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.
Mathew Henry Abraham Vs. the Lodge good Will, Represented by C.E. Rhen ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-1910
Reported in: (1911)ILR34Mad156
Abdur Rahim, J.1. The learned District Judge has dismissed: the suit brought by Mr. Henry Abraham as Executor of Mathew Abraham for recovery of money due on a promissory note executed on the 12th November 1891 in the latter's favour by certain Office-Bearers of the Lodge 'Good Will,' No. 465, of Bellary, on the ground that though the document marked as exhibit IV in the case and executed by Mathew Abraham on the 21st February 1902, is not operative as a release, yet, since the Lodge regarded it as such, being led so to regard it by the conduct of Mathew Abraham at the time of its execution and completed the building of the Lodge premises on the faith of such belief, the plaintiff is estopped from enforcing his claim. No estoppel however was ever pleaded, and the issues did not raise the question, nor is there any evidence on the point except a statement of the last witness of the defendant, elicited in the course of re-examination. The District Judge therefore was not right in dismissi...
Ranganatha Rao Vs. Ananda Chariar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.801a; (1911)21MLJ78
Miller, J.1. In this case it is stated on behalf of the petitioner that the order as it stands is not made against his brother, but that the Subordinate Judge intended to make it against him and that it was applied for against him though he was wrongly styled 1st defendant in his application instead of 2nd defendant. 1 have not rejected his petition as premature, because it appears that this mistake has been made and that all that is necessary is for the Subordinate Judge to have the necessary amendments made; and the respondent did not ask me to refuse .the petitioner a hearing. It seems more satisfactory that I should dispose of the matter, both parties being willing, because if I hold the Subordinate Judge right, he can get the amendment made and review his order so as to correct the mistake while if I hold him wrong, it may be that no further proceedings will he necessary in the matter.2. The petitioner is drawing a Salary of Rs. 60 a month. Some years ago a vesting order was made ...
Tippabhotla Lakshmi Narasamma Vs. the Municipal Council of Masulipatam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.808
1. It is found that the plaintiff has shown possession on one side for about nine years and on another for about four years before suit. The plaintiff has had buildings erected on the disputed site for the periods specified above. Notice was given to the Municipality before building and plans were submitted. No objection was taken.2. We think that under the circumstances the burden was rightly thrown upon the Municipality. Has it been discharged? The Subordinate Judge refers to no circumstance which can have that effect. It is said that the plaintiff's house and verandah are a foot or so in advance of the neighbouring house. This by itself is no proof that the plaintiff has encroached. It is not in evidence there is any line of frontage to which all builders of houses should conform. Moreover, the Munsif says that the neighbouring house has steps in front and that the last of the steps is on a line with the plaintiff's house and verandah. The Subordinate Judge says that the plaintiff m...
K. Ramanunni Nair Alias the Moopil Nair of Mannaraghat Vs. Karumathil ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.757
1. This appeal is by the 4th defendant in the action against the decree passed by the District Judge of Coimbatore directing him to pay Rs. 2,154 and interest to the plaintiffs for damages arising out of breach of a certain contract with reference to several logs of rosewood, cedar, and teak sold by the 4th defendant to the plaintiffs. These logs at the time of the sale were in a forest belonging to the 4th defendant and the case of the plaintiffs is that they incurred considerable expense in removing the logs which they had bought and that at a certain Government depot on the way the logs were stopped by the Government Forest Officers, as they bore marks on them of the 5th defendant who claimed the logs as his own. After some correspondence, the logs were eventually made over by the Forest Officer to the 5th defendant on his executing a bond of indemnity. The timber was stopped at the Government depot on the 16th March 1909, the sale having taken place on the 29th October 1899, and on...
Muthia Raja Vs. Appala Raja Minor by His Next Friend, Mangammal and an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1910
Reported in: (1910)20MLJ393
1. There is no ground for S.A. No. 411. It relates to the two-thirds share belonging to the plaintiff and his father. It must be dismissed with costs. S.A. No. 412 relates to the one-third share in the suit properties which was originally the share of the 1st defendant. The mortgage by the 1st defendant was before the partition. At the partition the whole of the suit properties fell to the plaintiff's share. It is not alleged that the partition was otherwise than fair and equal. It was not in fraud of the mortgagee. The authorities are clear that a mortgagee of an undivided share in common property or of one of the joint properties before partition from one of the sharers is only entitled to proceed against the substituted property which falls to the share of the mortgagor at the partition unless the partition has been unfair or is in fraud of the mortgagee. The principle is well explained in Domat's Civil Law, Section 1671. In Byjnath Lall v. Ramoodeen Chowdry (1874) I.L.A. 106 the Pr...
