Chennai Court November 1911 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.
Gopal Row Gady Ram Sahib Vs. Veerappan Servaikaran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.95
Abdur Rahim, J.1. What happened in this case was this. The plaintiff was entitled to some money from the defendant on settlement of accounts, aid the defendant to secure the amount due, executed the promissory-note sued on. By a mistake of the writer, the name of the plaintiff's father was written as the person in whose favour it was executed instead of the plaintiff's name. The plaintiff's father was dead and his name was inserted by mistake, the parties intending all the time that the plaintiff was to be the promisee The Subordinate Judge has non-suited the plaintiff on the ground that a suit for rectification of the promissory-note must be first brought and the instrument rectified before he can institute the suit. A suit for rectification of document is not, cognizable by the Small Cause Court, but I do not see the necessity for such a suit. The case of the plaintiff is, that, he is in fact the promisee and was intended to be such, but only his father's name has been entered by mis...
Nechooli Parie Amma Vs. Chathanadath KalassIn Kunhikandan Alias Mootho ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1911
Reported in: (1912)22MLJ221
1. The question raised in this case is whether the defendants holding the lands sought to be recovered in the suit on a kanom executed in the year 1884, are disentitled under the terms of the kanom instrument, Exhibit A, to recover compensation for chamayams or buildings worth more than Rs. 25. The first defendant is the purchaser in court auction of the kanom right. The second defendant is a sub-mortgagee under the original kanomdar holding under a document executed by him before the date of Exhibit A (Exhibit A being the renewal of an earlier kanom). The 6th defendant is found by the lower appellate court to have constructed his buildings worth more than Rs. 25 about the year 1883. The 13th and 14th defendants who also raised buildings worth more than Rs. 25 obtained an assignment of a portion of the lands included in the kanom in 1907, shortly before the suit. The lower courts held that the defendants mentioned above were not bound by the terms of Exhibit A which they held would dis...
Neechooh Paru Amma Vs. Chathanadath Kalasseri Kunhikandan Alias Mootho ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1911
Reported in: (1913)ILR36Mad410
1. The question raised in this case is whether the defendants holding the lands sought to be recovered in the suit on a kanom executed in the year 1884 are disentitled under the terms of the kanom instrument, Exhibit A, to recover compensation for chamayams or buildings worth more than Rs. 25. The first defendant is the purchaser in court-auction of the kanom right. The second defendant is a sub-mortgagee under the original kanomdar holding under a document executed by him before the date of Exhibit A (Exhibit A being the renewal of an earlier kanom). The sixth defendant is found by the Lower Appellate Court to have constructed his buildings worth more than Rs. 25 about the year 1883. The thirteenth and fourteenth defendants who also raised buildings worth more than Rs. 25 obtained an assignment of a portion of the lands included in the kanom in 1907, shortly before the suit. The Lower Courts held that the defendants mentioned above were not bound by the terms of Exhibit A which, they ...
Velluvakandi Kunhi Pathumma Vs. Ponnankki Moosan Mammad
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.300
1. The Judge has found that the usual practice amongst the Moplahs of North Malabar following the Marumakathayam, law is for a married woman to live in her tarwad house, though there are many instances where the wife goes to live with her husband in his own house, but he holds that as the wife's right to maintenance is derived by her from the Muharnmadan law she must take it subject to the obligation under that law to live with the husband in his own house if he requires her to do so. We agree in this view. Besides, the custom of living in the tarwad house cannot be said to be anything more than a social usage and does not carry any legal consequences. The result is that the second appeal must be dismissed with costs....
Veera Ambalam (Died), Vs. Karuppayya Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-1911
Reported in: 19Ind.Cas.386; (1913)24MLJ511
1. We are of opinion that a sale for arrears of water cess would convey a title to the purchaser free of encumbrances. 'Public Revenue' is denned in Section I of Act II of 1864 to include cesses payable to Government on account of water supplied for irrigation and therefore includes the cess payable under Act VII of 1865. Section 42 of Act II of 1864 - declares that all lands brought to sale on account of arrears of revenue shall be sold free of all encumbrances. The plaintiff in this suit therefore obtained a title free of the appellant's mortgage. The cases relating to sales for arrears of income, and abkari revenue have no bearing on the question before us. It is further urged that the sale for arrears of water cess was invalid, as no notice was given to the inamdar. But this point was not raised in either of the lower courts even if it was open to the appellant to raise it.2. The second appeal is dismissed with costs....
