Chennai Court March 1902 Judgments
In Re: Krishnamachariar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1902
Reported in: (1902)12MLJ354
ORDER1. We think the circular of the District Magistrate, dated January 17, 1901, went beyond the terms of the High Court circular, dated October 18, 1899. The High Court circular (states that, as a general rule, no person who is not a qualified legal practitioner should be permitted to act in any proceeding except to prevent a possible miscarriage of justice.2. The circular of the District Magistrate contains this passage: 'Magistrates will do well not to allow uncertificated men to appear except in cases in which they are personally interested.'3. The order made by the Sub-Magistrate of Virudupatti, which is a general order that no private vakil shall appear in his court, and which was made in pursuance of the District Magistrate's circular of January 17th, also goes beyond the terms of the High Court circular.3. As regards the order of the District Magistrate, dated 4th May 1901, no exception can be taken to so much of the order as states that the District Magistrate is not prepared...
Tag this Judgment!Ramaraju Vs. Ramalingam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1902
Reported in: (1902)12MLJ400
1. The plaint alleges that the 1st defendant as managing member of the undivided family consisting of the three defendants entered into a contract to convey the lands mentioned in the plaint to the plaintiff and placed him in possession of the same after receiving 50 rupees in part payment of the price agreed. There is no allegation in the plaint that 2nd and 3rd defendants were parties to the contract or that they authorized the 1st defendant to enter into the 'contract or that they ratified the same. The plaint therefore, discloses no case of action against 2nd and 3rd defendants for specific performance of the is defendant's contract. The suit against them should have been dismissed at the first hearing. But upon the findings the plaintiff is clearly .entitled to a decree for specific performance against the 1st defendant without determining whether the sale by him would bind the interests of the 2nd and 3rd defendants in the property agreed to be sold. The Subordinate Judge's decre...
Tag this Judgment!Gopaladasu Garu Vs. Perraju
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1902
Reported in: (1902)12MLJ126
1. We think the plaintiff's cause of action arose when each demand for the enhanced rent was made and the suit was not barred.2. By the Regulation XXV of 1802, Section 3, in all cases of disputed assessment reference shall be had to sunnads and Kabul eats and judgment shall be given by the courts of judicature in conformity to the conditions under which the agreement may have been formed in each particular case.3. In this case a reference the kabuleat shows that the Zemindar bound himself not to change the quit-rent. Though the enhanced rate has been paid for a long time, it is not shown that there was any consideration for such enhanced payments and from the defendant's letters, Exhibits A and H, it is clear that he did not, when ho wrote them in 1891 and 1894, pretend that he had then any legal right to the enhanced rate, but on the contrary he promised to return the excess. In these circumstances, we should not be prepared to infer from the mere fact of the long continued payments a...
Tag this Judgment!Venkata Papayya Row Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1902
Reported in: (1902)12MLJ432
1. Prior to and in the, year 1846, when the village of Vellathur and certain .other villages forming part of the Zemindary of Mailavaram were brought to sale for arrears of revenue due to Government, and purchased by Government, the wet lands in question in that village used to be irrigated from a tank belonging to the Zemindar of Mailavaram, situate in the Zemindary village of Kuntamukkala, which was not included in the sale. At that time, the wet lands in question were the home farm lands of the Zemindar, and he continued inoccupation of the same after the purchase by Government of that and other villages. In consequence of the villages having been purchased by Government, they became, ryotwari villages and the persons in occupation of the lands therein, including the Zemindar, became ryots under Government. By the sale the melwaram right in the villages brought to sale passed to Government, and the Government became entitled to levy wet assessment on the lands in question which were...
Tag this Judgment!Balakrishtnamma Subudhi Vs. Vinayaka Rama Singi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1902
Reported in: (1902)12MLJ410
1. It is not necessary to consider the effect of Section 50 of the Registration Act in this case, as we find that the second, defendant has been in possession as usufructuary mortgagee, although under an unregistered instrument, since 1877, and there is nothing in Section 50 of the Registration Act to affect the operation of the Law of Limitation in favour of a person who claims under an unregistered document vide Nallamuthu Pillai v. Betha Naicken I.L.R. 23 M. 37. The fact that the second defendant has been latterly for some years claiming under an invalid sale does not make his possession the less adverse to the plaintiff. This second appeal is dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›