Chennai Court September 1918 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.
Meethala Veetil Kaitheri Kelu Nambiar Vs. Narikott Parambath Kaitheri ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-1918
Reported in: 52Ind.Cas.258
1. The question for decision in this case is cue of res judicata.2. By the suit from which the second appeal arises plaintiff, one Kelu Nambiar, sought to recover as Karnavan of one Meethala Veetil Tavazhi certain lands and arrears of rent from the tenant in possession, the 1st defendant. It was stated that this was a separate and distinct Tavazhi under the Mani Madathil Kaitheri Tarwad, having its own properties and its own Karnavan, and that the plaint lands were some of its properties. The tenant denied the existence of any such Tavazhi and pleaded that the lands belonged to the main Tarwad of which one Chathu Nambiar was the Karnavan and not the plaintiff, and that the latter was not entitled to sue; he also pleaded payment of rent to the Karnavan Chathu Nambiar. On these pleas Chathu Nambiar was added as the 2nd defendant; and he supported the 1st defendant's contentions.3. The first issue in the case was 'whether a Tavazbi called Meethala Veetil Tavazhi existed with separate prop...
B. Rajarajeswara Sethupathi Alias Muthuramalinga Sethupathi Avergal, R ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-1918
Reported in: 50Ind.Cas.892
1. The series of decisions in the District Court and High Court relied on by the District Judge do not altogether establish a custom that waste is not chargeable even if it be due to the ryots' wilful neglect vide Arunachallam Chettiar v. Mangalam 35 Ind. Cas. 329 : 40 M.P 640 : 20 M.L.T. 70 : 4 L.W. 37 : 31 M.L.J. 168 and Udayal v. Arunachala Chettiar 27 Ind. Cas. 872 : (1915) M.W.N. 190 : 2 L.W. 145 and Ramasami Servaigaran v. Athivaraha Chariar 44 Ind. Cas. 663 : 23 M.L.T. 183 : 7 L.W. 471 : (1918) M.W.N. 340 recently decided. The custom upheld in those cases was that waste dry lands were not chargeable unless left waste by wilful neglect. The District Judge is, therefore, directed to reconsider his finding and decide whether the custom found by him is supported by the evidence or whether the custom is as found in the cases referred to above. In the latter case, he must further decide whether plaintiff has proved that any of the waste in these suits was due to defendants' wilful neg...
Anantha Bhatta Vs. Manimmale Anantha Bhatta and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-1918
Reported in: (1919)36MLJ92
1. The question is whether the right to improvements of a mulgeni tenant can be attached and sold in execution.2. It is conceded that his rights are the same as the rights of a tenant in Malabar, and it has been held by this Court in Achuta v. Kali I.L.R. (1884) M. 454 and Eressa Menon v. Shamu Pattar I.L.R. (1898) M. 138 that a right to compensation for improvements is merely an inchoate right which only becomes perfected at eviction. It is a right to be enforced only at the time of eviction and the extent of the right is dependent on what may be the relations between the landlord and the tenant at that time and also on the number and nature of the improvements in existence then. In the present case the lease being permanent the right may never mature. This being so we must hold that such a right cannot be attached.3. Whether individual improvements can be attached and sold is a question which does not arise in this case and need not be discussed.4. The second appeal is dismissed with...
Anantha Bhatta Vs. Mavinamale Anantha Bhatta and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-1918
Reported in: 48Ind.Cas.705
1. The question is whether the right to improvements of a Mulgeni tenant can be attached and sold in execution.2. It is conceded that his rights are the same as the rights of a tenant in Malabar, and it has been held by this Court in Achuta v. Kali 2 Ind. Dec. 962 and Eressa Menan v. Shamu Patter 7 Ind. Dec. 454 that a right to compensation for improvements is merely an inchoate right which only becomes perfected at eviction. It is a right to be enforced only at the time of eviction and the extent of the right is dependent on what may be the relations between the landlord and tenant at that time and also on the number and nature of the improvements in existence then. In the present case the lease, being permanent, the right may never mature. This being so, we must hold that such a right cannot be attached.3. Whether individual improvements can be attached and sold is a question which does not arise in this case and need not be discussed.4. The second appeal is dismissed with costs....
Vadamalai Thiruvanatha Sevuga Pandia thevar Avergal Vs. Sankara Moorth ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-1918
Reported in: 49Ind.Cas.688
1. The defendant Zemindar is the appellant. Plaintiff, who is a ryot in the Zemindari, sued tinder Section 55 of the Madras Estates Land Act for a decree directing the defendant to tender to him a proper Patta, He pat in a Patta which did not contain any provision for cesses that had been usually levied and objection was taken by the Zemindar to the form of the Patta which he wanted to get. The Zemindar put in the Patta, Exhibit I, which was granted. to the plaintiff's predecessor-in-title, which contained the following cesses which were described as Pothu Salavu or common expenses which were to go to the Zemindar: (1) Ayyanar, (2) Kulavethu, (3) Kattalavuvasi, (4) Kanganam, (5), Melvaram Kotta Urai, (6) Swatanthram, (7) Kudivaram Kottai Urai. It provided for two items to go to the tenant as common, expenses and stipulated that, after deducting the above items of common expenses, one half of the paddy was to be taken by the landlord and the other half by the tenant. Oat of the Kudivara...
Lanka Lakshmanna and anr. Vs. Lanka Vardhanamma and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-03-1918
Reported in: (1918)35MLJ657
John Wallis, C.J.1. Objection has been taken in this case that the Subordinate Judge has wrongly admitted in evidence depositions of persons dead at the date of the trial, which had been made by them at an enquiry held by the Sub-Registrar under Section 41(2) of the Indian Registration Act (Act XVI of 1908), when the will or authority to adopt which is in question in this suit was -presented for registration. Such depositions have been frequently admitted and acted on without objection, but there is no authority on the point, and it is necessary to consider the question of their admissibility under Section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act. It may be said at the outset that the legislature clearly intended to give a wide scope to the section and to go beyond the English law, because it renders admissible, not only evidence given by a witness in a judicial proceeding, but also evidence given by a witness 'before any person authorised by law to take it,' and also provides that a criminal tri...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›