Chennai Court July 1897 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.
Parasurama Pattar Vs. Veeraraghava Pattar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-1897
Reported in: (1897)7MLJ277
1. On the ground that the assets have not come to the defendants' hands and therefore a refund is not possible, we must hold having regard to the language of 3. 295 of the Civil Procedure Code, that the suit is not maintainable. See Hart v. Tara Prasanna Mukherji I.L.R., 11, C., 718 .2. We must dismiss this appeal with costs....
Sangili Veera Pandia Chinna Tambiar and anr. Vs. Sundaram Ayyar and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-09-1897
Reported in: (1897)ILR20Mad279
1. The question in this appeal relates to the rights of the parties to the use of the natural stream called Kattar or Pedukulam.2. The stream rises in, and Hows through, Government lands, before it empties itself into the Pedukulam tank, which is situated within the zamindari of the plaintiff.3. The defendants Nos. 1 and 2 are persons who hold land under Government, which land is now partly irrigated by a channel taken off from the said stream within the limits of the Government land above the zamindari.4. The third defendant is the Secretary of State for India in Council.5. Plaintiff sues to establish his exclusive right to the waters of the stream and for an injunction to restrain the defendants from in any way interfering with that exclusive right.6. This claim to exclusive right to the water was put forward before the Forest Settlement Officer in 1886, and was by him disallowed after due enquiry under Act V of 1882 (The Madras Forest Act).7. The plaintiff did not appeal against tha...
Muthu Lakshmi Ammal Vs. Narryana Pattar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-07-1897
Reported in: (1897)7MLJ216
1. It is contended for the appelant that no case has been made out for an injunction inasmuch as no waste has been proved.2. It is true that the evidence does not establish that any property has been actually made away with, but the question really is whether the conduct of the widow--the qualified owner--has been such as to lead to a well grounded ear that the interests of the reversioners are being substantially imperilled. Hurryioss Dutt v. Sreemutty Dossee 6 M.I.A. 433.3. We agree with the Subordinate Judge that the evidence in this case justifies such a fear. A reference to Exhibits A and B shows that the widow exchanged a security (Exhibit B) standing in her own name for one (Exhibit A) standing in her brother's name, and the latter makes no reference to the widow's title but on the, contrary by its language leads to the inference that the property belongs solely to her brother, thus rendering it difficult for the reversioner to prove hereafter that the property formed part of th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›