Muthia Raja Vs. Appala Raja and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1910
Reported in: (1911)ILR34Mad175
1. There is no ground for Second Appeal No. 411 It relates to the two-thirds share belonging to the plaintiff and his father. It must be dismissed with costs.2. Second Appeal No. 412 relates to the one-third share in the suit properties which was originally the share of the first defendant. The mortgage by the first defendant was before the partition. At the partition the whole of the suit properties fell to the plaintiff's share. It is not alleged that the partition was otherwise than fair and equal. It was not in fraud of the mortgagee. The authorities are clear that a mortgagee of an undivided share in common property, or of one of the joint properties before partition from one of the sharers, is only entitled to proceed against the substituted property which falls to the share of the mortgagor at the partition, unless the partition has been unfair or is in fraud of the mortgagee. The principle is well explained in Domat's Civil Law, Section 671. In Byjnath Lall v. Ramoodeen Chowdry...
Gopisetti Narayanaswami Naidu Garu Receiver of Nidadavole Estate Vs. K ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.265a
1. This is a suit to recover 94 cents as having been encroached upon by the defendants. The Subordinate Judge finds adverse possession for over the statutory period and dismisses the suit. It is urged, on the authority of Wali Ahmed Chowdhry v. Tota Meah Chowdry 31 C. 397, that the defendants' possession is not adverse because the encroachment is by tenants on land adjoining their holding. Assuming this to be so, we do not see what right the plaintiff has to recover it. The plaint calls it Zeroyati land. That would be ryoti laud under the Estates Land. Act from which the ryot cannot be ejected. Mr. Nagabhushanam says that that description is incorrect and the land is village communal land. If this contention be correct, we do not see what right zamindar has to recover it.2. We must dismiss the second appeal with costs....
Baggiammal Vs. Appadurai Gramany
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.722
Miller, J.1. The respondent was not served with a summons under Section 42 nor was any order made as against him in the first instance. The order of the 18th May was not an order to eject him and as I read the order of the 30th June, the Judge did not do more than decline to interfere on his behalf with the proceedings taken under the original order. Consequently, the respondent was not a party to the order under which he was ejected but a party holding the position of a person other than the judgment-debtor when the case is a case of dispossession under a decree.2. The learned Judge has applied the provision of the Coda of Civil Procedure by virtue of the provision of Section 48, Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, and I am asked to hold that they do not give him jurisdiction so to do and that a person dispossessed under Chapter YII has no remedy but the suits given by Sections 45 and 46. I have not been referred to any authority, bearing on the question but it seems to me that the lan...
Kondapa Rajan and ors. Vs. Dwarakonda Suryanarayna and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1910
Reported in: (1910)20MLJ803
1. The plaintiffs were in enjoyment of a watercourse. For the purpose of this case we may assume that they had not acquired an easement by prescription, for the enjoyment did not extend to 20 years. The defendants who have no manner of right to the water-course or the land over which it flowed, obstructed the plaintiff's user. The District Judge has given the injunction asked for. It is argued by the learned Advocate-General that the plaintiffs not having acquired a complete title they would not be entitled to restrain the defendants from interference. The law is well settled that if the plaintiff was in possession of land for less then the statutory period, he would be entitled to protect that possession against any one but the true owner. We do not think that there is any distinction in principle because the right now claimed to be protected is in the nature of an incorporeal right in process of acquisition. Incorporeal rights are in many cases capable of possession just as much as r...
Kondapa Rajam Naidu and ors. Vs. Devarakonda Suryanarayana and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1910
Reported in: (1911)ILR34Mad173
1. The plaintiffs were in enjoyment of a watercourse. For the purpose of this case, we may assume that they had not acquired an easement by prescription, for the enjoyment did not extend to 20 years. The defendants, who have no manner of right to the watercourse or the land over which it flowed, obstructed the plaintiff's user. The District Judge has given the injunction asked for. It is argued by the learned Advocate-General that the plaintiffs not having acquired a complete title, they would not be entitled to restrain the defendants from interference. The law is well settled that if the plaintiff was in possession of land for less than the statutory period, he would be entitled to protect that possession against any one but the true owner. We do not think That there is any distinction in principle because the right now claimed to be protected is in the nature of an incorporeal right in process of acquisition. Incorporeal rights are in many cases capable of possession just as much as...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »