Chennai Court March 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.
Tiruvandhipuram Lakshmi Kumara Akkulu Nayanim Varu, Zemindar of Chitte ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.563
1. We accept the findings of the District Judge on the first two points referred to him: that is, that both the sinking of the wells and the payment of the garden rates must be referred to some period prior to Fasli 1290, but how long before, it is impossible to say in either case.2. The third point was, 'whether the defendants were paying garden rates before the wells were sunk.' On this the District Judge says there is practically no evidence and he can come to no definite conclusion, although he considers it 'not unlikely that the garden rates and the sinking of the wells were contemporaneous.' We cannot treat this very guarded surmise ns a finding and can only take it that no finding is possible.3. In these circumstances, what conclusion should be arrived at? In our opinion, the landlord's claim must be allowed.4. The salient feature in this case, which at once distinguishes it from the cases relied on by the respondents, Fischer v. Kamakshi Pillai 21 M.k 136; Aruwugam Chetti v. Ra...
Palampetiyan Nelukullathil Unni Moyan Vs. Palampetiyan Nelukullathil K ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.259a
1. In a suit brought by the plaintiff for partition and recovery of her share under the Muhammadan Law from the defendants, the other sharers, a preliminary decree was passed by the Munsif declaring the shares to which the plaintiff and the various defendants were severally entitled, directing the partition by metes and bounds and delivery to each of them of his or her share of the property. This decree was, with some modification, confirmed on appeal. Before the properties were actually divided by the Commissioner, the plaintiff applied to withdraw the suit. Her application was granted by the Munsif and the suit was dismissed. The Subordinate Judge has set aside this decree in appeal and directed the Munsif to pass a final decree so far as those defendants are concerned, who, having obtained a decree for partition, object to the suit being now dismissed. The 1st defendant, who is in possession of the properties, has tiled that appeal. It is contended before us that under Order XXIII, ...
Subba Chariar Vs. Muthuveeran Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1912
Reported in: (1913)24MLJ545
1. The District Judge of Coimbatore has held that the application of the appellant, decree-holder, dated 12-7-09 praying for an order directing sale of the properties set out in the schedule appended to the application which along with some of the items were attached in pursuance of a previous petition No. 2 of 1904 is barred by limitation because the application was made more than 3 years after an order dated 26-7-04 by which the petition 2 of 1904 was dismissed for non-prosecution inasmuch as that petition not only contained a prayer for attachment which was in fact granted but also a prayer for sale and the appellant failed to produce a draft proclamation. It appears however that on 30-9-07 some of the items attached under E. P. 2 of 1904 were brought to sale on an application made sometime in 1908 on the footing that the attachment untill subsisted in spite of the order of dismissal passed on 26-7-04. The present application is within 3 years of the application of 1908. The learned...
Netumprakkot, Vs. Netumprakkot Kunnath and Veethil Govinda Menon
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1912
Reported in: (1912)22MLJ485
1. The plaintiff is the appellant before us in the second appeal. As Karnavans of a Malabar Tarwad he brought this suit for the recovery of Tarwad money (Rs 3000) which the defendant (a junior member of the Tarwad) has been withholding from him (the plaintiff) the defendant having denied the plaintiff's title to receive that amount as Tarwad money from the 6th Nov. 1906 to the plaintiff's knowledge. The cause of action is stated in the 7th paragraph of the plaint to have accrued on the 6th Nov. 1906. The suit was brought on 30th Sep. 1909.2. The facts have been found in the plaintiff's favour by the Lower Courts and the only question we have to decide is whether, on these facts, the suit is barred or not, the Lower Courts having dismissed the suit as barred.3. The Lower Courts have held that either Article 61 or Article 81 of the Second Schedule to the Limitation Act, applies to a suit 'for money payable to the plaintiff for money paid for the defendant.' The plaintiff in this case did...
N.K. Sankunni Menon Vs. N.K. Govinda Menon
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1912
Reported in: (1914)ILR37Mad381
1. The plaintiff is the appellant before us m the Second Appeal. As karnavan of a Malabar tarwad he brought this suit for the recovery of tarwad money (Rs. 3,000) which the defendant (a junior member of the tarwad) has been withholding from him (the plaintiff), the defendant having denied the plaintiff's title to recover that amount as tarwad money from the 6th November 1906 to the plaintiff's knowledge. The cause of action is stated in the seventh paragraph of the plaint to have accrued on the 6th November 1906. The suit was brought on the 30th September 1909.2. The facts have been found in the plaintiff's favour by the lower Courts and the only question we have to decide is whether, on those facts, the suit is barred or not, the lower Courts having dismissed the suit as barred.3. The lower Courts have held that either Article 61 or Article 81 of the second schedule to the Limitation Act applies. Article 61 applies to a suit 'for money payable to the plaintiff for money paid for the d...
Kattick Ramunni 1st Grade Pleader, District Court Vs. Udayamangalath M ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.279
1. The suit which has given rise to this appeal was instituted by the, plaintiff as Karnavan and Manager of Meethala Kavilagam to recover from the defendant, who is a 1st grade Pleader of Tellichery, a Government promissory-note for Rs. 10,000 which originally belonged to one Karalavarma, who died on the 21st day of January 1893 in North Malabar and whom the plaintiff succeeded as the head of the Methala Kavilagam. The defendant claims title to the note as having received it from one Utharamal Shamburan of Mariapalli Kavilagam for whom he acted as Pleader in several suits, on the understanding that he might take the fees due to him out of its sale-proceeds and he also resists the suit on the ground that the pro-note in question being under attachment in the territory of Travancore, which is a Foreign Stale, by an order of a Travancore Court, the District Court of North Malabar had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and on various other grounds which, in the view we take of the effec...
Netumprakkot Kumath Veetil Sankunni Menon Vs. Nelumprokkotti Kumath Ve ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.254
1. The plaintiff is the appellant before us in the second appeal. As Karnavan of the Malabar Tarwad, he brought this suit for the recovery of Tarwad-money (Rs. 3,000) which the defendant (a junior member of the Tarwad) has been witholding from him (the plaintiff), the defendant having denied the plaintiff's title to recover the amount as Tarwad-money from 6th November 1906 to the plaintiff's knowledge. The cause of action is stated in the 7th paragraph of the plaint to have accrued on the 6th November 1906. The suit was brought on 30th September 1909.2. The facts have been found in the plaintiff's favour by the lower Courts and the only question we have to decide is whether, on those facts, the suit is barred or not, the lower Courts having dismissed the suit as barred.3. The lower Courts have held that either Article 61 or Article 81 of the Second Schedule to the Limitation Act applies. Article 61 applies to a 'suit for money payable to the plaintiff for money paid for the defendant.'...
Sri Pusapati Viziarama Gajapatiraj Maharaja Manya Sultan Bahadur Mahar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.267
1. In this case the appellant, who is a zemindar, has, according to the finding of the lower Courts, raised the height of the bund of a tank in certain directions and narrowed the sluice with the result that the plaintiff's land which lies close to the water-spread of the tank has become liable to submersion more often than before. The Subordinate Judge has granted a decree giving the plaintiff an injunction directing the defendant to restore the bund of the tank to its former and usual height and the sluice in question to its former width. The appellant is also given an option, within four months from the date of the decree, to adopt any other means which might be at his command to prevent the plaintiff's land being submerged more often than it used to be before the acts of the defendant in question.2. Mr. Srinivasa Iyengar, who appeared for the appellant, has strenuously argued, in the first place, that the finding of the Subordinate Judge, which confirms that of the District Munsif,...
Panathil Parkum Mankoottil Chathkutty Nair Vs. Kalath Chandu Kutti Nai ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.224
1. This suit has been rightly dismissed by the lower Appellate Court. The appellant holds a decree against one Cheriyakkan Nair; and after his death he sought to execute it against the present 1st respondent alleging that the property was in possession of the present 1st respondent as the judgment-debtor's representative. The petition for execution was dismissed on the ground that the present 1st respondent was not the legal representative of the appellant's judgment-debtor. Then the appellant instituted the present suit and in it he asks for a declaration that the property belonged to his judgment debtor. He alleges that the 1st defendant is the legal representative of the judgment-debtor, but he does not ask for a declaration that the 1st defendant is the legal representative of Cheriyakkan Nair. It is settled law that any question arising between the judgment-creditor and the legal representative of the judgment-debtor must be decided in execution. If the plaintiff wanted to establi...
G. Narayanasawmi Naidu, Receiver Vs. Chintalapati Subbaraju, Minor, by ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-1912
Reported in: (1912)22MLJ393
1. We think the Subordinate Judge was clearly in error in supposing that it was necessary for the plaintiff to prove the cultivation of the 90 acres by the evidence of a witness who actually saw that area under cultivation. He has also entirely misunderstood the effect which should be given to accounts prepared in the ordinary course by a public officer, as Exhibit A has been prepared in this case. There is no reason why exhibit A should not be acted upon as a correct account. It shows that the Government officer, after enquiry, found that the 90 acres were cultivated, and it is also proved that the defendant did in fact pay Rs. 450, the Government water rate on that area. The defendant gives no explanation for this having been paid if the land was not cultivated. He calls no evidence whatever to disprove the cultivation. We set aside the decree of the Subordinate Judge and restore that of the District Munsif with the modification that the decree amount is payable only out of the asset...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »