Chennai Court October 1902 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.
Ponnammal Vs. Kalithitha Moodelly
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-1902
Reported in: (1903)13MLJ143
1. The only point argued before us is that the mortgage in plaintiff's favour was not proved by examining at least one attesting witness as provided in Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act.2. No objection was taken to the admissibility of the document when tendered as evidence in the lower Court. If objection had been taken, the defect, if any, would no doubt have been cured. We cannot allow the objection to be now taken after it was waived in the lower Court.3. We dismiss this appeal with costs....
Narayana Row Vs. Dharmachar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-1902
Reported in: (1903)13MLJ146
1. The facts found by the lower appellate Court and which in Second Appeal we have to accept are, that the uncle of the plaintiff, one Jayachar, was in possession of the site mentioned in the plaint since 1881, that he let defendants 1 and 2 into possession of the same in 1892 under a lease for a term of 5 years, that the 3rd defendant, the appellant in this Court, obtained possession of the same from the 1st and 2nd defendants and that Jayachar died in 1898 shortly before the institution of this suit, leaving a will devising the site to the plaintiff and admitting in the description of the site that it had all along been the plaintiff's property and that he, Jayachar, held it only as the plaintiff's agent. The District Judge also finds that the case of the 3rd defendant that the site belongs to him and that his agent allowed defendants 1 & 2 to enter into possession thereof is false, but that he obtained possession from the 1st and 2nd defendants during the term of the lease under whi...
Ratnamasari Vs. Akilandammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-03-1902
Reported in: (1903)13MLJ27
Moore, J.1. The plaintiff's suit has been dismissed as being barred by limitation under Article 119 of the second schedule attached to the Limitation Act. There is practically no dispute as to the facts of the case. The adoption is alleged to have taken place in 1886. The rights of the plaintiff as adopted son were interfered within 1889 and this suit was not brought till 1897 In the plaint the plaintiff prays for a declaration that he is the adopted son of Arunachala Asari and also for the recovery of certain properties which he claims to be entitled to as such adopted son. It is clear that under Article 119 this suit, in so far as the prayer for a declaration is concerned, is barred. It is, however, urged, that the plaintiff has 12 years within which to bring his suit for the recovery of the property.2. The decisions of the several High Courts in India on the important question thus raised are most conflicting, and it cannot be said that the matter has been conclusively decided by th...
Annammal and ors. Vs. Venkataragavachari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-02-1902
Reported in: (1903)13MLJ137
1. The plaintiff in the plaint alleged that the land was held by the defendants under an oral lease from year to year granted by the plaintiff in 1896, and that he gave the defendants notice to quit and surrender the land in March 1899. The suit was brought in April 1899.2. The plaintiff contends that his intention was that the surrender was to be in April 1899. Assuming that it was so, we do not think that so short a notice was a reasonable notice in the case of an agricultural holding. On this ground and without deciding the other issues in the case we reverse the decree of the lower appellate Court, and restore that of the District Munsif with costs in this and in the lower appellate Court.3. As regards the validity of the darkhast grant under which the plaintiff claims, but which the defendants say was obtained by fraud, we observe that the proper course is for the defendants to move the revenue authorities in the matter and apply for a grant of puttah to themselves insuper session...
Alagappa Chettiar Vs. Tirunagavalli and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-02-1902
Reported in: (1903)13MLJ377
1. We are not by any means clear that the words in Exhibit No. 1 regarding remission refer to the rents payable to the temple. We are inclined to think that they refer only to the revenue payable to Government, but even if they refer also to the rents payable to the temple, we do not think that they are sufficient to create a legal obligation. The matter is left entirely to the decision of the Collector, and cannot be enforced by the Courts. The obligation, if it exists, is on the same footing as the obligation to grant a remission of revenue, and it cannot be contended that such obligation is one that can be enforced by the Courts it being regarded only as a moral and not a legal obligation.2. We must allow the appeal with costs throughout and give judgment for the plaintiff against the 1st defendant as prayed for with interest at 6 per cent, per annum from date of plaint....
Venkatasamy Naidu Vs. Rangasamy Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-02-1902
Reported in: (1903)13MLJ428
1. We are of opinion that the defendant is legally bound. In Exhibit A the defendant who was a party thereto, although he did not sign it, undertook to discharge the debt of Rs. 1,704-3-6 due by the plaintiff to Krishnasamy Naidu. The defendant having failed to discharge it, the plaintiff himself paid it and now seeks to recover it from defendant.2. Assuming for the sake of argument that the defendant' undertaking was not founded on valuable consideration, but only on good consideration, viz, love and affection for his brother (the plaintiff), Exhibit A having been registered, the breach of such obligation becomes actionable under Section 25. of the Indian Contract Act. The costs of this reference will be costs in the cause....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›