Chennai Court August 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.
Eressa Menon Vs. Shamu Patter and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1897
Reported in: (1898)ILR21Mad138
1. So far as the right to the value of improvements goes, there is no distinction between a tenant under 'kanom' and under 'verurnpattom.' As pointed out in Achilla v. Kali I.L.R. 7 Mad. 545 the right. to receive such compensation becomes perfected only at the time of eviction, and subject to the customary incidents attending to the tenure. Consequently the right of the landlord to set off against the value of the improvements any rent due to him under the lease must prevail against any alienation made by the tenant of his right to compensation when it is in an inchoate state.2. The second appeal therefore fails, and it is dismissed with costs....
Kombi Achen and ors. Vs. Kochunni
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-1897
Reported in: (1898)ILR21Mad352
1. The appellant has failed to join as parties to his second appeal the second defendant and eight others, who represent the mortgagee. In their absence, the decree of the lower Court cannot be varied, and we see no sufficient reason for allowing the appellant at this stage to bring them on the record. On this ground we must dismiss the second appeal with costs.2. As to the memorandum of objections, it was contended for the appellants that it cannot be heard inasmuch as the appeal has not been heard on the merits, and therefore there has been no hearing of the appeal within the meaning of Section 561, Code of Civil Procedure. We cannot accept this contention, as we consider that the question of non-joinder is one that arises in the appeal itself, and is not extraneous to it, as would be a question as to whether it was presented in proper time or not Ramjiwan Mal v. Chand Mal I.L.R. 10 All. 587. Upon this question of non-joinder the appellant was heard, and it follows that there was a s...
Rajah Eswara Doss Vs. Venkataroyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1897
Reported in: (1898)ILR21Mad236
1. Though by Section 43, Code of Civil Procedure, the landlord in circumstances such as these is precluded from suing for rent not included in his previous suit, this does. not preclude him from adopting any other remedy the law gives him to enable him to recover his rent, as for instance by distraint under the Rent Recovery Act.2. We must, therefore, reverse the decree of both the lower Courts and dismiss the plaintiff's suit with costs throughout....
Murle Dos Vs. Manicka Chetti and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1897
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.1110
Shephard, J.1. This is a suit to recover certain property which the plaintiff claims as the next heir of one Brijlaldos who died in 1871. Brijilaldos left no issue. He left a widow, a daughter and a step-mother surviving. Devaki, the widow, died in 1875, having first made her Will, (Ex. D) in the case. Jamnabai, the daughter, died in 1888, having also made her Will. Finally the step-mother, Subhadrabai died more recently having also made her Will Previously to the death of Jamnabai, she and Subhadrabai sold the property in question to the 1st defendant. The plaintiff claims as the next heir, as the sagotra sapinda as he calls himself, of the late Brijilaldos and as the nearest reversioner after the death of Brijilaldos's daughter Jumnabai. The first question is whether the plaintiff is related to Brijilaldos in the way stated. This forms the subject of the 2nd issue. I may say with regard to the first issue that there is no dispute practically as to whether the property belonged to Bri...
Athikarath Nanu Menon and ors. Vs. Erathanikat Komu Nayar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1897
Reported in: (1898)ILR21Mad42
1. The District Judge, although finding that the mortgage was not binding on the plaintiffs, refused to give them a declaratory decree to that effect on the ground of their delay in bringing this suit for four years.2. No doubt the grant of the relief herein prayed was within the discretion of the Court, but the question is whether mere delay, so long as the suit is brought within the prescribed period of limitation, was a good ground for withholding the relief to which the plaintiffs were prima facie entitled. Inasmuch as in this country a period of limitation is prescribed oven for suits where the grant of relief sought is within the discretion of the Court, mere lapse of time short of the period of limitation should ordinarily be held not to be a good ground for refusing relief. Even according to the English decisions, in following which we should be cautious for the reasons pointed out by FRERE and HOLLOWAY, JJ., in Peddamuthulaty v. Timma Reddy 2 M.H.C.R. 270 more delay is not a s...
