Chennai Court April 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.
Palla Maruthi Vs. Sagiraju Bangarraju and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.889
1. The decision in O.S. No. 182 of 1904 is pleaded as res judicata. The present 1st and 2nd defendants were co-defendants in that suit. A sister of the present 1st defendant then sued for partition on the ground that the property was inherited from her father by herself and her sisters. No question was then raised about the case of self-acquisition now set up by 1st defendant. The dismissal of the former suit cannot prevent the 1st defendant from setting up his present case. We must overrule the plea of res judicata and dismiss the second appeal with costs....
K.V. Kunhiraman Menon and ors. Vs. Aruthalatkutti and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.173
1. The plaintiffs are mortgagees under a usufructuary mortgage-deed dated the 1st December 1899. The suit is to recover the mortgage money with interest. There is no covenant to pay. The plaintiffs claim to recover the money under Section 68 of the Transfer of Property Act, Clauses (b) and (c). The question is whether the mortgagees have been deprived of the whole or part of their security in consequence of the default of the mortgagors or whether the mortgagee being entitled to possession, the mortgagors have failed to deliver the same to them or to secure possession to them without disturbance by the mortgagor or any other person. We think we must answer the first part of the question in plaintiffs' favour. The facts necessary for the understanding of the question are as follows:-- Amina Umma was the original owner of the property. There was a panayam and puran-kolam executed by her in favour of one Kammali. He had a daughter and sons, one of whom was the deceased Mohamed. Mohamed pu...
M. Narasayya and Eighty Five ors. Vs. Unde Rajaha Raja Sir Raja Velugo ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-1910
Reported in: (1914)ILR37Mad1
Charles Arnold White, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against so much of the decvee in ejectment obtained by him as directs the payment of compensation to certain of the defendants. In cases to which the Transfer of Property Act applies the rights of the tenant are defined by Section 108 (h) of that enactment and the extent of the right is the same in cases not governed by the Act. See Ismail Khan Mahomed v. Jaigun Bibi (1900) I.L.R. 27 Calc. 570. I do not think Section 51 of the Act applies in terms as between landlord and tenant. The observations in Ismai Kani Rowthan v. Nazarali Sahib (1904) I.L.R. 27 Mad. 211 at p. 221, may be said to indicate a contrary view but these observations are very guarded, and they are moreover obiter. Even if the section applied, I do not see how, in this case, it could be said the defendants believed in good faith they were 'absolutely entitled' to the property in question. There have been at least two resumptions of the property by the Zamind...
Rajah of Venkatagiri Vs. Mukku Narsaya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.202
1. This is an appeal by the defendants against a decree obtained by the Rajah of Venkatagiri for recovery of possession of a certain village. Mr. Seshagiri Aiyar on behalf of the appellants has taken the point that, having regard to the fact that the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908, came into force during the pendency of this appeal, the appeal must be decided with reference to the law as laid down in that enactment. The Advocate-General on behalf of the respondent took the objection that this question could not be raised as it was not made a ground of appeal in. the memorandum of appeal. We are of opinion that it is open to Mr. Seshagiri Aiyar to take the point not with standing that the question is not raised in his grounds of appeal.2. Mr. Seshagiri Aiyar contended that an appeal being by way of re-hearing, we should apply the law as it stands at the date of the hearing of the appeal. If we applied that law, he contended, inasmuch as be was, when the Act came into operation, in posses...
Syed Nooroodeen Saib and ors. Vs. Syed Ibrahim Sahib and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1910
Reported in: (1910)20MLJ964
1. The suit is by a Muhammadan for partition of half share of properties both movable and immovable on his wife's death. The defendants, among whom are the other sharers, do not set up adverse possession. Even assuming that possession became adverse at some time within the last 12 years, there is no reason to suppose that it was adverse before the 27th November 1893, while defendants Nos. 27 to 31 were impleaded on the 27th November 1905. We must hold that the suit as regards immovables is not time-barred. In this view, it is unnecessary to express any opinion on the other points argued. But we think that the District Judge was right in holding that the plaintiff was entitled to the deduction of the time spent in prosecuting the suit before the Munsif. The question was one of market-value and the plaintiff paid substantial court-fee. We are not prepared to say that the Judge was wrong in holding that the plaintiff's valuation was bona fide2. Mr. Rangachariar raised an ingenious content...
Syed Noonsleen Saib and ors. Vs. Syed Ibrahim Saib and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.579
1. The suit is by a Muhammadan for partition of half share of properties both movable and immovable on his wife's death. The defendants, among whom are the other sharers, do not set up adverse possession. Even assuming that possession became adverse at some time within the last 12 years, there is no reason to suppose that it was adverse before the 27th November 1893 while defendants Nos. 27 to 31 were impleaded on the 27th November 1905. We must hold that the suit as regards immovables is not time-barred. In this view, it is unnecessary to express any opinion on the other points argued. But we think that the District Judge was right in holding that the plaintiff was entitled to the deduction of the time spent in prosecuting the suit before the Munsif. The question was one of market-value and the plaintiff paid substantial Court-fee. We are not prepared to say that the Judge was wrong in holding that the plaintiff's valuation was bona fide.2. Mr. Rangachariar raised an ingenious content...
Syed Noordeen Sahib and ors. Vs. Syed Ibrahim Sahib and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1910
Reported in: (1911)ILR34Mad74
1. The suit is by a Mahomadan for partition of a half share of properties both moveable and immoveable on his wife's death. The defendants among whom are the other sharers do not set up adverse possession, Even assuming that possession became ad verse at some time within the last 12 years, there is no reason to suppose that it was adverse before the 27th November 1893; while defendants Nos. 27 to 31 were impleaded on the 27th November 1905, We must hold that the suit as regards immoveables is not time barred. In this view it is unnecessary to express any opinion on the other points argued. But we think that the District Judge was right in holding that the plaintiff was entitled to the deduction of the time spent in prosecuting the suit before the Munsif- The question was one of market value and the plaintiff paid a substantial court fee. We are not prepared to say that the Judge was wrong in holding that the plaintiff's valuation was bond fide,2. Mr. Rangachariar raised an ingenious co...
Sree Rajah Venkata Rangaya Appa Row Bahadur, Zamindar of Nuzvid Vs. Ta ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.230
Sankaran Nair, J.1. The plaintiff's case in the plaint is that without his consent the defendant took water from his tank, raised a wet crop on his land and enjoyed it and he is, therefore, entitled to claim water-cess which, as it is not claimed under any statute or contract, means, I presume, damages.2. The defendant denied taking any water from the tank to his land and in fact that there was any water in the tank.3. It appears to have been admitted by the defendant that when any crop is raised with the aid of tank water, then a teerwa at the rate of Rs. 5 an acre is paid by him.4. The Munsif simply states that there was no crop for want of water and, therefore, the defendant is not liable to pay. The case cannot be disposed of on this finding only.5. If there is a contract express or implied, under which the defendant is entitled to take water, then the plaintiff's permission is not necessary and the question will he whether the defendant is bound to pay under the contract for the w...
Raja Ramachandra Appa Row Bahadur Garu and ors. Vs. the Sey. of State ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1910
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ678
Charles Arnold White, Kt., C.J.1. This is a suit in which the plaintiff claims a refund of watercess and a declaration that the lands for which the cess has been paid are not liable to water-cess. The Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit and the plaintiff appeals. The claim for a declaration was not pressed in appeal.2. Water-cess on the lands in question was collected in 1895, but it was refunded on the ground that it had been illegally collected - see the order of the Tahsildar (Ex. LL) dated the 18th June 1895. This order states that the order for the refund of the tax was made by 'the Collector.' The order of the officer who directed the refund, on the ground that the cess had been illegally collected, is not in evidence.3. Nothing appears to have been done till March, 1903, when the Collector served a notice on the plaintiff to show cause why water-tax should not be levied on the land in question. Subsequently the Collector made an order directing that 'single' water-tax should be...
Sree Rajah Venkatarangayya Appa Row Bahadur Zamindar Vs. Poranki Appal ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1910
Reported in: (1910)20MLJ728
1. It is contended by the Government Pleader that on the finding that the inams were granted before the settlement, and at the time of the settlement were exempt from the payment of any rent to the Zemindar and held on condition of doing service for him, a presumption arises that the land is lakhiraj within the meaning of Section 4 of Regulation XXV of 1802. This contention is based on Forbes v. Meer Mahomed Tuquee (1870) 13 M.I.A. 438, There it was held, at page 457, that the land there in question being held rent free at the date of the settlement could presumably be treated as lakhiraj. But the lands in that case were held under Sanads granted by the Government, and not as here by the Zemindar. In the case before us the findings are that the inams were granted by the Zamindar Narasimha Apparow before the Permanent Settlement as reward or emoluments for private services rendered to him on condition that they should be held so long as the services continued to be rendered. We are unab...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »