Chennai Court January 1915 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.
Bangarusami Reddi Alias Prasanna Chidambara Reddi Vs. Kuppanna Goundan ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad628; (1915)28MLJ377
1. Only two points are argued for the appellant: (1) whether Section 42 (2) of the Madras Estates Land Act applies to cases in which the area of a holding has been determined under the Survey and Boundaries Act, (2) whether the limitation imposed by Section 112 of the Madras Estates Land Act in point of time applies to proceedings for the recovery of contribution of survey charges apportioned under Section 20 of the Survey and Boundaries Act.2. On both points the decision of the District Judge appears to be correct. Appellant's vakil relies on Section 12 (3) of the Survey and Boundaries Act as declaring the finality of the determination of actual area of holding by the Survey Department: but this does not preclude the possibility of a ' dispute as to the amount of rent which the landlord is entitled to demand after the survey; and Section 42 (2) seems to require that in all cases of dispute an application to the Collector shall be necessary.3. As regards the 2nd point Section 20 (3) ma...
Swaminatha Pillai Vs. Mondaiyan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-04-1915
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.480
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The respondents do not appear. Following the principle of the ruling in Mylan v. Annavi Madan 29 M.K 234 I hold that if the plaintiff is able to prove that he received interest through the labour of the defendants till within three years before suit and without a break over three years from 1902 till the date of suit, his claim is not barred by limitation.2. He makes substantially the above allegation in his plaint and his suit ought not to have been dismissed as barred without giving him an opportunity to prove that allegation.3. The District Munsif's decree is set aside and he is directed to dispose of the suit according to law. Costs will abide the result....
Muthukaruppa Kone and anr. Vs. Veerabhadra Kone and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-04-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad583; 29Ind.Cas.49
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. I am satisfied on a perusal of the 6th paragraph of the plaint and the recital in the plaint about the date of the cause of action that this suit is based on the award (Exhibit E).2. The learned District Munsif did not raise the most material issue in such a case, namely, whether the award was invalid owing to the misconduct of the arbitrators. He raised three other questions and fell into two serious errors in deciding those questions. He held that the suit was barred by limitation because no application was made within six months of the award to have it filed in Court. A suit lies on an award even though it has not been filed in Court [See Rani Bhagoti v. Rani Chandan 12 I.A. 67 : 4 Sar. P.C.J. 624 : 9 Ind. Jur. 320 and Ghulam Khan v. Muhammad Hassan 29 C.P 167 : 4 Bom. L.R. 161 : 25 P.R. 1902.3. The learned Munsif further held that the award was in the nature of a judgment of a foreign Court and he was, therefore, entitled to go into the merits of the award. He ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›