Chennai Court February 1882 Judgments
In Re: Preference from a District Judge Under Section 49 of the Genera ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1882
Reported in: (1884)ILR5Mad18
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J., Innes, Kernan, Kindersley and Muttusami Ayyar, JJ.1. The District Judge refers the question 'Whether a certificate of sale is to be stamped as a conveyance for a consideration equal to the purchase-money (No. 16 of Schedule I) in cases where existing encumbrances are reserved.'2. If it were necessary to determine the construction of Section 24, we should be inclined to hold that the view taken by the Board of Revenue in their Proceedings, dated 6th July 1881, and 21st September 1881, (a) is erronenous.3. The stamp duty on a conveyance is assessed on the consideration for the conveyance.4. A conveyance may be made in consideration of a present payment of money or delivery of stock or of a debt or of an undertaking in the future to pay money or deliver stock.5. Where there is such an undertaking the property is transferred subject to the payment.6. Where the property is under mortgage, the property is subject to the charge, but the transfer is not necessaril...
Tag this Judgment!Vellayan Chetti Vs. Tiruvakone and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR5Mad76
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. Doubts having been felt whether mortgagees in possession of agricultural estates enjoy the privileges and are subject to the obligations of landlords under the Rent Recovery Act, the cases before us were referred to a Full Bench for decision.2. A review of the legislation respecting landlords and tenants of agricultural holdings discloses the anxiety of the Government to protect tenants from uncertain demands and at the same time a recognized necessity, in the interests of the public revenue, to entrust landlords with certain summary powers and processes for the realization of their dues. It also shows that the privilege to employ these summary powers and processes was restricted to such landlords as had fulfilled their statutory obligations, that certain landlords were debarred from suit if such obligations were not fulfilled, and that precautions were taken to secure to tenants injured by the exercise of summary powers prompt relief, and the responsibil...
Tag this Judgment!Subramaniyayyan Vs. Subramaniyayyan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR5Mad125
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. The facts of the case so far as they are material to the decision of this appeal are as follow:2. Ramayyan, respondent's father, and Setuvayyan owned a house, and the site on which it stood, in moieties.3. Ramayyan mortgaged his moiety to Saminadhayyan. It is not alleged nor proved that the mortgage debt was contracted for an [126] immoral or illegal purpose. It does not clearly appear whether Sundarappayyan, elder son of Ramayyan, joined with his father in the execution of the original mortgage, but after his father's death, when he was managing the property during the minority of his younger brother the respondent, he executed a mortgage in renewal of the original mortgage.4. Saminadhayyan brought a suit to enforce this second mortgage and obtained a decree in 1873 in execution of which the property was sold and purchased by him. In 1875 he sold the moiety of the property to Subramaniyayyan (appellant).5. The respondent claims to recover a one-half shar...
Tag this Judgment!Gunda Reddi Narayana Reddi Vs. Kristna Doss Bala Mukunda Doss
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR5Mad87
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff', respondent, has obtained the taluk of Narayanavanam in usufructuary mortgage from the Zamindar of Karvetnagaram. The mortgage deed contains the following clause:As the powers we possess under Act VIII of 1865 or which we may possess under any Act which may come into force in future in respect of the tenure of the village usufructually mortgaged with you as also all powers we have in any other manner are delegated to you hereby and by a power-of-attorney, * * * we and our successors shall confirm and ratify, as done by us personally, all lawful proceedings taken by you and those whom you may appoint on your behalf * * * in respect of granting pattas and cowles and taking muchalkas and collecting tirva and in respect of disputes arising in the several villages of the taluk.2. The power-of-attorney referred to is not produced, and the instrument of mortgage was not originally sent to this Court, but we have now obtained and perused it and hol...
Tag this Judgment!Nallappa Goundan Vs. Ibram Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR5Mad73
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J. and Innes, J.1. In this case we hold the decree of the District Judge ought to be reversed.2. It was optional with plaintiff to register his document or not, but the provisions of Section 50 of the Registration Act III of 1877 affect alike documents which it is optional, as well as those which it is compulsory to register.3. Transactions, evidenced by documents of either description, are rendered of no effect by the subsequent execution and registration of a document relating to the same property.4. In Fuzludeen Khan v. Fakir Mahomed Khan I.L.R. 5 Cal. 336 the Judge of the High Court, from whose judgment that case came on appeal, based his judgment on the view that the vendor, having by the first sale parted with all interests in the property, had nothing to sell and sold nothing to the subsequent registered purchaser. But the Appellate Court held that the first sale was, according to the intention of the Legislature, subject to the risk of the title of the...
Tag this Judgment!Ekanat Thayu Kunji Ama and ors. Vs. Ekanat Shungunni Valia Kymal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR5Mad71
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J. and Muttusami Ayyar, J.1. The Judge is of opinion that, where the members of one branch of a tarwad have private means of their own, the Karnavan is not bound to make them the same allowance as he does to other [72] members of the tarwad. On the other hand, it was held in P. Teyan Nair v. P. Ragavan Nair I.L.R. 4 Mad. 171 that 'the circumstance that a member of the tarwad has other property is not an element in the consideration of his right to share in the enjoyment of the joint family funds,' and that, if it were, 'a man's own individual industry and exertions might be the means of depriving him of his rights in the joint property.' These rulings, though apparently contradictory, are not, in our judgment, irreconcilable. Prima facie the members of a tarwad have equal rights to support out of family funds, but they are not entitled to definite shares in the income (Kunigaratu v. Arrangaden 2 M.H.C.R. 12 and the Karnavan is not accountable if he gives to so...
Tag this Judgment!Viraragava Ayyangar Vs. Varada Ayyangar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR5Mad123
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. The 295th Section of the Civil Procedure Code entitles all holders of decrees for money, who, prior to realization, have applied to the Court holding the assets for execution of their decrees and have not obtained satisfaction, to share in the distribution. The decree held by the petitioner for mesne profits was a decree for money. Although the amount was still uncertain, the petitioner had applied to the Court to execute that decree. He had not only petitioned that the mesne profits should be ascertained, but he had applied on April 1st, 1881, to attach certain immoveable property under Section 255. He came within the purview of Section 295. Mr. Ramachandra Rau Saheb, however, argues that there wore no assets in the hands of the Court, because the Court having granted his client, the rival decree-holder, leave to bid, was bound to set off the amount of his bid against so much of the judgment-debt. It is true that Section 294 is awkwardly expressed, but i...
Tag this Judgment!Srinivasa and anr. Vs. Venkatramana Bhatta
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR5Mad121
Innes and Muttusami Ayyar, JJ.1. It is found that there was no authority to adopt, although a form of adoption under colour of an alleged authority may have been gone through.2. The first and second defendants had, therefore, no authority to make alienations in favour of third defendant binding upon plaintiff, except for adequate family need or other purposes recognized by the law. Upon this point, it is found that, for the debts contracted, no such purposes existed.3. It is contended in this second appeal that plaintiff is barred as to his claim to a declaration of the invalidity of the adoption.4. But the question to be considered upon the Act for the Limitation of Suits is not whether a particular relief applied for is barred, but whether the suit is barred.5. The suit is substantially a suit to declare the invalidity of the alienations so as to enable plaintiff to recover as reversioner on the death of the first and second defendants, and, as ancillary to that claim, he asks for a ...
Tag this Judgment!Kattamuri Jagappa Vs. Padalu Latchappa and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR5Mad119
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J. and Kindersley, J.1. The respondents, admitting a liability to the appellant to the amount of Rs. 95-14-0, gave him a bond on the 24th September 1873 and hypothecated immoveable property to secure the repayment of that sum with interest at the rate of 18 per cent. : the debt was to be paid in four instalments, three of the amounts of Rs. 23-5-4 on the 26th October in the years 1874, 1875, and 1876, respectively, and the fourth of Rs. 25-14-0 on the 26th October 1877.2. It was declared that these instalments should be accepted on account of principal, and that the whole of the interest should be paid on the date of the last instalment. There was no provision that the debtor should be at liberty to anticipate the payment of any instalment; and consequently the lowest sum he could compel the creditor to accept was considerably in excess of Rs. 100. The Judge has held that the interest created by the deed was in excess of Rs. 100, and that, as a mortgage, the i...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Reference from the Board of Revenue Under Section 46 of the Gen ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR5Mad15
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J., Kernan and Kindersley, JJ.1. The instrument submitted to us is an assignment of rights created by certain leases. It is a conveyance, but it is also a transfer falling under Clause 60 of Schedule I of the Stamp Act, namely, the transfer of interests secured by leases. The Stamp duty leviable is therefore regulated by the provisions of that clause....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »