Chennai Court January 1901 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.
Gururajammah Vs. Venkatakrishnama Chetti and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-1901
Reported in: (1901)ILR24Mad350
1. We think this appeal might be disposed of on the ground that, as found by the City Civil Court Judge, the present suit was adjourned from time to time with the consent of. both sides to await the disposal of the suit in the High Court. In this state of things it seems to us, that it is not now open to the plaintiff to seek to go behind the judgment of the High Court.2. Apart from this, however, we are clearly of opinion that the plaintiff's claim for an injunction in the form asked for in the plaint is res judicata. In the High Court suit the present plaintiff was the defendant. The first issue in the suit was whether the then plaintiffs had a prescriptive right to certain lights which they claimed as ancient lights. It was held by Boddam, J., and by the Appellate Court that they had this right (the decree of the Appellate Court modifying the decree of Boddam. J., as regards three out of the seven windows) and that the agreement of 29th March 1878, did not operate as a waiver or sur...
Maharajah of Jeypore Vs. Jammanadhora and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-1901
Reported in: (1901)ILR24Mad345
1. This is an application presented by the Maharajah of Jeypore under Rule No. XX of the Agency Rules praying the High Court to direct the Agent to the Governor in Vizagapatam to review his judgment in Appeal Suit No. 5 of 1898 reversing: the decision of the Senior Assistant Agent giving a decree in favour of the Maharajah for possession of certain villages, on the ground that he was entitled to resume the villages, as the terms on which they had been granted to the defendants had been violated.2. On behalf of the defendants two preliminary objections are raised :~(1) that the latter part of Rule No. XX under which the application is made is ultra vires, and that therefore no such application can be entertained by this Court; and (2) that even if the latter part of Rule No. XX is not ultra vires this application should not have been presented to this Court bat to the Governor in Council under Rule No. XXXI.3. As regards the first objection Rule No. XX runs as follows: 'All decrees pass...
Yamuna Bai Rani Sahiba Vs. Solayya Kavundan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-1901
Reported in: (1901)ILR24Mad339
1. As to the points raised by the first issue, it was not taken in the lower Appellate Court and whether or not the order by the Revenue officer is conclusive as to the legality of the distraint, there is certainly evidence to show that it was illegal.2. On the question of limitation we have to consider whether the cause of action arose within six months prior to the date of the institution of the suit. What happened was that the seizure was effected in May 1896, but the effects remained in the defendant's possession until a later date within the six months.3. We are of opinion that the term cause of action used in Section 78 of the Rent Recovery Act (VIII of 1865) must be taken to be used in the ordinary sense, for the intention was to preserve the ordinary rights of action, subject only to the two provisos. Assuming that the detention is an act professedly done under the authority of the Act so as to make Section 78 of the Act applicable, we think that the detention was a continuing ...
Vasudeva Ravi Varman Vs. Narayana Pattar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-1901
Reported in: (1901)ILR24Mad341(P.C.)
1. In this case the appellant as lessee from a former Zamorin sued for possession of property in the hands of a tenant who held under that Zamorin. The suit was instituted after the death of that Zamorin, and the contention of the succeeding Zamorin, who with the tenant was a defendant in the suit, was that the lease in plaintiff's favour was not binding on him, This contention was upheld by the High Court in Manavikrama v. Vaithi Pattar Second Appeal No. 978 of 1895 (unreported), and the decree of the lower Appellate Court awarding possession to the plaintiff was reversed and the suit dismissed. Before the decree of the High Court was passed the decree at the first Court had been executed and the tenant had given up possession of the land and received compensation for improvements from the plaintiff.2. Although the appeal was by the Zamorin only, we must take it that the suit was dismissed not only as against the Zamorin but also as against the tenant. Consequently the tenant was enti...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›