Chennai Court October 1905 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.
Muthian Chetty and ors. Vs. Chinnathambi Ambalagaran and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-09-1905
Reported in: (1906)16MLJ6
1. The plaintiffs claim under two instruments of mortgage executed by the Zamindar in 1885. The first plaintiff is the mortgagee of an undivided moiety of the village now in suit. The plaintiffs Nos. 2 to 4 are the mortgagees of the other undivided moiety. They tender a patta in their joint names to the defendants who are admittedly tenants holding lands in the village. It is also alleged in the plaint that the tenants we are paying rent to the plaintiffs jointly.2. The question for decision is whether the plaintiffs are entitled to tender this joint patta. Prom 1885 till the date of suit the tenants in the village must have been paying their rents either to the plaintiffs jointly or separately. If the plaintiffs have been receiving rents jointly, they would be entitled to tender the pattas as claimed. If, on the other hand, the defendants, have been as alleged before us, paying only a moiety of their rent to the first plaintiff and the other moiety to the other plaintiffs, then they a...
Govindasami Naidu and anr. Vs. Alagirisami Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-02-1905
Reported in: (1906)ILR29Mad104
1. We agree with the first of the contentions urged on behalf of the appellants--plaintiffs--that when the Subordinate Judge proceeded to pass an order on the compromise upholding it, it was not competent for him to do so having regard to what had happened in the suit between the presentation of the compromise and the said order upholding it. The application for leave to enter into the compromise on behalf of the minor, the second plaintiff, on the terms set forth in the compromise was made on the 9th January 1902 and sanction was granted on the same day. There was thus, no doubt, nothing to prevent the compromise being at once followed by a decree so far as the plaintiffs were concerned. But no decree according to the compromise was then passed. On the 7th February 1902, the second defendant, brother of the first plaintiff, who was entitled to a share under the compromise though lie had not signed the compromise, present a petition to the Court to set aside the order declaring him ex ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›