Chennai Court April 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.
His Highnes Mathu Sri Jeeyamba Bai Saheb Vs. the Secretary of State fo ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1912
Reported in: (1912)23MLJ687
1. This appeal was preferred against the decision of the Subordinate Judge of Mayavaram in a suit instituted by a Ranee of His Highness the late Rajah Sivaji of Tanjore against the Secretary of State for India in Council for a declaration that certain lands were absolute freehold inam and not liable to resumption by the Government and for recovery of the assessment paid by her under protest for Faslies 151'2-1315. The lands in question along with some other lands, aggregating in all 26 velies, are situated in the village of Kottaiyoor in the Kumbakonam Taluk. The whole village was granted in inam by Maharajah Tuljaji of Tanjore in the year 1768 to 24 Brahmins by a grant under the Royal Seal (Sicca grant) which is marked as Exhibit Lia the case. The lands in dispute in this suit were alienated by the descendants of the grantees at various times. Some portion of them came into the possession of the late Maharajah Sivaji in 1846 and Ors. into the possession of the plaintiff's co-ranees an...
V. Jambulayya Vs. I. Rajamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1912
Reported in: (1913)ILR36Mad492
1. The District Munsif appears to have looked at a receipt and construed it as a settlement out of court and upon it determined the issue whether the settlement after suit is true, but he did not exhibit it as evidence in the suit or take any other evidence. It is not now alleged that this course was taken by consent of the parties or that the parties agreed that the matter should be disposed of on the construction of the receipt alone.2. The District Judge appears to have seen the receipt and considered that it is not a record of the terms of a settlement between the parties, and holding that the plaintiff should be allowed to prove that the document represented only a partial settlement, he has remanded the suit for rehearing and disposal.3. Before us it is contended that the District Munsif having determined the issue as to the settlement has not disposed of the suit on a preliminary point, and that therefore the District Judge had no power to order a remand.4. But the decision in K...
Ettakkamana Manholi Govindan Nair Vs. Amaya Mangalath Puthia Veetil Go ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.103
1. There are two Nair houses, Edoli and Edasseri; they are both branches of the Manholi house. There are properties belonging to the Manholi house as well as to the Bdoli and Edasseri branches. The question in contest in the suit was whether the property in dispute belonged to the Manholi house or to the Edoli branch. Defendants Nos. 1 to 4 are the demisees under a kanon which was made by Chennan Nair, who admittedly belonged to the Edoli branch. The plaintiff is the present senior member of that branch. It is also admitted that Chennan Nair was not at the time of the demise (Exhibit A) the Karnavan of the Manholi house. The contention of the defendants is that, the property was demised by Chennan Nair on behalf of the Manholi house. There is no presumption when a junior member makes a demise that he does so on behalf of the tarwad. The onus, therefore, of proving that Chennan Nair acted on behalf of the tarwad is on the defendants. The learned Judge in the lower Appellate Court appare...
Veluchoori Parasanna and ors. Vs. Veluchuri Somu Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.330
1. The 2nd defendant and one Achaya were joint tenants of the plaintiff of certain lands. Achaya executed a document by which he purported to relinquish the lands in question to the plaintiff. The plaintiff sued to recover possession of the lauds. The Munsif held that the relinquishment did not bind the 2nd defendant and dismissed the suit.2. The Subordinate Judge held that the relinquishment was effective as regards Achaya's interest and gave the plaintiff a decree for a moiety of the lands. The plaintiff has not appealed, and consequently we have not to consider the question, whether the effect of the relinquishment by Achaya puts an end to the tenancy of both joint tenants, See Sri Raja Simhadri Appa Rao v. Prattipati Ramayya 29 M.P 29. The appellant asks us to restore the decree of the Munsif and dismiss the suit altogether, and referred us to Mohima Chunder Sein v. Pitambar Shaha 9 W.R. 147. We are not prepared to do this. It seems to us that, assuming the 2nd defendant can say th...
The Secretary of State for India in Council Represented by the Collect ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.594
ORDER1.To enable us to decide this appeal satisfactorily, we consider it desire-able to allow the parties to adduce further evidence on the following point (1) what, if anything, passed to the grantee under Exhibit XX under the words besides poramboke' and whether she obtained a right to the channels conveying water to (he tanks irrigating the lands of the Lakkamdiddi village or to those tanks themselves.2. The lower Court has not dealt with this point in its judgment, but appears to have assumed that the Government did not reserve the channels and tanks at. the time of the inarm settlement.3. We request the District Judge to take the additional evidence that the parties may adduce and to submit the same together with his opinion on the effect of such evidence within one month after the reopening of the District Court after the recess.4. In pursuance of the above order, the District Judge of Ganjam submitted the followingFINDING1. In obedience to the High Court's order of 13th February...
Pallagani Sreeramulu Vs. Raja Venkata Rangayya Appa Row Bahadur Garu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1912
Reported in: (1912)23MLJ241
Miller, J.1. I do not think we can differ from the finding that that the land is Kamatam land. In that view the question whether the District Munsif had jurisdiction, depends ultimately on the proper construction of Section 19 of the Estate Land Act. It is contended before us that the phrase 'the relations between a landholder and a tenant of his private land' cannot properly be held to include the right to sue for rent and the liability to be sued for it; and it was urged that these 'relations' are the conditions of the tenants' tenures as set out in Chapter III of the Act. I do not find that this narrow construction is necessary; the phrase can without impropriety be construed to include all the mutual rights and obligations of the landlord as such and his tenant as such; in the absence of anything to indicate a contrary intention, I should be disposed so to construe it. I find nothing to indicate a contrary intention and on the other hand, as my learned brother has shown in the judg...
Akku Vs. Ramappa Raju and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.434
1. Both Courts have found that the property sued for was not set apart to 2nd defendant's branch for maintenance The Subordinate Judge's judgment on this point is very short. We understand him to accept the reasons given by the District Munsif. With regard to the Munsif's judgment, two points have been raised, viz., that he has really not written a proper judgment in accordance with the requirements of law, and, secondly, he regarded the judgments in the previous Suits Nos. 90 of 1896 and 276 of 1905 as evidence in this case. With regard to the second point, we are prepared to assume, for the purpose of this decision, that the previous judgments were not legally admissible in evidence. The Munsif says that the evidence adduced in the previous case and that adduced in the present suit are the same, with the exception that certain additional witnesses were examined in this suit. He then refers to the conclusions that he came to in the previous suit, the evidence being the same. He says t...
Matilda Fernandez Bai and ors. Vs. Alex Pinto
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.278
1. Mr. Narain Row took the preliminary objection that the 1st appellant could not prosecute this appeal since she had parted with her interest in the subject-matter of the suit. The appellant is still on the record as defendant in the suit. In our opinion, the preliminary objection fails.2. The decision of this appeal turns on the effect to be given to a clause in a sale-deed, Exhibit H, executed in 1874 by certain warghdars, Krishna Naick and his wife and mother. By this document, the vendor purported to sell to one Juan Fernandez, a portion of the lands comprised in the warg, while retaining for the benefit of Krishna Naick's son, Vankatesu Naick, their warg lands, and also certain Kumaki rights over a specified area which admittedly would ordinarily attach to the warg lands, which were sold to Juan Fernandez. It is these Kumaki rights which are now the subject of dispute. The plaintiff (respondent), who claims under Venkatesu Naick, sues to enforce them, which defendants (appellants...
Bijjukallu Papakka and ors. Vs. Yeddcula Rosi Reddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.282
1. We are unable to support the judgment of the District Judge in this case. The 1st defendant parted with her woman's estate in the property by Exhibit II in 1877. It was not contended in the lower Court that that document was a sham one and not intended to be operative in law. Certainly, no reason was given for the execution of a sham instrument. The first issue, whether the 1st defendant was entitled to sell the suit property to plaintiff, was framed in very vague terms. Apparently, the contention was that after the execution of Exhibit II, effect was not given to it for some reason or other. This can only mean one of two things, i.e., that the parties by mutual consent rescinded it. But there is no evidence of such rescission, and oral evidence of rescission would be inadmissible under the provisions of Section 92 of the Evidence Act. See Umedmal Motiram v. Davu bin Dhondiba 2 B.K 547. Or the contention must be taken to be that possession was not given to the 2nd defendant's husban...
T. Venkata Seetharamayya Vs. V. Venkataramayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1912
Reported in: (1914)ILR37Mad418
1. In this ease the plaintiff is a person holding a mortgage from the third defendant over some property belonging to him; the first and second defendants obtained a money decree against the third defendant and attached the mortgaged property. After the attachment the plaintiff instituted a suit for sale on his mortgage but impleaded only the third defendant as a party and obtained a decree for sale. The defendants Nos. 1 and 2 then made an application to bring the property to sale in pursuance of their attachment. The plaintiff then put in a claim petition stating that the third defendant had no longer any saleable interest in the property as he had brought it to sale in pursuance of his mortgage decree. The claim was disallowed and he instituted the present suit for a declaration that the first and second defendants are no longer entitled to bring the property to sale. An attaching creditor is one of the classes of persons that are entitled to redeem a mortgage under Section 91 of th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »