Chennai Court July 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.
Mura Kasim Rowther and ors. Vs. G.F.F. Foul Kes by His Agent E.S.B. St ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1912
Reported in: (1912)23MLJ352
1. The plaintiff in the suit is a mittahdar in the Salem District. The defendants are ryots holding certain lands under the plaintiff. The object of the suit is to eject the defendants. The right to eject is based in the plaint on the ground that the defendants built a house for the purpose of having skin godown on a portion of the holding which according to the plaintiff the defendants had no right to do. The plaint alleges that 'the act was liable to cause damage to the relationship of landlord and tenant prevailing between the two parties and to the rights and relief which the plaintiff has under the Madras Estates Land Act.' (Paragraph 11 of the plaint). In the written statement the defendants pleaded that the ryots, from time immemorial, had been claiming the right to build skin godowns, indigo godowns, bangalows and etc., to live in and let out on the lands in respect of which assessment was ' collected in Salem Mitta and that the plaintiff--Mittahdar and his predecessors had acc...
The Secretary of State for India in Council Vs. Ikkurti Subbarayudu an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1912
Reported in: (1912)23MLJ728
1. The plaintiffs in this suit claim to recover certain lands as belonging to them as an inam for the Archakathnam or worship of a family deity. They allege that they were dispossessed by defendants Nos. 1 to 3 in execution of a decree of the revenue court in S.S. No. 1 of 1891. They impeach the decree as one passed without jurisdiction by the Revenue Court and therefore not affecting their rights. The 15th defendant is the Secretary of state for India in Council and was impleaded as a party in consequence of the contention raised by defendants Nos. 1 to 3. They allege that the hinds appertain to the office of Karnam which is held by the 1st defendant and that plaintiffs have no right to recover them. They also deny the jurisdiction of the civil courts to entertain the suit. It is also contended that the plaintiffs' right is re's judicata in consequence of the decision in S.S. No. 1 of 1891. 'A question of limitation was also raised in the lower courts but has not been argued before us...
Meera Kasim Rowther and Six ors. Vs. G.F.F. Foulkes (Son of the Rev. T ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1912
Reported in: (1914)ILR37Mad432
1. The plaintiff in the suit is a mittadar in the Salem district. The defendants are ryots holding certain land under the plaintiff. The object of the suit is to eject the defendants. The right to eject is based in the plaint on the ground that the defendants built a house for the purpose of having a skin godown on a portion of the holding which according to the plaintiff the defendants had no right to do. The plaint alleges that 'the act was liable to cause damage to the relationship of landlord and tenant prevailing between the two parties and to the rights and reliefs which the plaintiff has under the Madras Estates Land Act' (paragraph 11 of the plaint). In the written statement the defendants pleaded that the ryots, from time immemorial, had been claiming the right to build skin godowns, indigo godowns, bungalows, etc., to live in and let out, on the lands in respect of which assessment was collected in Salem mitta and that the plaintiff mittadar and his predecessors had accepted ...
Chidambaram Chettyar Vs. Subbaragava Sastri and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.207
1. The two witnesses, plaintiff's witnesses Nos. 2 and 3, prove that the attesting witnesses were not present at the execution of the document, and that it was attested on the acknowledgment of the 1st defendant, the executant. It has been held in Shamu Patter v. Abdul Kadir Ravuthan 18 M.L.J. 219 that this is insufficient and that the document must be treated as one not duly attested under Section 59 of the Transfer of Property Act. It cannot, therefore, be enforced. We confirm the appeal on this ground and dismiss it with costs....
The Secretary of State for India in Council Vs. Ikurti Subrayudu and o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.18
1. The plaintiffs in the suit claim to recover certain lands as belonging to them as an inam for the archakathnam or worship of a family deity. They allege that they were dispossessed by defendants Nos. 1 to 3 in execution of a decree of the Revenue Court in Section Section No. 1 of 1891. They impeach the decree as one passed without jurisdiction by the Revenue Court and, therefore, not affecting their rights. The 15th defendant is the Secretary of State for India in Council, and was impleaded as a party in consequence of the contention raised by defendants Nos. 1 to 3. They allege that the lands appertain to the office of Karnam, which is held by the 1st defendant and that the plaintiffs have no right to recover them. They also deny the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts to entertain the suit. It is also contended that the plaintiff's right is res judicata in consequence of the decision in S.S. No. 1 of 1891. A question of limitation was also raised in the lower Courts, but has not been...
Kandaswmy Pillay Vs. Rangaswamy Nainar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.30
Sundara Aiyar, J.1. The suit in this case is for restraining 1st defendant from interfering with the plaintiff's enjoyment of certain lands. The plaintiff obtained a sale of it from the 2nd defendant in 1906. Prior to the sale, the land had been sold in execution of a decree against the 2nd defendant in a Small Cause Suit. The 1st defendant was the auction purchaser. The auction-sale took place in June 1901. Admittedly, the land previously belonged to the 2nd defendant. The plaintiff's case was that the auction-purchase was really for the benefit of the 2nd defendant and that the 1st defendant was only a benamidar. This plea has been upheld by both the Courts. The 1st defendant set up his own title to the land as the real purchaser and he contended that Section 317 of the Civil Procedure Code was a bar to the plaintiff's suit. Both the lower Courts held that Section 317 was not applicable in the circumstances of the case. There was an issue raised as to whether the 1st defendant was es...
Mura Kassim Rowther and ors. Vs. G.F.F. Foulkes Son of Rev. Thomas Fou ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.220
1. The plaintiff in this suit is a mittadar in the Salem District. The defendants are ryots holding certain land under plaintiff. The object of the suit is to eject the defendants. The right to eject is based in the plaint on the ground that the defendants built a house for the purpose of having a skin godown on a portion of the holding, which, according to the plaintiff, the defendants had no right to do. The plaintiff alleges that the act was liable to cause damage to the relationship of landlord and tenant prevailing between the parties and to the rights and reliefs which the plaintiff has under the Madras Estates Land Act. (Paragraph 2 of the plaint). In their written statement, the defendants pleaded that the ryots from time immemorial had been claiming the right to build skin godowns, indigo godowns, bungalows, etc., to live in and let out the lands in respect of which assessment was collected in Salem Mitta, and that the plaintiff mittadir and his predecessors had accepted such ...
Karani R. Manika Mudaliar Vs. T. Chinnappa Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1912
Reported in: (1913)24MLJ641
1. We find ourselves unable to differ from the conclusion of the District Judge on the facts. We think the plaintiff is bound by the lease evidenced by Exhibit C. By that document the lessees are to hold for such time as they require, or wish, and it is argued that the contract is thus expressed to be a tenancy at the will of the lessee and so by implication of law a tenancy at the will of the lessor also. This contention is supported by reference to Coke on Littleton page 55(a) and is in accordance with the Law of England as laid down in 18 Halsbury page 434.2. Agree that the lease is expressed as creating a tenancy at the will of the lessees and we have not been shown sufficient reasons for refusing to adopt the English Law on the point. We think therefore that the Plaintiff was entitled to terminate the tenancy, and he has done so.3. District Judge's decision must be modified and the plaintiff must have a decree for recovery of possession of the market in addition to the decree for ...
The Official Assignee of Madras Vs. T.C. Ramaswamy Iyengar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1912
Reported in: (1912)23MLJ726
Bakewell, J.1. In November 1908 the 1st defendant presented his petition to the Insolvent Court and in his schedule stated that certain immoveable properties situate in the North Arcot district had been mortgaged to the 2nd defendant by a deed of simple mortgage dated '23rd August 1906. The Official Assignee, the plaintiff in this suit, alleges that this deed is fraudulent and that he is entitled to avoid it and in his plaint prays that the deed may be declared fraudulent and invalid and not binding on him and that the 2nd defendant may be decreed to deliver up the same duly cancelled.2. The suit appears to be based upon Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882, which enables a creditor to avoid a transfer of immoveable property made with intent to defeat or delay the creditors of the transferor; such a transfer is not void but is voidable at the option of certain persons, that is to say, assuming that the plaintiff proves his case as regards all the world except the creditors o...
The Official Assignee of Madras Vs. T.C. Ramasamy Iyengar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.342
Bakewell, J.1. In November 1908, the 1st defendant presented his petition to the Insolvent Court, and in his schedule stated that certain immoveable properties situate in the North Arcot District had been mortgaged to the 2nd defendant by a deed of simple mortgage, dated 23rd August 1906. The Official Assignee, the plaintiff in this suit, alleges that this deed is fraudulent and that he is entitled to avoid it, and, in his plaint, prays that the deed may be declared fraudulent and invalid and not binding on him and that the 2nd defendant may be decreed to deliver up the same duly cancelled.2. The suit appears to be based upon Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which enables a creditor to avoid a transfer of immoveable property made with intent to defeat or delay the creditors of the transferor; such a transfer is not void but is voidable at the option of certain persons; that is to say, assuming that the plaintiff proves his case as regards all the world except the credi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »