Chennai Court August 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.
The Secretary of State for India in Council, Represented by the Collec ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1911
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ947
1. This appeal arises out of a dispute as to fishery rights in two channels in the Tanjore District claimed by the first defendant, the head of the Tiruppanandal Mutt. The plaintiff was A man who had taken a lease of the fishery rights in these and other channels from Government; and being obstructed in the exercise of his rights in respect of these channels by the first defendant, he filed this suit impleading not only the first defendant but also the Secretary of State as the 2nd defendant. In his plaint he prayed for an injunction restraining the first defendant from interfering with the fishery in the plaint channels and for damages caused to him (the plaintiff) by such interference and he added an alternative prayer that in case it was found that the first defendant was not liable for the aforesaid damages the second defendant should be directed to pay them.2. The Munsif dismissed his suit in toto and ordered him to pay the costs of both the defendants. He appealed to the Subordin...
Ragunatha Chariar Vs. Sadagopa Chariar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1911
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ983
1. In this case the plaintiff instituted a suit for the recovery from the defendant of a sum of money which the latter had agreed to pay to two persons, Alamelu Annual and Sreenivasa Gopala Chariar, as consideration for the transfer 10 him by the plaintiff of two decrees in O.S. bi and 63 of 1902 in the District Munsif's Court of Valangiman. The plaintiff alleged that th'e defendant failed to pay the amounts due to the two persons named above and that he himself had 10 pay them. The contract of assignment was dated 281U January 1904 and tins suit was instituted on the 16th July 1907. The amount due to the said two persons was in fact paid by the plaintiff's brother and not by the plaintiff himself. The plaint alleged that the plaintiff had made good the amount to his brother by some adjustment with him. Both the lower courts have disbelieved the adjustment and dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff has no cause of action to recover the amount as he has not yet sustained any dama...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›