Chennai Court March 1910 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.
Thiyagaraja Pillai Vs. Ratnasabapathi Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-1910
Reported in: (1911)ILR34Mad284
Arnold White, C.J.1. In this case I think the finding of the Subordinate Judge on the fifth issue that the plaintiff's claim is barred by limitation is right. It is admitted that Chockalingam who represents one branch of the family attained his majority more than three years before the institution of the suit. The other branch of the family is represented by the plaintiff. It is not admitted by the respondents that the suit was brought within three years of the attaining of his majority by the plaintiff. For the purpose of the question of limitation, I assume that ha brought the suit within three years of his attaining his majority.2. The Advocate-General on behalf of the appellant has contended that the effect of the compromise which was entered into between the two branches of the family in connection with Original Suits No- 4 of 1881, was to create a right in severalty in the two/branches with reference to his trusteeship and the management of the properties. I do not think that is ...
Polemera Thammu Naidu and ors. Vs. Sri Maharani Lady Godey Chitti Jana ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.809
1. The plaintiffs sue to enforce the grant of a pattah. The District Judge on appeal has dismissed the suit on the ground that questions are raised which can only be tried by a Civil Court. We have not been referred to any such question. The District Judge does not find that the plaintiffs are not in law tenants of the defendant. If they are tenants they are entitled to ask for a pattah unless the exchange of pattah and muchilika has been dispensed with. All the questions that may arise on the footing of the plaintiffs' tenancy may be dealt with by the Revenue Court so far as may be necessary to determine the terms of the pattah.2. We must set aside the District Judge's decrees and remand the cases to him for disposal according to law. The costs in this Court will be provided for in the revised decree....
Venkatadri Appa Row Bahadur Garu Being Minor by the Agent of the Court ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.702
Miller, J.1. It seems to me that this case is not within the decision in Kumara Venkatachella Reddiar v. Narayana Reddy 4 M.H.C.R. 393. The defendant here does not say that the rate charged is one to which he has never agreed. He says that as he did not grow jarib crop he should not be charged jarib rate. That contention, it seems to me, involves an admission that jarib rate is the correct rate where jarib crop is grown. He says also, no doubt, that his land is not suitable for jarib crops but that does not amount to a denial of a contract to pay jarib rate for jarib crop. The suit seems to be cognizable by a Court of Small Causes.2. Even if it were not, the District Munsif should have returned the plaint and not dismissed the suit.3. As I think the Small Cause Court was competent to try the suit, I reverse and remand for disposal according to law.4. The costs will abide the event....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›