Vellappayal Ambalam and Two ors. Vs. Karuppiah Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-1911
Reported in: (1914)ILR37Mad49
1. We are of opinion that a sale for arrears of water-cess would convey a title to the purchaser free of encumbranees. 'Public revenue' is defined in Section 1 of Act II of 1864 to include cesses payable of Government on account of water supplied for irrigation and therefore includes the cess payable under Act VII of 1865. Section 42 of Act II of 1864 declares that all lands brought to sale on account of arrears of revenue shall be sold free of all encumbrances. The plaintiff in this suit therefore obtained a title free of the appellant's mortgage. The cases relating to sales for arrears of income-tax and abkari revenne have no bearing on the question before us. It is further urged that the sale for arrears of water-cess was invalid, as no notice was given to the inamdar. But this point was not raised in either of the lower Courts even if it was open to the appellant to raise it.2. The Second Appeal is dismissed with costs....
Cuddaparazu Anantarazu and ors. Vs. Cuddaparazu Narayanarazu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-1911
Reported in: (1912)22MLJ108
1. We think that the decree of the lower appellate court cannot be sustained. The learned Advocate--General for the appellant, though admitting that the attachment of the 29th November 1898, was an invasion of the plaintiffs' right and gave a cause of action for a declaratory suit has, we think rightly, contended that the sale on the 30th June 1906 was a fresh invasion of the plaintiffs' right and gave a fresh cause of action The District Judge has referred to a second attachment but apparently the first attachment was not discharged, and the Advocate-General does not base his argument on any allegation that the sale was not in pursuance of the original attachment of the 29th November 1898. Nor is it contended that the attachment is a continuing wrong ; but we think that the sale ought properly to be regarded as a fresh and greater invasion of the plaintiffs' right, so as to give a fresh cause of action. The sale, though held in pursuance of the attachment, was not a necessary conseque...
Komma Somakka Vs. Kovidalu Pedda Ramiah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-1911
Reported in: (1912)22MLJ193
Abdur Rakim, J.1. In this case we are asked to revise by way of appeal, or under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code, an order made by the District Judge of Cuddapah npon a petition presented to him under Sections 24 and 43, Guardians and Wards Act, by the guardian of a certain Hindu female minor praying for permission to give the minor in marriage to a certain person mentioned in the petition, and for an order directing the appellant in this appeal, who is the surviving widow of the father of the minor girl and in possession of his estate, to pay Rs. 800 for the expenses of the contemplated marriage. The appellant appeared in answer to the notice and pleaded that, under the circumstances mentioned in her counter-petition, she was not liable to make any payment, and that the proposed marriage was not suitable. She took no objection to the jurisdiction of the District Court to make any order against her on the petition, and after hearing the pleaders on both sides the court passed the ord...
Sengoda Goundan Vs. Varadappan Alias Raju Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-1911
Reported in: (1912)22MLJ201
1. In this case the plaintiff (appellant) held a pattah for certain trees on land in certain survey fields, and the defendants (respondents) held the pattah for the land. The plaintiff had possession of the trees for more than twenty years prior to 1906. In that year, the Revenue authorities cancelled the pattah which they had given to the plaintiff. The defend, ants then interfered with the plaintiff's enjoyment of the trees and deprived him of their possession. The plaintiff therefore brought this suit to recover possession of the trees and for mesne profits.2. The District Munsif gave him a decree but the District Judge reversed it on appeal and dismissed the suit. We think the decree of the District Munsif is right.3. The successive Standing Orders of the Board of Revenue Madras, in regard to tree pattahs are found at pages 5, 6 and 7 of Maclean's Edition of 1878, and at pages 36 and 40 of the Government Editions of 1900 and 1907 respectively.4. The respective rights of parties in ...
Sengoda Gounden Vs. Varadappan Alias Rasa Gounden and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.39
1. In this case the plaintiff (appellant) held a patta for certain trees on land in certain survey fields and the defendants (respondents) held the patta for the land. The plaintiff had possession of the trees for more than 20 years prior to 1903. In that year the Revenue authorities cancelled the patta which they had given to the plaintiff. The defendants then interfered with the plaintiff's enjoyment of trees and deprived him of their possession. The plaintiff, therefore, brought this suit to recover possession of the trees and for mesne profits.2. The District Munsif gave him a decree but the District Judge reversed it on appeal and dismissed the suit. We think the decree of the District Munsif is right.3. The successive standing orders of the Board of Revenue, Madras, in regard to tree pattat are found at pages 5, 6 and 7 of Maclean's Edition of 1878, and at pages 36 and 40 of the Government Editions of 1900 and 1907, respectively.4. The respective rights of parties in the position...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »