Chennai Court September 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.
Obai Goundan Vs. Ramalinga Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-1898
Reported in: (1898)8MLJ256
1. We think the judge was in error in holding that Exhibit II required to be registered. The document only evidences an agreement to vary the terms of tenancy with reference to the amount of rent to be paid. As such it cannot be held to relate to an interest in immovable property and, therefore, did not require registration, Satyesh Chunder Sircar v. Dhunpul Singh I. L. R., 24 C., 20.2. It was next contended that this document Exhibit II should be held to be binding on the plaintiff inasmuch as rent which up to then was payable only in respect of such lands as were cultivated thereby was made payable in respect of the entire holding whether cultivated or not. If up to the date of this document the defendant was not bound to pay for other than cultivated lands, the agreement on the part of the defendant to pay for lands whether cultivated or not would have made the agreement binding not only on the late Zemindar, but also upon the plaintiff, his successor, and no question would have ari...
Odayna Tevar Vs. Thandavaraya Thambiran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-01-1898
Reported in: (1898)8MLJ301
1. We are clearly of opinion that the lower Court was right in holding that a decree could not be passed in the terms of the compromise, inasmuch as the compromise did not give to the plaintiff any of the reliefs claimed in the suit, but dealt with various matters, not the subject-matter of the suit.2. It is, however, contended for the respondent that the Subordinate Judge was right in dismissing the suit as a necessary result of the compromise between the parties. But this contention assumes that the compromise was an absolute one, independent of the question whether the Court could pass a decree in its terms. We do not think it at all clear that such was the intention of the parties. The request that a decree should be passed in the terms of the compromise is contained in the document of compromise itself and would, therefore, appear to be one of its terms. If so, it would be a condition precedent to the compromise being effected that it should be included in the decree. The intentio...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›