Chennai Court January 1900 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.
Vasudevan Nambudripad and anr. Vs. Chathoo Achan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1900
Reported in: (1900)10MLJ321
1. The question for our decision is whether a kanomdar during the period of his occupation is entitled to remove and appropriate to himself all, or any of the trees that he has himself planted on the land demised to him on kanom. It is found that the (plaintiff) jenmi has not proved any custom forbidding the (defendants) kanomdars to cut and appropriate such trees, nor have the kanomdars proved any custom allowing them to do so. On behalf of the plaintiff, it is argued that, in the absence of custom or contract to the contrary, the general law forbids a tenant to cut trees on land held by him under a landlord, and a number of cases decided by the High Courts in other parts of India have been cited in support of this proposition. We do not, however, think it necessary to refer in detail to these cases. Many of them relate to trees rot planted by the tenant, which of course stated on a footing totally different from that of those planted by the tenant himself. Others depend on the incide...
Abdul Rahiman Sahib and anr. and Bhanu Bibi Vs. Ganapathi Bhatta
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1900
Reported in: (1900)10MLJ305
1. A preliminary objection has been taken to the hearing of these appeals on the ground that no appeal lies. The order which is sought to be set aside is an order dated July 14, 1899, which purports to have been made in a Miscellaneous Petition presented in the Court of the District Judge by one Ganapathy Bhatta. The petition appears to ask that the guardians of certam minors, who have been appointed by the Court under the Guardian and Wards Act should be removed. In the order of July 14th which the guardians now seek to have set aside, the District Judge purports to issue an injunction under Section 492 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the attachment of the estate of the minors and to appoint a receiver to manage the estate. In making this order the judge seems to have acted under a misconception of his powers under Section 43 of the Guardians and Wards Act. That section provides that when an order made under Sub-section 1 is disobeyed, the order may be enforced in the same manner a...
Kannu Pillay Vs. Chellathammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1900
Reported in: (1900)10MLJ203
1. The gift to. the daughters contains clear words of inheritance. The clause forbidding alienation cannot neutralize the effect of those words. The claim of the testator's heir was, therefore, properly dismissed.2. The second appeal is dismissed with costs....
Ponnammal Vs. Sundaram Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1900
Reported in: (1900)10MLJ310
1. Before dealing with this appeal generally, it will be convenient to dispose of the question as to the admissibility of Exhibit A. This document was tendered in evidence on behalf of the plaintiff in support of the allegation contained in paragraph 3 of the plaints 'Before his return to India, he gave plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 each one-third share of the moveable and immoveable properties he possessed then under a will which he had executed on 28th February 1872.'2. Before the Subordinate Judge, no other evidence was tendered in proof of this allegation. The Subordinate Judge marked this document and filed It as an exhibit in the case, but in giving judgment he held that it was not admissible in evidence. The document purports to be a'copy of a will executed by a person of the name of Chinna Tamby Pillai. The copy contains an endorsement purporting to be signed by the Assistant Registrar-General for Ceylon, to the effect that the copy was a true copy of 'last will and testamen...
Vythilingam Padayachi Vs. Seetaramaiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-1900
Reported in: (1900)10MLJ77
1. The plaintiff, as the assignee of a judgment passed by the Supreme Court of Port Louis in Mauritius in favour of one Nagammal for Rs. 12,297 against the defendant, brought this suit for the recovery of the amount with' interest. The defendant contested the claim and the questions raised at the trial were--(1) Was the judgment one passed on the merits?(2) Was it obtained by fraud?(3) Was the plaintiff entitled to recover the amount due under the judgment without reference to the price actually paid by him for obtaining the assignment?, and(4) What amount, if any, was so paid?2. The Subordinate Judge decided the first question in the affirmative and the second and third questions in the negative. As to the fourth he found that the plaintiff had paid Rs. 5,500.3. He gave a decree for that sum with interest on a part thereof and for the expenses incidental to the assignment.4. The plaintiff and the defendant appeal against the decree in so far as it is against each.5. It will be conveni...
Vepa Kamesam Vs. Varigonda Narasimham and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-02-1900
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.701
Shephard, J.1. The facts are not clearly stated in either of the judgments. They seem to be as follows. The property, the subject of the mortgage, was in 1879 sold by the 5th and 6th defendants to the mortgagor (1st defendant). The mortgage was executed in 1883. In October 1884, the property was sold by the mortgagor to the 5th and 6th defendants. Notwithstanding this sale the property remained in the possession of the mortgagor and kadapas given by him to the plaintiff are produced for the years 1885, 1887, 1890 and 1891. After the commencement of the suit, the appellant purchased the property. It is not stated that the plaintiff had any notice of the sale to the 5th and 6th defendants. Nor is it explained why they, as purchasers, did not take possession from the mortgagor. Had they been in possession they could not have disputed the plaintiff's right to interest. Alike as between the mortgagor and the plaintiff and between them and the plaintiff there was or might have been the relat...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›