Maran and anr. Vs. Ramanna Goundan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1897
Reported in: (1897)7MLJ269
1. The question raised by this appeal is whether a payment made to one of two persons jointly entitled under a mortgage bond can be pleaded as a valid discharge of the debt in an action brought by the other person interested in the bond. It is found that the party who received payment was not the agent in that behalf of the plaintiff. On the other hand, it is not suggested that there was any fraud on the part of the defendants who made the payment. The appellant's vakil in support of his contention that the payment to one joint creditor was a valid discharge of the debt as against the other, referred to Section 38 of the Contract Act and to the English ease of Wallace v. Kelsall 4 De 9 J.S.R. 345. 'An offer to one of several joint promisees has the same legal consequences as an offer to all of them. ' That is the language of the last paragraph of the section.2. In the first part of the section, it is provided that where an offer of performance has been made and not accepted, the promis...
Kumara Akkappa Nayanim Bahadur Vs. Sithala Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1897
Reported in: (1897)ILR20Mad476
Arthur J.H. Collins, C.J.1. The appeal to the Lower Appellate Court was filed under Section 69 of Act VIII of 1865, and it was objected that the appeal was out of time, having been presented more than 30 days after the date of the Collector's judgment. It was contended by the appellant that the time taken in obtaining copies of the judgment must be deducted and if that was done the appeal would be within time. The question to be decided is does Section 12 of the Limitation Act apply to an appeal filed under Section 69 of Act VIII of 1865, the Rent Recovery Act. Section 69 enacts that a regular appeal shall lie to the Zillah Judge from all judgments passed by a Collector under this Act, provided that the appeal be presented within 30 days from the date of the Collector's judgment. It may be here noticed that the Section does not require the appellant when filing the appeal to file therewith a copy of the decree or judgment appealed against.2. Section 12--In computing the period of limit...
Chokkalinga Naicken Vs. Muthusami Naicken and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-1897
Reported in: (1898)ILR21Mad53
1. We are unable to agree with the District Judge that the principle in the Calcutta case quoted by him is applicable to the present case.2. There the suit was for a large area of land paying rent. Here the suit is for a few square yards of vacant land used as vacant house-site or backyard in a town. The acts necessary to establish adverse possession in the two cases are very different. The use of the land by the defendant for the purposes of a backyard would not, under the circumstances, be sufficient to constitute adverse possession, especially when it is remembered that the parties are brothers, The case reported as Framji Cursetji v. Goculdas Madhowji I.L.R. 16 Bom. 338 is in point. Plaintiff having the title to the land must he held to have been in possession until first defendant began to build on it in 1894. Plaintiff then immediately protested and brought this suit in 1895. Plaintiff's suit is not barred by limitation.3. We must reverse the decree of the District Judge and rest...
Abdul Rahiman and ors. Vs. Mahomed Kassim
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1897
Reported in: (1898)ILR21Mad29
1. Though the order of the District Munsif was passed under the authority given to him by Section 337 (a), Civil Procedure Code, yet it was none the less an order in a question arising between the parties to the suit and relating to the execution of the decree so as to fall within Section 244 (c), Civil Procedure Code. Such order is a decree under Section 2 of the Code, and is therefore open to appeal. 2. We must, therefore, set aside the order of the District Judge, and remand the appeal for disposal on the merits. Costs will abide and follow the order of the lower Appellate Court....
Fischer Vs. Kamakshi Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1897
Reported in: (1898)ILR21Mad136
1. It is admitted that the garden crop in this case is the result of an improvement effected by the tenant in sinking a well. According to the law ( Section 11, Madras Act VIII of 1865) the landlord is precluded from. enhancing the rent on account of improvements made by the tenant per Muttusami Ayyar, J. Venkatagiri Raja v. Pitchana I.L.R. 9 Mad. 27. The imposition of garden assessment is clearly an enhancement of the rent. It. was, however, contended that the zamindar was, in accordance with the custom of the zamindari, entitled to the assessment claimed.2. The custom relied upon appears to have been an alleged custom of charging a varying assessment according to the kind of crop raised; such a custom would, if established, be valid, but it could not derogate from the rights secured to tenants by Section 11 of the Act 1865. The custom could only be upheld in so far as it might not conflict with the Statute law. In other words, the landlord would be entitled to vary the rates accordin...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›