Chennai Court May 1894 Judgments
innasi Pillai Vs. Sivagnana Desikar Alias Gnana Sambanda Panda Sannadh ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-15-1894
Reported in: (1895)5MLJ95
Muthusami Aiyar, J.1. This was a suit brought by petitioner under Section 9 of the Specific Belief Act. The villages mentioned in the plaint are Inams attached to the temple on the rock at Trichi-nopoly. First counter-petitioner is the Pandara Sannadhi, who manages them on behalf of the temple, and 2nd and 3rd counter-petitioners are Tambirans, who are his agents. The villages are in the occupation of persons who cultivate them and pay the temple the rent due upon them. On the 4th October 1889, 1st counter-petitioner's agent leased them to petitioner for a period of five years, and in pursuance of the lease, petitioner collected rent from the tenants till 15 days prior to the suit. Petitioner's case was that the instrument of lease provided that if default were made in the punctual payment of rent, the lessee should at once surrender the lease and his possession, that although petitioner regularly paid rent, 1st and 2nd counter-petitioners improperly cancelled the lease on the pretence...
Tag this Judgment!R.G. Orr and 2 ors. Vs. Raman Chetty and 3 ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-04-1894
Reported in: (1894)4MLJ248
ORDER1. Appellants are the lessees of the zamindary of Sivaganga in the District of Madura and Respondents are the prior lessees of a village in that zemindary called Surakudi. There is a river called Palar which rises in the Karandamalai hills in the District and runs first through a number of Government villages and feeds the tanks situated therein. It then enters the zemindary and, after feeding a number of tanks through supply channels., empties itself into the tank of the Tirupatore village.2. Appellants represent the villages which depend for their irrigation on the Tirupatore tank and Respondents represent the Surakudi village. In November 1888, Respondents put up a sand dam across the river, 94 yards in length, one yard in width, and 3/4 yard in height at the spot B in the plan, and thereby directed all the water flowing down the river Palar into their supply channel C diminishing thereby the quantity which would otherwise be available for the Tirupatore tank. Hence this litiga...
Tag this Judgment!Rahamtullah Sahib Vs. Rama Rau and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-04-1894
Reported in: (1894)ILR17Mad373
1. This was a testamentary suit brought to obtain probate of the last will and testament of the late Raja of Venkatagiri in the district of Nellore. Plaintiffs alleged that the late raja made his last will on the 3rd June 1892 and died on the 6th idem, and, as executors appointed by testator, they claimed probate. Exhibit A is the will propounded by them, and among the legacies mentioned therein, a sum of Rs. 1,000 is given to defendant Haji Muhammad Rahamtullah Saheb. He, however, filed a caveat objecting to the grant of probate on the ground that the will is not genuine; that its execution was procured by fraud, coercion or undue influence; that the testator did not know what he was doing, nor understand the nature and effect of its provisions, if in fact he signed or affixed his mark to the alleged Will. Defendant set up another will, dated the 31st May 1892, whereby it is alleged the late raja appointed Dewan Bahadur Raghunadha Row, the Honourable Mr. Humayun Jah Bahadur, C.I.E. Ku...
Tag this Judgment!Soundarammal and anr. and Velayudam Pillai and ors. Vs. Rengasami Muda ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-02-1894
Reported in: (1894)4MLJ275
1. These two appeals are preferred from the decree of the District Court of Coimbatore in O. S. 7 of 1891, No. 63 by defendants 4 and 5 and No. 64 by defendants 7, 10, 11, 13 to 15 and 17 to 20.2. The properties in dispute belonged to Chithambara Mudali. Upon his death they devolved on his adopted son Vencatachela Mudali, the last full owner. He died unmarried during his minority and his adoptive mother Muthammal succeeded him. Upon her death in May 1890, several persons claimed the right of succession.3. The three plaintiffs and defendants 1 and 2, the third defendant, and defendants 4 and 5 are the several classes of relations who claimed the succession. The third defendant claimed to be a Dayadi or Sapinda of Venkatachela Mudali, the last male owner and also his mother's sister's son.' The 4th and 5th defendants are the daughters of two sisters of Venkatachela Mudali, and the plaintiffs and defendants 1 and 2 are the daughter's sons of Venkatachela Mudali, the senior, who was the pa...
Tag this Judgment!Hanumayya and anr. Vs. Venkatasubbayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-02-1894
Reported in: (1895)ILR18Mad23
1. The reason assigned by the Judge for declining to appoint a receiver is that the acts complained of amount to misappropriation rather than waste, and that petitioners can hereafter institute a criminal prosecution. These are clearly not sufficient reasons. Section 503 of the Code of Civil Procedure authorises the appointment of a receiver for the preservation or better custody of property the subject of a suit. Whether property is vested or misappropriated makes no difference for the purposes of this section. The uture institution of a criminal prosecution will not enable a party to recover property that may have been misappropriated.2. We cannot support the Judge's order.3. It is therefore set aside and the case remanded for disposal according to law.4. The costs hitherto incurred will abide and follow the result....
