Chennai Court January 1884 Judgments
Keshavan and anr. Vs. Vasudevan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1884
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad297
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. The pymaish [Survey measurement-Wilson] alone is not sufficient evidence to establish a right which is denied; and it is denied that the Tamarasheri illam enjoyed the uraima right now claimed, but there was also oral evidence, and in the Munsif's Court the dispute was not that an illam bearing that name had no uraima right, but that the illam which the first respondent claims to represent was not the Tamarasheri illam which enjoyed the right.2. The decision of the Sadr Court in Tottacara Muttoor Manakel Naraina Nambudripad v. Puvally Manakel Tirvikrama Nambudripad 1855 M.S.D. 125 is an authority for holding that a person may be introduced into an illam to perpetuate its existence and that he thereby becomes a member of the illam; and if this be so, such person would prima facie be entitled to hold the property held by the illam as trustee as well as to enjoy the property held by the illam as its own.3. The Subordinate Judge finds that the first respondent...
Tag this Judgment!Ramakrishna Vs. Namasivaya and Two ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1884
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad295
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. We have considered the arguments in this case and are of opinion that the suit is maintainable. It is not brought on the same cause of action as the Suit O.S. 575 of 1880, in which a decree was obtained against the father and brother of the present defendants. The question as to the right of the decree-holder to sell the interests of all members of the family in the ancestral property, which was the subject of the mortgage, was not decided in that suit. If the objection of the sons had been overruled, it would have been open to them to have contested the order by regular suit. Here, where the order has been unfavourable to the decree-holder, it is equally competent to him to bring a regular suit to contest the order.2. In this conclusion we find ourselves supported by a recent ruling of the High Court of Calcutta in Sitanath Koer v. Land Mortgage Bank of India I.L.R. 9 Cal. 888.3. It has been found that the father's debt was not contracted for immoral pur...
Tag this Judgment!The Sivagiri Zamindar Vs. Tiruvengada and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1884
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad339
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. The suit was brought against the late zamindar on a promissory note and was determined by a compromise, whereby it was agreed that the debt should be paid as therein mentioned, and that if default be made the amount should be recovered by the issue of a warrant from 60 kottais (97 1/5 acres) of wet land in the Kasba village of Sivagiri and other property of the defendant. A decree was passed in these terms.2. This decree was an informal decree, directing a sale of the hypothecated property, and as that decree was passed in the zamindar's lifetime, it cannot be less effectual than a money decree followed by an attachment and order for sale, which has been held by the Privy Council to be capable of execution against sons as the representatives of their deceased father.3. This appeal is dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Muttuchidambara Vs. Karuppa
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-1884
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad382
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J., Kernan, Kindersley, Muttusami Ayyar and Hutchins, JJ.1. The question for decision is whether the provisions of Section 265 of the Code of Civil Procedure, requiring that a decree for the partition of an estate paying revenue to Government be executed through the Collector of the District, are applicable to raiyatwari holdings. This section corresponds with Section 225 of the Code of 1859. It was held by the Sadr Court that raiyatwari holdings were not estates paying revenue to Government, and this construction has always been acted upon in this Presidency. It would unsettle a large number of titles to adopt a different construction now, and whatever we might have thought if the matter had come before us as res Integra, we are not prepared to disturb a practice so long established.2. The orders of the District Judge and the Munsif must be set aside and the Munsif directed to pass fresh orders. The costs of the appeal will abide and follow the result....
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Reference Under Section 49 of the Stamp Act
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-1884
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad385
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J., Kernan, Kindersley, Muttusami Ayyar and Hutchins, JJ.1. We are of opinion that the exhibit II, with its supplement exhibit III, is not an award nor a partition deed, but it is a note that a certain property had, on partition, been alloted for the maintenance of parents, and a memorandum of the particulars of property which had, on partition, fallen to the share of one of the brothers. It does not of itself operate to release the joint interests of the other parties to the partition and create a sole interest in the person whose share it records. It is, however, also accompanied by an agreement for the future division of outstandings. The document should in respect of this agreement have borne an agreement stamp, and before it can be received in evidence the penalty due on an unstamped agreement must be levied and paid....
Tag this Judgment!Vasudevan Vs. Keshavan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1884
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad309
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. The veppu-holder was not entitled to have either the jenm panayam or the auction sale set aside; but, assuming that he came into Court within time, he was entitled, on tendering the price, to claim that the jenm panayam should be transferred to him : and if no offer was made to him of the land at the price bid by the highest bidder at the auction sale, he was entitled to require that on payment of that price the sale should be made with him. He has not offered to pay the amount of the jenm panayam, nor has he applied for its transfer. He has asked that the sale at auction be set aside, because it was made subject to the principal amount of jenm panayam and interest. There is evidence, exhibit LII that at the auction sale an offer was made to his karnayan to purchase at the price offered by the highest bidder and refused. If he or his karnavan had purchased, the right to call for a transfer of the jenm panayam would not have been prejudiced by the purchase...
Tag this Judgment!Kannan Vs. Nilakandan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1884
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad337
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. The original uralan and one of the then karalars on 20th July 1868 assigned to the first respondent, in consideration of a money payment, the temple and the properties in suit, which were an endowment of the temple, on the terms that he should 'manage the temple affairs and enjoy with all freedom in perpetuity and cause the services to be performed.'2. This transaction was invalid, because a sale cannot be made of the urairna right, and possibly because the plaintiff, by whom in conjunction with one of the sellers the uraima right had been admittedly enjoyed, was not a party to the transaction. Prom that date the first respondent has held possession of the temple and the properties in suit under the deed. This possession has been in fact that of a trustee, and if he has committed breach of trust he can of course be removed from office or be held accountable for the profits if he has not properly applied them; but these are not the claims now made.3. The p...
Tag this Judgment!Lakshmaji Vs. the Queen Empress
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1884
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad289
Hutchins, J.1. In the year 1875 one Pattabhiramayyar was diwan of Jaipur, and also had management of the Madugula estate, which had been mortgaged to his master: the appellant was muktyar for both estates. On the 21st April 1875 the appellant registered a bond (A) purporting to have been executed in his own favour by the zamindar of Madugula. In 1881 he brought a suit on this bond, and at the trial he sought to support his claim by the letter B, which purports to have been addressed to him by Pattabhiramayyar from Madugula on the 10th April 1875, and to have given cover to A. The Court found this letter to be a fabricated document and sanctioned the appellant's prosecution.2. He was committed upon three heads of charge. The first was that he gave false evidence in respect of the letter, but this broke down in consequence of the deposition not having been read to him as required by law. The third was laid under Section 4711 and charged him with having dishonestly used a forged document:...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›