Chennai Court August 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.
Moolinti Veerana Gowd Vs. Devarinti Bhima Reddy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.253
1. This is a suit in ejectment. The Government granted a patta to one Veerappa. The pattadar, together with a brother of his, executed a mortgage in favour of the plaintiff in March 1393. On the 5th July, the pattadar relinquished the land to the Government. It lay waste for some time and the Government afterwards granted a patta to the defendant. The plaintiff instituted a suit on his mortgage after the land had been relinquished by Veerappa, got a decree and brought the land to sale in 1900 and was afterwards able to induce the Revenue Authorities to grant him a patta. He claims to be entitled to recover the land from the defendant on the strength of the patta granted to him. The District Munsif and the Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit. The Subordinate Judge observes that the relinquishment put an end to the plaintiff's right under the mortgage. It is not necessary to decide whether the opinion is sound. Assuming that the mortgage was unaffected by the relinquishment by Veerappa,...
Sankaranunni and Ors. Vs. Appavu Pillay and Ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.571
1. This is an unfortunate litigation by the members of a Marumakatayam family in Palghat. The suit is to redeem a kanom of the year 1879. It will be necessary to refer to the terms of the kanom demise in some detail presently. The 1st plaintiff is the Karnavan of a tarwad of some importance known as Ekanath tarwad. Defendants Nos. 1 to 33 are also members of the same tarwad, but they have for many years been living separately in a separate house called Manakath. The defence to the suit is mainly that the plaintiffs are not entitled to redeem the kanom and that the Melcharth in favour of the 2nd plaintiff granted by the 1st plaintiff, the Karnavan, is not binding on defendants Nos. 1 to 33. It is contended that the document. Exhibit A, which evidences the kanom was in reality a family Karar, whereby the Karnavan of the time, Sankunni Valia Kamraal and the other members of the tarwad, belonging to both the branches, agreed that the defendants' branch should have a certain allotment for m...
The Secretary of State for India in Council (Represented by the Collec ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1912
Reported in: (1914)ILR37Mad533
1. The suit in this case was for recovering the amount due to the plaintiff under a contract entered into by him with the Government whereby he undertook to repair a tank and build a pipe sluice. The plaintiff's case was that the plain plaintiff had performed his part of the contract and was entitled to the amount due to him under it. The defendant pleaded that the plaintiff had not carried out the work undertaken by him, The District Munsif dismissed the suit, but on appeal the plaintiff got a decree in the Subordinate Judge's Court. Defendant appeals to this Court.2. A preliminary objection is taken that no Second Appeal lies in this case as the amount sought to be recovered is less than Rs. 500 and the suit is of a small cause nature. It is contended for the defendant that a suit of this kind is exempted from the cognizance of the small cause court by Article 3 of the second schedule to the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. That article is in these terms: 'A suit concerning an act ...
Subraya Kini Vs. Ramappa Adige and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.265
Sundara Aiyar, J.1. There is no ground for interference in this second appeal. The members of the Kini family gave a mortgage to the plaintiff in 1860 and took a lease from him of the mortgaged lands. Their possession, therefore, was that of tenants under the plaintiff. It was not shown that that possession came to a legal termination. Neither the execution of the mulgeni lease to Rahman nor the assertion of mulgeni right in Narayana Kini subsequently would have the result of changing the nature of the possession originally had in 1860 as lessees. Whether, therefore, the execution of the mulgeni has been properly proved or not, whether the mulgeni was valid or not, and whether it is a mulgeni lease that now subsists after the partition in the family of the Kinis and the allotment of the lands at that partition to persons, who subsequently sold the lands to others from whom the plaintiff derived his title, it is clear that until the mortgage is redeemed, the plaintiff is entitled to rec...
The Secretary of State for India in Council Represented by the Collect ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.400
1. The suit in this case was for recovering the amount due to the plaintiff under a contract entered into by him with the Government, whereby he undertook to repair a tank and to build a pipe sluice. The plaintiff's case was that the plaintiff had performed his part of the contract and was, entitled to the amount due to him under it. The defendant pleaded that the plaintiff had not carried out the work undertaken by him. The District Munsif dismissed the suit, but, on appeal, the plaintiff got a decree in the Subordinate Judge's Court. Defendant appeals to this Court.2. A preliminary objection is taken that no second appeal lies in this case, as the amount sought to be recovered is less than Rs. 500 and the suit is of a small cause nature. It is contended for the defendant that a suit of this kind is exempted from the congnizanee of the Small Cause Court by Article 3 of the second Schedule of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. That Article is in these terms: A suit concerning an ac...
Angadipeedi Koyil Eroth Kunhamina Umma and ors. Vs. Vallantukala Ibray ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.405
1. In this case, the plaintiffs, the junior members of a Mahomedan family in Malabar governed by the Murumakatayum law, instituted this suit for a declaration that certain mortgage documents executed by the karnavan were not binding on their tarwad and for possession of some of the properties included in one or other of these mortgages. The District Munsif granted a modified declaration in respect of some of the documents, finding that a portion only of the amounts secured by each of those documents was binding on the tarwad. He declared two documents totally invalid. He also directed the surrender of the items of which possession was claimed. On appeal, the Subordinate Judge did not decide the question how far the documents challenged were binding on the plaintiffs' tarwad, but he held that, assuming that the findings of the District Munsif were correct, the plaintiffs were not entitled to maintain the suit. The principle on which he purports to base his judgment is that a suit in eje...
Cotha Krishnasawmy Chetty Vs. Sitaram Chetty and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.513; (1912)23MLJ335
1. This is a suit instituted by the plaintiff to recover certain instalments due on a bond which was executed in his favour by the defendants under an award made in a dispute between the plaintiff and the defendants as to the share which he was entitled to in their business. Under the award the defendants executed a promissory note, which is Exhibit A dated 12th December 1904, by which the sum of Rupees Thirty thousand (Rupess 30,000) only, interest at 9 per cent per annum was payable by monthly instalments of Rs. 1,000/-, the first instalment being due on the 15th January 1905 and each instalment being payable with interest on the unpaid portion of the principal. If the amount of three instalments be allowed to fall into arrears, the balance of principal and interest then due shall at once be recoverable without reference to the aforesaid provision for instalment.'2. The defendants duly paid the instalments under the bond including the instalment of May 1906. But the cheque they sent ...
The Sectretary of State for India in Council Vs. Ramabrahmam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-1912
Reported in: (1912)23MLJ732a
1. The suit in this case was for recovering the amount due to the plaintiff under a, contract entered into by him with the Government whereby he undertook to repair a tank and to build a pipe sluice. The plaintiff's case was that the plaintiff had performed his part of the contract and was entitled to the amount due to him under it. The defendant pleaded that the plaintiff had not carried out the work undertaken by him. The District Munsif dismissed the suit but on appeal the plaintiff got a decree in the Subordinate Judge's Court. Defendant appeals to this Court.2. A preliminary objection is taken that no second appeal lies in this case as the amount sought to be recovered is Rs. 500 and the suit is of a small cause nature. It is contended for the defendant that a suit of this kind is exempted from the cognizance of the Small Cause Court by Article 3 of the II Schedule of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. That article is in these terms. ' A suit concerning an act or order purport...
Karnam Narasimhulu Vs. Secretary of State for India in Council, Repres ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.393
1. The case in Silamban Chetty v. Ramanadhan Chetty 7. M.L.T. 29 : (1910) M.W.N. 141 shows that the appellant is entitled to deduct the time required for obtaining the copy of the judgment of the District Munsif in addition to the time required for obtaining the copy of the decree. If such time is deducted, the appeal to the lower Appellate Court from the District Munsif's judgment was not barred.2. The lower Appellate Court's judgment dismissing the appeal to it as barred by limitation is, therefore, reversed, and the Court will hear the appeal and dispose of it according to law.3. The costs here and in the lower Appellate Court will abide the result....
Godihal Karibasavana Goud Vs. Nandanaram Veerabhadrappa
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1912
Reported in: (1913)25MLJ3
1. The suit, out of which this second appeal arises, was instituted for the recovery of damages sustained by the plaintiff in consequence of an obstruction caused by the defendant of the plaintiff's right of way to certain lands of the plaintiff. A decree had been previously obtained by the plaintiff establishing his right of way but that decree was apparently under appeal at the time of the institution of this suit. The plaintiff claimed damages sustained by him owing to his inability to cultivate his lands in 1905 in consequence of the obstruction. The defendant contended that the plaintiffs could have gone to his fields by another route, that it was his own fault that he did not cultivate the lands and that therefore he could not claim any damages at all. The District Munsif upheld his contention. He held that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence and was therefore not entitled to recover any damages. He found that there was another way to the plaintiff's fields though...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »