Chennai Court April 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.
Gopalasami Ayyar Vs. Subramania Sastri
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-1911
Reported in: (1912)ILR35Mad636
1. The plaintiff handed over the jewel to the defendant to procure a loan for the plain biff The defendant obtained the loan. After the plaintiff had paid it off, the defendant who had get back the jewel retained possession of it. The plaintiff' made a demand on defendant for the return of it by Exhibit B on 18th August, 1904. The defendant's refusal to return was on 29th April 1906 (Exhibit III) and the suit was instituted on 18th February, 1908, i.e., within three years after the defendant's refusal. The plaint does not allege that there was an agreement that the jewel should remain in deposit with the defendant after the repayment of the loan. Article 145 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908, would therefore apparently to inapplicable. But the defendant must be taken to have held possession of the jewel on behalf of the plaintiff until the date of Exhibit III. We are therefore of opinion that under Article 49 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908, the suit is not barred by limitation. We...
Sreepada Venkataramanna Alias Venkata Surya Narayana Moorthi Vs. Sreep ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-1911
Reported in: (1912)ILR35Mad592
1. We agree with the lower Courts that the mere fabrication of an authority to adopt will not entitle the reversioner to claim a declaration that the authority is not genuine. The deed of authority by itself cannot affect the plaintiff's right to any property, though the further act of adoption in pursuance of the authority would. The authority is not the proximate cause of any injury to the plaintiff's right. Section 42 of the Specific Belief Act does not authorise such a suit and we think it would be going too far to hold that a document which is merely a preparation for a distinct and separate act which may give the plaintiff a right to declaratory relief would by itself entitle him to ask for a declaration. The observations cited from Brindaban Chandra Shaha v. Sureswar Shaha Pramanioh (1909) 10 C.L.J. 263 must be understood in connection with the facts of that ease. We dismiss the second appeal with costs....
Sri Raja V.N. Appa Rao Bahadur Vs. P. Naganna and
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-1911
Reported in: (1913)ILR36Mad7
Ayling, J.1. These are suits for rent of private lands as defined in Section 3(10) of the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908; and the only question is whether they are cognizable by a revenue or by a civil court. The exact scope and meaning of Section 19 of the Act are not altogether free from doubt; but it appears to me that in the absence of any provision corresponding to Section 134 it must be held to bar the application of Section 189, under which jurisdiction is vested in the revenue Courts.2. The Subordinate Judge will restore the plaints to file and dispose of them according to law. Costs will follow the result....
Acha Ranganaikammall Vs. Acha Ramanuja Aiyangar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1911
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ600
1. This is a reference by the Presidency Small Cause Court in a suit instituted by the mother of a minor Hindu girl against the undivided coparceners of her father to recover the expenses of the girl's marriage defrayed by the mother.2. The question referred to this Court is : 'Is the widow of a deceased member of an undivided Hindu family entitled to per form the marriage of a daughter of the deceased, when the father of the deceased and the other male members of the family have not wrongly or improperly refused to perform such marriage, and to recover the reasonable expenses of such marriage out of the joint family property?' The letter of reference sets out the facts as follows:The plaintiff is the widow of one Sudarsana Aiyangar deceased, who was the son of the first defendant and brother of the other defendants and undivided from them. Plaintiff had a daughter Lakshmi by the deceased, aged 10, who was asked in marriage for one Sundar Ramanuja Aiyangar. The marriage was agreed upon...
A. Ranganaiki Ammal Vs. A. Ramanuja Aiyangar and Five ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1911
Reported in: (1912)ILR35Mad728
1. This is a reference by the Presidency Small Cause Court in a suit instituted by the mother of a minor Hindu girl against the undivided coparceners of her father to recover the expenses of the girl's marriage defrayed by the mother. The question referred to this Court is: 'Is the widow of a deceased member of an undivided Hindu family entitled to perform the marriage of a daughter of the deceased, when the father of the deceased and the other male members of the family have not wrongly or improperly refused to perform such marriage and to recover the reasonable expenses of such marriage out of the joint family property, The letter of reference sets out the facts as follows:The plaintiff is the widow of one Sudarsna Aiyangar, deccased, who was the son of the first defendant and brother of the other defendants and undivided from them. Plaintiff had a daughter Likshmi by the deceased, aged 10, who was asked in marriage for one Sundara Ramanuja Aiyangar, The marriage was agreed upon by a...
Rama Aiyar and anr. Vs. P.S. Saminatha Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-1911
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ442
ORDERAyling, J.1. The only point for decision is whether the suit is exempted from the jurisdiction of a Small Cause Court by reason of Article 31 of Schedule II of Act IX of 1887.2. From the plaint it seems to me that the suit must be regarded as one for damages for a single act of trespass, the said damages being measured by the landlord's share of the standing crop to which the plaintiffs were entitled and which the defendants carried away. It is not denied that the plaintiffs were in possession (under a Razinama decree) prior to the trespass and there is no allegation that the defendants remained in possession at the time of suit.3. On this view I consider the case to be similar to that dealt with in Annamalai v. Subramania Iyer I.L.R. (1892) M. 298 and the suit to be cognizable by a Small Cause Court. I do not find anything in Savirimuthu v. Aithurusee Rowther I.L.R. (1901) 25 M. 103 incompatible with this. The 1st respondent's vakil refers me to the case of Venkoba Rao v. Muthu I...
Muthurakkoo thevan and ors. Vs. Robert Gordon Orr and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-1911
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ615
1. The District Judge has found that the defendants have acquired a prescriptive right of tenancy to the excess lands claimed by the plaintiffs. We accept the finding. Mr. Rungachariar contends that as the Judge has not found that the plaintiffs or their predecessors in interest were aware more than 12 years before this suit of the encroachment made by their tenants the defendants cannot be taken to have acquired a prescriptive right. His argument is that a tenant who encroaches upon his lessor's land adjoining the land leased to him must prove that he set up to the knowledge of his lessor more than 12 years prior to the suit in ejectment a right to hold the land encroached on as a tenant. We are unable to uphold this argument. Unquestionably the ordinary rule of law is that possession held by a person in his own right is adverse to the true owner, whether the owner is aware of such possession being taken or not, and if the adverse possession be continued for the statutory period, it w...
Ramaiyar and anr. Vs. P.S. Samimatha Ayyar and Three ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-1911
Reported in: (1912)ILR35Mad726
1. The only point for decision is whether the suit is exempted from the jurisdiction of a Small Cause Court by reason of Article 31 of schedule II of Act IX of 1887.2. From the plaint it seems to me that the suit must be regarded as one for damages for a single act of trespass, the said damages, being measured by the landholder's share of the standing crop to which the plaintiffs were entitled and which the defendants carried away. It is not denied that the plaintiffs were in possession (under a razinama decree) prior to the trespass and there is no allegation that the defendants remained in possession at the time of suit.3. On this view I consider the ease to be similar to that dealt with in Annamalai v. Subramanyan I.L.R. (1892) Mad. 298 and the suit to be cognisable by a Small Cause Court. I do not find anything in Savarimuthu v. Aithurusu Rowthar I.L.R. (1902) Mad. 103 incompatible with this. The first respondent's vakil refers me to the case of Venkoba Rao v. Muthu Aiyar : (1908)1...
A. Gopala Aiyar Vs. Ramaswamy Sastrigal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-1911
Reported in: (1912)22MLJ207
1. The District Judge has found a personal agreement by the defendant with the plaintiff to pay certain debts owing by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has paid these debts-The date of the agreement was January 15th, 1898, and the suit was instituted on December 5th, 1904. The question is: Is the plaintiff's claim to recover under the agreement in respect of the debts paid within three years from the institution of the suit barred by the law of limitation?2. The contention on behalf of the plaintiff was that his cause of action arose on the dates of payment of the several debts, which the defendant had agreed to pay. The defendant's contention was that the plaintiff's cause of action arose on the repudiation of his liability under the contract by the defendant, or on the breach of the contract by the defendant, the breach to be deemed to have occurred on the expiry of a reasonable time from the date of the contract (Section 49 of the Indian Contract Act.)3. The District Judge finds against...
Angammall Vs. Malic Mahomed Saeed Aslami Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-1911
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ891
Charles Arnold White, Kt., C.J.1. I think Wallis, J., was right. The facts are stated in his judgment. I need not repeat them.2. I am not satisfied that Sir Barnes Peacock, in the passage in his judgment in In the matter of the petition of Thakoorchand Parmanick (1866) B.L.R. 595, which is cited in Ismai Kani Rowthan v. Nazarali Sahib I.L.R. (1903) M. p. 211 , intended to lay down that, in cases where the builder did not remove material before the expiry of his lease, the option in the owner of the soil to take the building was an option which he could only exercise subject to the payment of compensation to the builder. There is a passage on page 217 of Sir Bhashyam Iyengars judgment in Ismai Kani Rowthan v. Nazarali Sahib I.L.R. (1903) M. p. 211 : 'According to the customary or common law of the land, as laid down in In the matter of petition of Thakoorchand Parmanick (1866) B.L.R. 595, the option in such cases will be with the lessor either to take the building on paying compensation...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »