Chennai Court December 1904 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.
Ananthaya Kamthi Vs. Laxminarayanappaya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-1904
Reported in: (1905)15MLJ233
1. The undoubted facts of the case are these. The property in suit was decreed as the share of Anantaramappa against his coparcener Ramachandra. Anantaramappa was then a minor and the present first defendant was put in possession as his guardian. Whilst in such possession, the first defendant executed a bond of the property in question for a debt due by the estate of the minor making himself at the same time personally liable. During the lifetime of Anantararnappa a suit was brought on the mortgage by the mortgagee. Pending the suit Anantarataappa died. Anantaramappa had ceased before his death to ba a minor, but did not take possession of his property from the first defendant. Ramachandra who became Anantaramappa's heir on his death was made a defendant in toil penning suit on the mortgage and a decree was given for the mortgage amount against the first defendant in addition to an order for the sale of the property. Ramachandra who was absent in Travancore did not appear in the suit a...
Narayana Patter Vs. Gopalakrishna Patter and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-1904
Reported in: (1905)15MLJ247
1. A decree which had been obtained against the appellant by the respondents was reversed and the former became entitled to restitution of the money which had been collected from him under the decree so reversed. He applied to the Subordinate Court for restitution of the amount, claiming interest thereon at 12 per cent, per annum. Notice of the application was given to the respondents but it did not specify that the application was for restitution or contain any intimation of the claim for interest. The respondents not having appeared on the day they were required to attend, the Subordinate Judge ordered execution by way of arrest, but process fee nod having been paid no further action was taken. The appellant, however, moved the Court again in the matter and the respondents then appeared and objected to the grant of interest at 12 per cent. The Subordinate Judge however decided the matter in favour of the appellant hold- ing that the rate claimed was proper. On appeal the District Jud...
Palaniandy Chetty Vs. Veramalai Asari and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1904
Reported in: (1905)15MLJ486
Boddam, J.1. The Subordinate Judge has found that the bond was executed by Kandasami and that is genuine, and the 1st and 2nd defendants in their written statement admit that Kandasami did execute a bond to the plaintiff.2. The only question now remaining is as to the correctness of the Subordinate Judge's judgment in holding that the plaintiff cannot succeed inasmuch as the mortgagor had died before the suit was brought. This is clearly wrong as is pointed out in Ayyagari Venkataramayya v. Ayyagari Ramayya I.L.R. 25 M. 690.3. I, therefore, reverse the decree of the Subordinate Judge and give judgment for the plaintiff against the share of the deceased mortgagor. The plaintiff is entitled to a mortgage decree for Rs. 88-4-0 with costs throughout and interest thereon at six per cent, per annum till payment against the share of the deceased mortgagor in the hands of the defendants.4. The time fixed for payment is six months from the date of the order....
Rajaruthna Naidu Vs. Narasimhachariar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-1904
Reported in: (1906)16MLJ143
1. These are appeals from decrees of the District Court of Chingleput dismissing suits under Section 9 of Act VIII of 1865 for the acceptance of pattas.2. For the purposes of the point of law which was argued before us, the following facts may be taken to have been found or admitted.3. In 1898 the Shrotriemdar gave to the plaintiff a power of attorney authorising the plaintiff to exercise the rights of the Shrotriemdar under the Act of 1865. This power, being coupled with an interest, was in law irrevocable. The Shrotriemdar purported to revoke this power of attorney and gave notice to the defendants that he had done so. He then tendered pattas to the defendants which the defendants accepted. At the time the defendants accepted the pattas they were aware that the Shrotriemdar's right to tender the pattas was disputed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff subsequently presented pattas for the same fasli and the defendants refused to accept them on the ground that they had already accepted pat...
Vegi Ramasami Vs. Penimatsa Anandrazu Garu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-1904
Reported in: (1906)16MLJ57
Boddam, J.1. In this case the tenant contends (a) that the patta is not a proper patta, and (b) that he is not the tenant and cannot be compelled to take a patta or execute a muchilika.2. He says the patta is not a proper patta for three reasons. First because it contains a clause which precludes his cutting down fruit trees, second, because the patta contains a clause that after the patta terminates the tenant shall not cultivate the land until he has accepted a patta and executed a muchilika for the ensuing Fusli and thirdly, because the landlord has charged enhanced rates for the land. As regards the last, I am of opinion that on a revision petition such as this, I am precluded from going into the question because it is found as a fact that the enhancement is in accordance with a special agreement made between the landlord and the tenants, in which case it is perfectly legal. As regards the first objection, I am of opinion that the clause is not objectionable as it is confined entir...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›