and both the Courts below disallowed the contention. The District Munsif observed that as the first defendant was karnavati, the plaintiffs were not entitled to possession and that possession really remained where it was before the demise on kanom. The Subordinate Judge found that possession of the properties demised on kanom was held by the first defendant on behalf of the tarwad, that the plaintiffs had no objection to her possession, and that if second and third defendants obtained attornment from tarwad tenants subsequent to the kanom, it was inoperative as an attornment acquired ' on a vici...
Tag this Judgment!Gnanambal Vs. Ammalu Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1894
Reported in: (1895)5MLJ94
1. We see no reason to doubt the correctness of the Judge's finding that A is in the handwriting of the deceased Sadasiva Sastri. It is contended for the appellant that, even if A is genuine, it was intended only to operate in case of the death of the testator within the year, as is apparent from the words 'Melpadi Varushathukkullaaga' (for the above year) contained in it.2. We are of opinion that these words cannot have been used without some object and the only object with which they can be held to have been used is to limit the operation in the manner urged on behalf of the appellant.3. Such being the case, the deceased must be held to have died intestate and petitioner's application for Letters of Administration with copy of the Will annexed must be dismissed.4. We allow this appeal and, setting aside the Lower Court's order dismiss the application for administration with costs throughout....
Tag this Judgment!Subramania Pandia Chokka Talavar Vs. Siva Subramania Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-1894
Reported in: (1894)4MLJ152
1. This was a suit to recover the Mittas or estates called Peruruni and Karaikuruchi and the Pannai or home-farm lands thereon which had formed part of the Zamindari of Maniachi, situated in the District of Tinnevelly. The Subordinate Judge of Tinnevelly who tried the suit dismissed it with costs. Appellant-plaintiff is the present Zamindar of Maniachi which is admittedly an impartible estate belonging to a joint Hindu family but capable of being enjoyed by but one member of the family at a time, and respondents are alienees who are in possession of the property in dispute.2. The transactions which have given rise to this litigation are fully set forth by the court of first instance in paragraphs 25 to 57 of its judgment. The Subordinate Judge has also sufficiently stated the substance of the pleadings, the contentions of the several respondents, and the questions arising thereupon for determination, and we do not think it is necessary for us to recapitulate them in this judgment.3. Of...
Tag this Judgment!Champaden Vittil Lakshmi Amma Vs. Kunnummal Pukkott Thottathil Janamaj ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-1894
Reported in: (1894)4MLJ183
Arthur J.H. Collins, Kt. C.J. and Muthusami Aiyar, J.1.The question referred to the Full Bench is, whether a second appeal will, lie in this case. The property in dispute belonged to the 1st and 2nd defendants. In August 1886, they sold it to one Rama Kurup, who sold it again to plaintiff in February 1889. The third defendant obtained a money decree against the first and second defendants in Original Suit No. 26 of 1888 on the file of the Subordinate Court of North Malabar and brought the property once more to sale in execution, and the fourth and fifth defendants purchased it at the court sale for Rs. 975.2. The plaintiff preferred a claim as prior purchaser but as it was disallowed, she brought this suit to establish her title and to set aside the second sale. The court fee paid on her plaint was computed on the sale amount, viz., Rs. 975, and the Court of First Instance held that the sale in her favor was only a colorable transaction and dismissed the suit with costs. From this deci...
Tag this Judgment!Subramanya Pandy Chokka Talavar Vs. Siva Subramanya Pillay and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-1894
Reported in: (1894)ILR17Mad316
1. This was a suit to recover the mittas or estates called Perunani and Karaikurichi and the pannai or home-farm lands therein, which had formed part of the zamindari of Maniachi, situated in the district of Tinnevelly. The Subordinate Judge of Tinnevelly, who tried the suit, dismissed it with costs. Appellant (plaintiff) is the present Zamindar of Maniachi, which is admittedly an impartible estate belonging to a joint Hindu family, but capable of being enjoyed by but one member of the family at a time, and respondents are alienees who are in possession of the property in dispute.2. The transactions which have given rise to this litigation are fully set forth by the Court of First Instance in paragraphs 25 to 57 of its judgment. The Subordinate Judge has also sufficiently stated the substance of the pleadings, the contentions of the several respondents, and the questions arising thereupon for determination, and we do not think it is necessary for us to recapitulate in this judgment.3. ...
Tag this Judgment!Ganapati Bhatta Vs. Raghaweshvara Bharati Swami and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-1894
Reported in: (1894)4MLJ101
1. The parties to this appeal are Havik Brahmins who form a sub-division of the Brahmin community in South Canara. First respondent is the head or the ecclesiastical chief of the sub-caste; the 2nd is his Parupathyagar or manager; and appellant is a member of the caste subject to the spiritual jurisdiction of 1st respondent. On the 17th May 1887, 1st respondent issued against appellant a provisional order of ex-communication and communicated it to the Vaidikas and Grahastas, secular and lay Brahmins of Mangalore. Three caste offences are mentioned in the order. The first is that when the Guru went to appellant's division or Hobli, appellant neglected to visit him, and pay the kanike or fee as other Havik Brahmins did, though he was duly apprised of 1st respondent's arrival; the 2nd is that when the people of Vittal remonstrated with him against his conduct and advised him to see his Guru, he referred to his disapproval of the ex-communication of one Sham Bhatta and others of the Bayar ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »