Chennai Court March 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.
Arumugam Chetti and ors. Vs. Venkateswara Ettappa Maharajah Ayyan Aver ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-1905
Reported in: (1905)15MLJ292
Subrahmania Aiyar, J.1. The appellants in these 27 Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are ryots holding lands in certain villages in the Zemindari of Grantamanaikanur. They brought these suits before the Sub-Collector under Section 8 of the Rent Recovery Act to compel the respondent who is the Zemindar to grant them proper pattas for Fasli 1312. In the plaints they stated that though they themselves had sunk wells at their own cost in certain dry lands, forming part of the holdings and with the aid thereof they had been raising garden crops, the respondent insisted upon charging the garden rate of 8 fanams per guli instead of the dry rate of 4 fanams per guli, which alone he was entitled to charge in respect of such cultivation. They therefore prayed for a decree that pattas may be granted to them in which the said dry rate alone is charged.2. The respondent in his written statement did not allege that the wells were sunk by himself or his predecessors in title, but in effect asserted that, e...
The Manager of the Court of Wards Vs. Ramasami Reddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-1905
Reported in: (1905)15MLJ236
Subrahmanya Aiyar, J.1. The suits out of which these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals arise were instituted before the Deputy Collector of Trivellore by the Regulation Collector in charge of the Kalahasty Estate for compelling the acceptance by, the respective defendants of pattas for Fasli 1312. The main contest before the Deputy Collector was whether with reference to the lands constituting the holdings, rent was payable in kind as contended on behalf of the plaintiff, or as contended. for the defendants, in money under express contracts alleged to have been entered into in Fasli 1305. This and certain minor questions were tried by the Deputy Collector who held that the contracts alleged were not made out and he directed that waram putta should be accepted. The defendants appealed and the District Judge on appeal disagreed with the Deputy Collector on the main question and after discussing the evidence on the point found that the contracts set up were proved. This conclusion rendered a re...
The Secretary of State for India in Council, by the District Forest Of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1905
Reported in: (1905)15MLJ147
1. These Appeals and Second Appeals arise out of decisions of the Forest Settlement Officer rejecting the claims made by certain wargdars in South Canara to tracts of forest land which Government proposed to reserve as Government Reserved Forest under the Forest Act of 1882.2. The important question of principle that is raised is with regard to the right of Government in the forest and other waste lands of the District. Is it similar to that which is now well established in the other Districts of the Presidency, omitting Malabar; that is to say, is there a general presumption that forest and waste land not exclusively occupied by any person or body of persons, is the property of Government? Or, is the presumption similar to that which is now established in Malabar, viz., that such lands, like all other lands, are presumed to belong to some private person or family Or, is the true position that there is no presumption at all either one way or the other, and that the onus of establishing...
Lakchmana Sasomallo and ors. Vs. Sasomulyani and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1905
Reported in: (1905)15MLJ245
1. The first defendant, a Hindu widow re-married whilst her son was in possession of ancestral property. Subsequently her son died and this action was brought by the heirs of her deceased husband claiming the property of which the son died possessed on the ground that the widow was precluded from succeeding to his property as his heir. The suit was dismissed by both courts following the decision in Akora Seth v. Boreani 2 B.L.R., 199 and this second appeal is now brought by the appellant contending that the first defendant the widow is incapable of inheriting as her son's heir having been re-married.2. It was decided in 1868 in Akora Seth v. Boreani 2 B.L.R., 199 that Section 2 of Act XV of 1856 (Hindu Widows Re-mariage Act) does not preclude a Hindu widow who has re-married during her son's lifetime from inheriting his property after his death. Sir. B. Peacock in his Judgment says Ibid at p. 205: 'The object of the Act was to remove all legal obstacles to the marriage of Hindu widows....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›