Chennai Court August 1898 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.
Baluswamy Vs. Lakshmanan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1898
Reported in: (1898)8MLJ193
1. I am asked to say that a purchaser who was also decree-holder may, in defiance of his own agreement, insist on an order under Section 318. It is clear to my mind that the Judge intended to find that there was an agreement between the parties and that under it Rs. 1,100 had been received by the purchaser. The case cited (Muttia v. Appasami, I.L.R., 13 M., 504) is an authority against the purchaser, for it shows that an agreement like the present may bind him.2. I dismiss the appeal with costs....
Simulu Ebrahim Rowthan Vs. Abdul Rahiman Mahomed and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-1898
Reported in: (1898)8MLJ182
1. I think the District Munsif was wrong in refusing to admit the promissory note in evidence.2. Being a note made out of British India, it comes within the provisions of Section 18 of the Stamp Act (I. of 1879). The first holder, who is the plaintiff, had, before presenting it for acceptance or payment, before endorsing, transferring or otherwise negotiating it, to affix the proper stamp. None of these things had happened, and the obligation to affix a stamp had not arisen.-- Griffin v. Weatherby, L. R., 3 Q. B., 753.3. The plaintiff's vakil is ready to affix the proper stamp before decree is passed.4. I must reverse the decree and. direct the District Munsif to hear the case on the merits. I shall give no costs of this petition....
theivu Pandithan and anr. Vs. Secretary of State for India and
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1898
Reported in: (1898)ILR21Mad433
Subramania Ayyar, J.1. The question raised in these cases is one of considerable importance to a large class of persons who plant and grow, as they are permitted to do by the rules of the Government applicable to the Tinnevelly district, palmyra trees on assessed Government sandy tracts, which abound in some parts of the district and which, though scarcely suited for any other kind of cultivation, are well adapted for the growth of the palmyra palm. The question is when a person grows on a piece of assessed Government land such trees in sufficient numbers and fairly closely over the land, so as to form, in the language of the people accepted by the Revenue authorities themselves, a tope' (paragraphs 3 and 9, Extract M. C, 31st May 1855, No. 655, and paragraph 7, extract from the Proceedings of the Board of Revenue, 6th May 1858, No. 1617, in Exhibit XXXIX), what right does the planter acquire in that piece of land by so planting therein? It is not the case of either party that, when on...
Mayandi Chetti Vs. Mrs. Oliver, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-1898
Reported in: (1898)8MLJ196
1. The late Mr. Oliver, whom the respondents (defendants) represent, took in 1878 a lease of certain land vested in the temple represented by the appellant (plaintiff) under Exhibit A a registered instrument, the annual rent reserved thereunder being Rs. 106-4-0. In 1886 Mr. Oliver requested the then trustee of the temple to agree to a reduction of the rent to Rs. 50 per annum. The trustee agreed accordingly, but the agreement was not reduced to writing. From that time up to the institution of this suit in 1895, Rs. 50 only were paid and accepted as the rent payable per annum. The lower Courts in effect held that the respondents were not precluded by proviso 4 to Section 92 of the Evidence Act, from proving the agreement to modify the terms of the registered lease in so far as the amount of rent was concerned. In supporting the decision of the lower Courts, the learned vakil for the respondents contended, if we understood him correctly, that in cases like the present though no express ...
Muruga Pillai Vs. Subrahmania Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-1898
Reported in: (1898)8MLJ197
1. I think the Judge is wrong. The two claims, the one on the note, the other on the settlement of accounts, are so closely connected that I do not think it can possibly be said that the plaintiff ought not to have joined the two claims. He might have joined them and I think he ought to have done so. The evidence in support of the two claims would be in great part the same. In both cages, proof of entries in the books would be necessary. Having regard to the terms of Section 13, Civil Procedure Code, as construed by the Privy Council and in this Court, Arunachnlam Chetty v. Meyyappa Chetty, I.L.R., 21 M,, 91 I think the suit was rightly dismissed.2. The order of remand is set aside with all costs....
Asan Koothoo Sahib Mercoyar and ors. Vs. Ramanatha Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1898
Reported in: (1898)8MLJ159
Subrahmania Aiyar, J.1. It was contended for the appellants that the Subordinate Judge erred in finding that the respondent advanced under Exhibit A, Rs, 9,647-3-6 and under the arrangement come to subsequent to that document Rs. 7,551-9-5. But the Subordinate Judge has not allowed any item of advance claimed by the respondent not supported by duly-proved vouchers. The evidence thus accepted by the Subordinate Judge is practically uncontradicted and in my opinion quite trustworthy. I have no hesitation, therefore, in holding that the plaintiff has proved that advances to the extent stated above were made by him.2. The next question for determination is, whether the respondent is disentitled to recover the whole or any portion of his claim, inasmuch as the barque Lord Earns, referred to in Exhibit A, became a wreck subsequent to 21st March 1891, the date fixed in the document, with reference to the payment of the money due thereunder. This depends, in one aspect of the matter, upon whet...
Rajah of Venkatagiri Vs. Sheik Bade Saheb and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1898
Reported in: (1898)8MLJ219
Subrahmania Aiyar, J.1. This is a reference in a suit by the Raja of Vencatagiri against a ryot, holding certain lands in the Zemindari, for the rent due for fasli 1304 ending with 30th June 1895. The rent was payable in instalments and admittedly they became due on the 15th August 1894, 30th October 1894 and 30th January 1895, respectively. The present suit was instituted on the 21st February 1898. The suit is clearly barred, unless, as contended for the plaintiff, the muchilika, executed by the defendant to the plaintiff on the 25th June 1895 contains an acknowledgment such as is required by Section 19 of the Limitation Act. The question for determination is whether it contains such an acknowledgment. It is to be observed that the language employed in the muchilika amounts to more than a mere acknowledgment. There is a distinct promise to pay. But the promise as such in the muchilika is obviously void on account of the inconsistency in its terms manifest in the very face of it. For t...
Sreeman Shadagopa Srinivasaswami Vs. Ramanuja Chariar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1898
Reported in: (1898)8MLJ190
1. In our opinion the plaintiffs have entirely misconceived their rights. Their case is that no successor has been appointed in place of the deceased Jeer. They ask for a declaration that the defendant is not the duly appointed successor; they pray that the Court may be pleased to appoint a successor or cause one to be elected according to usage; and they ask that the property be delivered up to the person so appointed.2. In the plaint, it is alleged, that the disciples should, when no successor has been appointed by the Jeer before death, meet and select a proper successor, and the defendant agrees that this is the custom.3. No reason is suggested why the disciples, whom the plaintiffs represent, should not have met and made their selection. There was thus no authority for them to come to the Court to assist them in making the appointment. They might have made an appointment and allowed the appointee to bring a suit for ejectment, if necessary. It is quite clear that the plaintiffs ar...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›