Chennai Court February 1901 Judgments
Ramanathan Chetty Vs. Nur Muhamad Marakayar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-1901
Reported in: (1901)11MLJ183
Subrahmania Aiyar, J.1. The Subordinate Judge was clearly wrong in disallowing Rs. 1,652-14-0 out of the principal amount mentioned in the mortgage instrument; sued upon. Exhibits IVa and IV show that out of the sixteen hundred rupees a sum of one thousand rupees was retained by the mortgagee as 'Labham' or discount and that the whole of the remaining amount inclusive of six hundred rupees and odd was paid to the mortgagor or on his account from time to time as set forth in Exhibit IV a The respondent who received IV and IVa in 1888 never took any exception to what was stated therein and, in the face of such conduct on his part, his present statement that he did not agree to the discount and that the sum of 600 and odd rupees was not paid to him, is entitled to no weight. As regards the question of compound interest also claimed by the plaintiff, the Subordinate Judge has, in my opinion, taken a wrong view. In the case Ghantayya v. Papayya, reported in I.L.R. 23 M. 534 reference was ma...
Tag this Judgment!The Secretary of State for India Vs. Venkatareddy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1901
Reported in: (1901)11MLJ75
1. In this case (O.S. No. 43 of 1896) the Government, in our judgment, were not entitled to levy the double water rate. Consequently, the plaintiff, who paid the double water rate, is entitled to recover it back. The Government claim the right to levy this double rate under the powers conferred by Act VIII of 1865 and the Rules made under that enactment. Rule Y, so far as it is material, provides as follows: 'Double water rate will also be charged if water be taken from a sluice or channel or other source of supply other than that which is provided. approved by the responsible officer of the P. W. D.' The land which the plaintiff claimed the right to irrigate in 1895 by water drawn from a source of supply which the Government say was' a source of supply other than that provided or approved by Government,' is described as mamool wet land and the greater part of the land is Inam land. It would seem that an anicut was built by Government in 1852 and there appears to be no doubt that, at t...
Tag this Judgment!Ayyadorai Pillai Vs. Solai Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1901
Reported in: (1901)ILR24Mad405
1. This is a suit by a minor aged five to set aside the alleged adoption of the fourth defendant by the first defendant, the plaintiff being the daughter's son of one Subbaraya Pillai, the deceased husband of the first defendant. The adoption is said to have taken place in March 1886, the plaintiff was born in 1893 and this suit was instituted in November 1898.2. The first question for determination is whether the suit is barred by limitation under Article 118 of the second schedule to the Limitation Act.3. The District Judge, whilst dismissing the plaintiff's suit on the merits held that the suit was not barred by limitation, but it appears to us to be clearly barred. At the date of the adoption, besides his widow there were two daughters of Subbaraya Pillai, the second and third defendants, the latter being the mother of the plaintiff. That these two daughters was aware of the claim made by the fourth defendant as the alleged adopted son since 1886 is not disputed, and if they had br...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›