Chennai Court July 1896 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.
Alagappa Mudaliar Vs. Sivaramasundara Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-09-1896
Reported in: (1896)ILR19Mad211
1. The eighth issue raises the question whether the family of the parties possesses any interest in the lands comprised in schedule II-B. The plaintiff's contention is that, while the melvaram is admittedly part of the charity estate, the kudivaram in those lands belongs to the family. According to the memorandum made on the 26th May 1888, the property declared to have been purchased by the plaintiff for Rs. 7,750 was the choultry at Vachakarapatti. It is more particularly described in Exhibit D as 'the huk right of Vachakarapatti choultry, the lands the registry of which stands in the names of Alagappa Mudaliar and Shanmugasundara Mudaliar in No. 6, the decree razinamah, and all other daeds in respect of the said choultry, Rs. 747 being in possession of Sivaramasundara Mudaliar, and Rs. 70 from the tirvah of Sekanapuram and all the lands partaining to Vachakarapatti choultry together with all the rights and privileges thereof.'2. The property now claimed as family property consists of...
Chinnatambi Gounden Vs. Chinnana Gounden
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-08-1896
Reported in: (1896)ILR19Mad391
Subramania Ayyar, J.1. The objection, that the suit being one for the recovery of a sum of money less than Rs. 500 and of a nature cognizable by a Court of Small Causes, no appeal against the order of the District Judge remanding the suit lies, is unsustainable, as the right of appeal conferred by Section 588 in a case like this is unaffected by Section 586 of the Code Collector of Bijnor v. Jafar Ali Khan I.L.R. 3 All. 18 and Mahadev Narsinh v. Ragho Keshav I.L.R. 7 Bom. 292 .2. It was contended on behalf of the appellant (the first defendant) that the suit was barred by limitation. No evidence having been taken, it is necessary in dealing with the said contention, to consider what the allegations relied upon on behalf of the plaintiff are. As I understand the plaint, the oral contract for compensation for the breach of which the suit was brought, was this. Tanda Gounden, uncle of the first defendant and father of the second defendant, about 1882 agreed to sell to the plaintiff certai...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›