Chennai Court November 1909 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.
Ganga Varapu Krishna Venamma Vs. Naraparaju Venkata Mukunda Row
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.303a
1. We think the parties are bound by the terms of the compromise embodied in Exhibit-A, under which the plaintiff's rights were limited to the properties referred to in schedule B to the plaint which were to come to him after the death of the executant of Exhibit-A. The fact that the executant subsequently acted in a manner inconsistent, with the compromise by denying the plaintiff's title to the above lands does not, in our opinion, justify the plaintiff in repudiating it. The compromise Exhibit-A finally settled the rights of the parties, and there was nothing more to be done to give effect to it. In Srish Chandra Roy v. Banomali Roy 31 C.v 584 one party to the compromise sought specific performance of it and was refused because there had been a failure of consideration on his part which disentitled him to enforce the contract. We must modify the decree by awarding the plaintiff the properties in Schedule B of the plaint instead of all the properties in Schedule A.2. The parties will...
Gangamma and anr. Vs. Bommakka Alias Chandravati and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.437
1. The question is, whether a mulgeni tenant is entitled to cut down trees in existence at the time of the grant of the lease. There is no evidence worth the name of any local usage. The District Manual (see Volume I, page 130) throws no light on the matter. If the lease is agricultural, Chapter V of the Transfer of Property Act has no application. But we think we are entitled to rely upon the analogy of the Act. See Vasndevau Nambudripad v. Valia Chathu Achan 24 M.k 47. Clause (a) of Section 108 prohibits a lessee from felling timber and Clause (h) authorises the lessee to remove all things which he has attached to the earth, provided he leaves the property in the state in which he received it. Lease is defined by Section 105 of the Act to include one in perpetuity. It follows from the foregoing provisions that the defendants had no authority to cut down the jack trees which are both timber and fruit trees. 'Cutting down, destroying or tapping all trees which, are timber either by the...
Dasari Chellamma Vs. M. Chellaya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.756a
1. We think the respondent's plea of res judicata must be upheld.2. The former suit O.S. No. 198 of 1903 brought for the same relief on the same cause of action against the defendant was dismissed, it may be erroneously under Section 43 of the Civil Procedure Code (Act XIV of 1882). The plaintiff cannot sue the defendant again on the same cause of action. The object-matter being the same, the claim is res judicata. The second appeal is dismissed with costs....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›