Chennai Court December 1912 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 Collect ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1912
Reported in: (1915)ILR38Mad108
Sadasiva Ayyar, J.1. The appellant is the Secretary of State for India in Council. The suit as amended was for possession of padugai land on the banks of the Cauvery from the defendant (appellant). The District Munsif found that the whole village of Kadiakurichi in the Trichinopoly taluk belonged to the plaintiff as inamdar, that the grant to the plaintiff included poramboke land and the plaint land bounded on the north by the Cauvery stream bed was included in the 'poramboke granted to the plaintiff and that the plaintiff's title was therefore established. But he dismissed the suit on the ground that the Government by occasionally cutting branches from the trees standing on the ground, had been in adverse possession as against the plaintiff for twelve years before suit, and the plaintiff's suit was therefore barred. On appeal the learned District Judge confirmed the Munsif's finding as to title but differed on the question of adverse possession and holding that the plaintiff was exerc...
This Secretary of State for India in Council, Represented by the Colle ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1912
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.41
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The appellant is the Secretary of State for India in Council. The suit as amended was for possession of padugai land on the banks of the Cauvery from the defendant (appellant). The District Munsif found that the whole village of Kadiakurichi in the Trichinopoly taluk belonged to the plaintiff as inamdar, that the grant to the plaintiff included poramboke land, and the plaint land bounded on the north by the Cauvery stream-bed was included in the poramboke granted to the plaintiff and that the plaintiff's title was, therefore, established. But he dismissed the suit on the ground that the Government, by occasionally cutting branches from the trees standing on the ground, had been in adverse possession as against the plaintiff for 12 years before suit, and the plaintiff's suit was, therefore, barred. On appeal, the learned District Judge confirmed the Munsif's finding as to title but differed on the question of adverse possession and holding that the plaintiff was exe...
S. Devanai and ors. Vs. K. Ragunatha Row
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-1912
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.299
1. These are suits by the zemindar of Rudeer in the District of Tinnevelly to enforce acceptance of pattas against the defendants, who are his ryots in the villages of Kurnmaypatti, Arunachellapuram Muttupatti and Kambathupatti. The disputes between the parties relate to the liability of the defendants to pay russum and vattam. The defendant also contended that pattas for the year in question, namely, Fasli 1317, had not been tendered by the mittadar prior to the institution of the suit. This question was decided in favour of the plaintiff by both the Courts below, and we see no reason for not accepting this finding. The District Judge deals with the question, no doubt, somewhat briefly but evidently he addressed himself chiefly to the arguments urged before him by the defendants. There is no doubt that he intended to accept the finding of the Divisional Officer that the plaintiff had proved that pattas had been tendered. The Judge held that the question of the liability of the defenda...
Marangami Rowthen Vs. Karupati Nagur Meera Labbai Rowthen and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1912
Reported in: (1913)24MLJ258
1. The facts necessary for the decision of this Second Appeal may very briefly be stated. Vavukhan Rowther, a Mahomedan, had two wives. The plaintiffs are his sons by his junior wife. By his senior wife he had a son named Nagore Meeranna who died in 1906. The plaintiffs' suit is to recover their share by inheritance in the property of Nagore Meeranna. They put forward two instruments; one of them was a deed of gift, under which item No. 1 of the plaint properties was claimed as belonging to Nagore Meeranna, executed by his natural grand-mother, and the other a deed of settlement executed by Vavukhan in favour of his senior wife, the 1st defendant and his son Nagore Meeranna. The defendants contended that possession was not given under the deed of gift, that it was therefore invalid and that the property therefore did not belong to Nagore Meeranna. This plea has been found against by both the Lower Courts and as there is no legal objection to that finding we must accept it in Second App...
Devarayan Chetty Vs. V.K.M. Mutturaman Chetty and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1912
Reported in: (1914)ILR37Mad393
Charles Arnold White, Kt., C.J.1. The agreement which is sued on in this case was entered into between the plaintiff and two of the relatives of one Cellayappa Chetty. The effect is clearly stated in paragraph 5 of the judgment of the Subordinate Judge.The agreement was that the plaintiff's daughter should be married to Cellayappa's son on the 18th January 1903 and should be given usual jewel and streedhanam, etc., in the usual manner, and that in exchange Cellayappa Chetty's daughter, apparently then too young, to be married, should be given in marriage in three years from the date of the plaintiff's daughter's marriage, i.e., on or before January 1906, and that in default of either, the plaintiff to accept that girl or of Cellayappa's relations and the defendants to give her in marriage, the defaulter, i.e., the plaintiff or the defendants, as the case may be, should pay the other Rs. 5,000 in case of the plaintiff's default, with interest from 1906 January, and in case of the defaul...
Meerangani Rowther Vs. Karupathi Nagur Meera Lubbai Rowther and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1912
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.185
1. The facts necessary for the decision of this second appeal may very briefly be stated. Vavuthan Ravuthar, a Muhammadan, had two wives. The plaintiffs are his sons by his junior wife. By his senior wife, he had a son, named Nagoor Meeranna, who died in 1906. The plaintiffs' suit is to recover their share by inheritance in the property of Nagoor Meeranna. They put forward two instruments; one of them was a deed of gift, under which item No. 1 of the plaint properties was claimed as belonging to Nagoor Meeranna, executed by his maternal grand-mother, and the other a deed of settlement executed by Vavuthan in favour of his senior wife, the 1st defendant and her son Nagoor Meeranna. The defendants contended that possession was not given under the deed of gift, that it was, therefore, invalid and that the property, therefore, did not belong to Nagoor Meeranna This plea has been found against by both the lower Courts, and, as there is no legal objection to that finding, we must accept it i...
Ramakrishna Chetty Vs. Subbaraya Aiyar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-1912
Reported in: (1913)24MLJ54
1. The question for decision in this case is one of limitation. The suit is by a land-holder for recovery from a ryot of rent for Fasli 1315 ending on the 13th June 1906. It was instituted in a Revenue Court (before the Sub-Collector of Hosur) after the Estates Land Act came into force. More than three years, but less than six years, had elapsed at the time of the institution of the suit after the rent became due. Both the Lower Courts held that the suit was barred by limitation under part A, Article 8 of the Schedule to the Estates Land Act, I of 1908, which provides a period of three years from the date the rent became due.2. The contention in second appeal is that the rent being due under a registered instrument and six years having been allowed for such a suit according to the decisions of this Court holding article 116 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act to be applicable to such a suit, and the Estates Land Act having come into force (on 1st July 1908) only after the 3 years all...
Ramakrishna Chetty Vs. Subraya Iyer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-1912
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.64
1. The question for decision in this case is one of limitation. The suit is by a land-holder for recovery from a ryot of rent for Fasli 1315 ending on the 13th June 1903. It was instituted in a Revenue Court (before the Sub-Collector of Husur) after the Estates Land Act came into force. More than three years, but less than six years, had elapsed at the time of the institution of the suit after the rent became due. Both the lower Courts held that the suit was barred by limitation under Part A, Article 8 of the Schedule to the Estates Land Act I of 1908 which provides a period of three years from the date the rent became due.2. The contention in second appeal is that the rent being due under a registered instrument and six years having been allowed for such a suit according to the decisions of this Court, holding Article 116 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act to be applicable to such a suit, and the Estates Land Act having come into force (on 1st July 1908) only after the three years ...
Kaliappa Gownden, Minor, by Next Friend, Mari Gownden Vs. Deivasigaman ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-03-1912
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.27
ORDER1. The District Judge finds the price for which the land was sold was not unduly low. He farther feeds that the lands purchased by the guardian with the funds obtained by the sale of the plaint land were worth only Rs. 300. He says that 'the fact that the purchase money was not properly invested can not be used to the detriment of defendants Nos. 1 and 2 who duly paid it over to the guardian.' But we cannot hold that, if a guardian sells lands worth Rs. 850 and buys other lands worth Rs. 300, such a transaction can be regarded as beneficial to the minor. The vendee would at least be bound to show that after making due inquiries he believed that the purchase-money was intended to be used for a purpose which would make the sale beneficial to the minor. We express no opinion at the present stage on the question whether, if the vendee succeeded in proving this, the sale by the guardian could be upheld, if in fact the sale was not beneficial to the minor.2. With respect to the question...
Lodd Govindoss Vs. Ramdoss Vishnu Doss
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-1912
Reported in: (1913)24MLJ88
1. This case comes before us in somewhat curious form. It is an appeal by the judgment-debtor against an order of Mr. Justice Bakewell dismissing an application by the judgment-creditor's alleged legal representative for an order in the terms of an alleged compromise which modified the terms of a decree which had been obtained by the judgment-creditors. Mr. Justice Bakewell dismissed the application on the ground that Order XXIII did not apply to execution proceedings (See Rule 4.) 'We agree with Mr. Justice Bakewell. Mr. Justice Bakewell also referred to Order XXI Rule 2 and he held with regard to this rule, that, as it relates only to payment or adjustment of a decree and a record thereof being made by the Court, it appeared to negative the recognition by the executing court of anything less than the payment or adjustment. Before us the argument has turned upon the construction of Order XXI Rule 2(1) and it has been contended on behalf of the judgment-debtor that Mr. Justice Bakewell...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »