Chennai Court April 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.
Viraraghava Aiyangar Vs. Ramaswami Aiyangar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-1900
Reported in: (1900)10MLJ242
1. The appellant objects that certain documents produced and put in by the 3rd defendant were not proved. This is so; but it appears that they were produced by the defendant a purchaser at a Court sale, as showing the title of the judgment-debtor whose rights he had purchased and were not objected to by the plaintiff for want of proof until after dacree went against him. The documents were not in fact in dispute. The only question in the suit was whether, and to what extent, the plaintiff was bound by them, and in the circumstances we have no doubt that they were admitted with the consent of the plaintiff and their proof was tacitly waived. We do not, there fore, think that the plaintiff is entitled now to object to them, on the ground of the absence of technical proof.2. The documents are in fact registration copies of old mortgages--one of them is dated 1867 and another 1878--and they show that the lands the plaintiff now seeks to include as part of the estate he is entitled to parti...
Govinda Menon Vs. Karunakara Menon and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-1900
Reported in: (1901)ILR24Mad43
1. The only question raised before us is as to the jurisdiction of the District Munsif's Court to entertain the suit as it is urged that the proper valuation of the suit exceeds the jurisdiction of that Court.2. We are of opinion that even though the suit were under-valued as suggested on behalf of the first defendant (of which however we are by no means satisfied) the objection is not one which we should entertain having regard to Section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act (Act VII of 1867) as it is not; shown that the disposal of the suit has been thereby prejudicially affected.3. It was urged that this objection could only be taken in the Court of first appeal, and not on second appeal. We think, however, that it is an objection that can be raised in second appeal [Raghavachariar v. Rangachariar Second Appeal No. 848 of 1892 (unreported)]. As no other grounds of appeal are urged before us, we dismiss this second appeal with costs....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›