Tag this Judgment!Sundrammal and anr. Vs. Rangasami Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-02-1894
Reported in: (1895)ILR18Mad193
1. These two appeals are preferred from the decree of the District Court of Coimbatore in Original Suit No. 7 of 1891. No. 63 by defendants 4 and 5 and No. 64 by defendants 7, 10, 11, 13 to 15 and 17 to 20.2. The properties in dispute belonged to one Cbidambara Mudali, Upon his death, they devolved on his adopted son Venkatachella Mudali, the last full owner. He died unmarried during his minority and his adoptive mother Muttammal succeeded him. Upon her death in May 1890, several persons claimed the right of succession.3. The three plaintiffs and defendants Nos. 1 and 2, the third defendant and 'defendants Nos. 4 and 6 are the several classes of relations who claimed the succession. The third defendant claimed to be a dayadi or sapinda of Venkatachella Mudali the last male owner, and also his mother's sister's son. The fourth and fifth defendants are the daughters of two sisters of Venkatachella Mudali, and the plaintiffs and defendants, Nos. 1 and 2 are the daughter's sons of Venkatac...
Tag this Judgment!Sathianama Barathi Vs. Saravanabagiammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-01-1894
Reported in: (1894)4MLJ223
1. This was a suit to recover with mesne profits possession of the properties specified in the plaint from the defendants. The ground of claim is that they are comprised in the endowment of a Gosami Mutt and that they are improperly alienated to or retained by the defendant. The 1st Plaintiff was the chief or representative of the institution and upon his demise, the 2nd Plaintiff was brought in as his legal representative.2. The Mutt is situated at the Village of Manthithope in the Ottapidaram Taluk of the District of Tinnevelly. After its founder, it is known by the name of Srimat Sankara Bharati Swami Adipam. In the Village of Manthithope, there are about 20 families of Gosamies who claim to be descendants of the original grantee and several of them are in possession of small portions of the endowments. The entire village was granted free of assessment to Sankara Bharati according to the Plaintiff, for the support of the Mattam and its charities. A Gosami is not a religious ascetic ...
Tag this Judgment!Guruvayya and ors. Vs. Vudayappa
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-01-1894
Reported in: (1895)ILR18Mad26
1. In the Full Bench cases decided in this Court Viraraghava v. Subbakka I.L.R. 5 Mad. 397 and Mallamma v. Venkappa I.L.R. 8 Mad. 277 it does not appear that any question as to the satisfaction of the debt out of Court was raised in the execution proceedings. So also in the case of Sita Ram v. Mahipal I.L.R. 3 All. 533 and Shadi v. Gang a Sahai I.L.R. 3 All. 538. The ground of decision in the Madras cases was that the question was not whether the decree had been satisfied and satisfaction should be recorded, but whether there had been a fraudulent breach of contract which had not formed the subject of inquiry in the suit or in the execution proceedings.2. Here, however, the question of payment oat of Court did form the subject of inquiry in execution proceedings. Though an order under Section 258 is not made appealable under Section 588, it is appealable under Section 244, being made on a question arising between the parties to the suit, and falling under the definition of 'decree.' Th...
Tag this Judgment!Krishasami Ayyar Vs. Janakiammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-01-1894
Reported in: (1895)ILR18Mad153
1. This is an appeal from an order made by the Subordinate Judge at Kumbakonam in execution of the decree passed in favour of appellant, Krisbnaswami Ayyar, against the second respondent in Original Suit No. 23 of 1888 on the file of the Subordinate Court. Appellant owns landed property in the district of Tanjore and mortgaged a portion in 1884 to one Naranappier without possession for Rs. 25,000, which he agreed to repay with interest at 9 per cent, per annum on its security. In order to pay off this mortgage, he sold outright part of the mortgaged property to second respondent's wife, Subbalakshmi (since deceased), on 1st March 1886 in consideration of her undertaking to pay Rs. 25,000 to Naranappier in satisfaction of the mortgage. The purchaser, second respondent's wife, since deceased, was the daughter of a late District Court Vakil named Subbaramanya Aiyar, who gave her by his last will and testament Rs. 25,000 and directed the executor of his will to invest the amount in bind, s...
Tag this Judgment!Sathianama Bharati Vs. Saravanabagi Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-01-1894
Reported in: (1895)ILR18Mad266
1. This was a suit to recover with mesne profits possession of the properties specified in the plaint from the defendants. The ground of claim is that they are comprised in the endowment of a, Gosami mutt and that they are improperly alienated to, or retained by, the defendants. The plaintiff was the chief or representative of the institution, and upon his demise the second plaintiff was brought in as his legal representative.2. The mutt is situated at the village of Mantithope, in the Ottappidaram taluk, of the district of Tinnevelly. After its founder it is known by the name of Srimat Sankara Bharati Swami Adinarn, In the village of Mantithope there are about twenty families of Gosamis, who claim to be descendants of the original grantee and several of them are is possession of small portions of the endowments. The entire village was granted free of assessment to Sankara Bharati according to the plaintiff for the support of the matam and its charities. A Gosami is not a religious asc...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »