Chennai Court October 1920 Judgments
Davood Mohideen Ravuthar Vs. Jayarama Aiyar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-01-1920
Reported in: (1921)ILR44Mad937
John Wallis, C.J.1. The plaintiff in this case on 6th December 1917 took the suit lands and other lands on lease from the first defendant under a rental agreement (Exhibit A) for four years from 15th December 1917 at an annual rent of Rs. 400 and on the same day Venkatachalla and Ponnusami Muthiriyan took the same lands from the plaintiff for the same term and at the same rent, under Exhibit V, which is styled a deed of sublease and contains a stipulation that they would themselves take possession of the lands and enjoy them. The plaintiff did not obtain possession of the suit lands and brought this suit to recover possession and mesne profits of them from his lessor the first defendant and defendants 2 to 4 who were alleged to be in wrongful possession of them. The Subordinate Judge found that defendants 2 to 4 were in possession of the suit lands as trespassers, and passed a decree for possession against all the defendants, and for Rs. 350 for past mesne profits and Rs. 549 for propo...
Tag this Judgment!Unade Raja Raja Damara Kumara Venkatalingama Nayanum Varu Vs. Inganti ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-01-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Mad234(1); 61Ind.Cas.562
1. The order which is in question before us was passed in a suit instituted by the plaintiff, the predecessors of the present Raja of Kalahasti, for the recovery of certain villages from the defendant and for other reliefs. These villages had been originally us ufruoturily mortgaged and thereafter a document was executed purporting to be a deed of sale in favour of the first defendant's adoptive father, one Rajah D. K. Seshachalapathi Nayanim Yarn. The second defendant is the widow of the gentleman and the eighth defendant is a supplemental defendant who claims to be entitled to the rights of the first and second defendants under a purchase or assignment. A Receiver was appointed by consent of parties, that is, the plaintiff and the first defendant. When the sixth defendant name on record he made an application for the discharge of the Receiver, namely, on the ground that he had acquired the rights of the first) and second defendants, that there was no longer any dispute which would le...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›