Chennai Court August 1890 Judgments
R Vs. R
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1890
Reported in: (1891)ILR14Mad88
1. This is an appeal against an order made by Best, J., dismissing an application for increase of alimony pendente lite and adjourning the final disposal of the suit until the first Monday in March 1891.2. It was objected at the outset that no appeal lay against the latter part of the order, because it was an order made under the provision of the Civil Procedure Code, for which no appeal is provided; and a preliminary objection to be noticed hereafter was also taken to the maintenance of the appeal so far as the amount of the alimony was concerned.3. With regard to the so-called adjournment of the suit, we are of opinion that the order is not one made under Section 156 of the Code, cited by the learned Counsel. It was simply an order made at settlement of issues, fixing the day on which the final, hearing was to take place and is only exceptional on account of the distance of the date to which the hearing was postponed. Although we think that an appeal does lie against such order as ag...
Tag this Judgment!Raman and anr. Vs. Shathanathan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1890
Reported in: (1891)ILR14Mad312
1. It is argued for the appellant that the suit is not barred by limitation as found by the Subordinate Judge, and that Exhibit I did not create a mortgage with possession. In this connection our attention is also drawn to the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Rrishnan v. Veloo See ante, p. 301.2. As regards the construction of Exhibit I we follow the decision of the Full Bench and hold that it did not create the relation of mortgagor and mortgagee with possession. Although the present plaintiffs--the Uralers--were not parties to that case, the reasons assigned in support of the opinion apply with equal force to the present case. The intention of Exhibit I clearly was, while appointing the first and second defendant's grandfather as samudayi and authorizing him as such samudayi to collect the rent due to the devasom, to permit him to pay himself the interest due on the money borrowed from him. Under these circumstances no question of limitation arises. Compare judgment of MOR...
Tag this Judgment!Gadiyam Narayudu Vs. Mallavarapu Venkamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-1890
Reported in: (1912)22MLJ265
Best, J.1. The point taken by Mr. Parthasarathy. Aiyangar on behalf of the appellant at the hearing of the appeal is that as the District Judge has found the issue as to illatom in favour of plaintiff, he ought to have decreed to plaintiff the moiety of the property claimed by him, notwithstanding the findings adverse to plaintiff on the other issues.2. The Judge's finding as to illatom is that ' if the position of an illatom had not been conceded to plaintiff definitely by the husband of defendant, it had been practically allowed by defendant herself.' The reason given for this finding is that-' the evidence and the admission of the defendant as to her using plaintiff seem to make it clear that plaintiff was kept in the house' after the defendant's husband's death, which took place in the year in which plaintiff married her daughter. Defendant's admission as to her usage of the plaintiff is that, as she ' did not come out being a female,' she ' sent for her son-in-law (who, she says, ...
Tag this Judgment!Unni and anr. Vs. Kunchi Amma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-1890
Reported in: (1891)ILR14Mad26
1. This is an appeal against the decree of the District Judge dismissing a suit brought on behalf of a tarwad to recover property improperly alienated by the late karnavan. The alienation, which was in the form of a demise on kanom, executed in favour of one Subban Patter, was made in 1879.2. It has been held by the District Judge that, the suit being instituted more than three years after the date of the kanom, is barred by limitation, because before recovering the property it was necessary to have the kanom set aside. It will be observed that the kanom document was not executed by the plaintiff's or any person under whom they claim as heirs or otherwise.3. There can be no doubt that when a person seeks to recover property against an instrument executed by himself or one under whom he claims, he must first obtain the cancellation of the instrument, and that the three years' rule enacted by article 91 applies to any suit brought by such person--Janki Kunwar v. Ajit Singh I.L.R. 15 Cal....
Tag this Judgment!Gadiyam Narayudu Vs. Mallavarapu Venkam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-1890
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.866
Best, J.1. The point taken by Mr. Farthasarathy Aiyengar, on behalf of the appellant at the hearing of the appeal, is that as the District Judge has found the issue as to Illatom in favour of plaintiff, he ought to have decreed to plaintiff the moiety of the property claimed by him, notwithstanding the findings adverse to plaintiff on the other issues.2. The Judge's finding as to Illatom is that 'if the postion of an Illatom had not been conceded to plaintiff definitely by the husband of defendant, it had been practically allowed by defendant herself.' The reason given for this finding is that the evidence and the ad-mission of the defendant as to her using plaintiff seem to make it clear that plaintiff was kept in the house after the defendant's husband's death, which took place in the year in which plaintiff married her daughter. Defendant's admission as to her usage of the plaintiff is that as she did not come out being a female', she sent for her son-in-law (who, she says, lived in...
Tag this Judgment!Chitharath Othayath Chalery Puthenpurayil Kunhi Parvathi Ammah and anr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-1890
Reported in: (1896)6MLJ411
1. There is no material difference between the facts in this case and those in Narayanan v. Kannan I.L.R. (1884) M. 315. Here a decree having been obtained against the 1st and 2nd defendants certain property was sold as being the share of the 2nd defendant in lands given by his father to him and his sisters. The plaintiffs, being the children of one of those sisters now deceased, charge that the 2nd defendant's share in the estate is not capable of being sold. According to the decision above cited, a share of property is obtained by a gift made to persons who are members of one tarwad, and even if made with the intention that the property should be impartible descending to the heirs in the female line as tarwad property it may be sold in execution of a decree against one of the donees. Whatever may be the intention of the [397] donor he cannot in our opinion alter the fact that property acquired by gift is not in the hands of ' the original donees ancestral property to which the incide...
Tag this Judgment!Nanu Vs. Manchu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-1890
Reported in: (1891)ILR14Mad49
1. We think that the District Judge was right in holding that the deposit intended by Section 83 of the Transfer of Property Act should be made unconditionally, and that, therefore, the District Munsif was wrong in accepting the deposit. Putting the deposit aside, Mr. Rama Rau argues that his client is still entitled to his remedies on the mortgage. But the decree of the District Munsif is not a mortgage decree and the appellant did not appeal against it. We could not, therefore, modify it to the prejudice of the respondents if, in other respects, we thought that the plaintiff was entitled to ask for a mortgage decree.2. This second appeal is dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Ragava Vs. Rajaratnam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1890
Reported in: (1891)ILR14Mad57
1. The main question arising in this appeal is whether the respondent, who was not a party on the record, was entitled to apply to the Court to compel the surviving defendant to carry out the terms of the decree.2. It was admitted in argument by the learned Advocate-General, who appeared for the respondent, that the order appealed against could not be supported except on the supposition that the respondent did, by the order of Mr. Justice hutchins, made on the 8th April 1884, become constructively a party to the suit, and it is clear that, if the respondent is to be regarded as a mere stranger to the record, he can have no locus standi to enforce the decree.3. The suit, which was filed on the 22nd February 1884, was instituted by two persons, Tengalai Brahmans, claiming to be directly interested in the pagoda. It was a suit instituted under the provisions of Section 539 of the Code, sanction of the Advocate-General having first been obtained. Before the order of the 8th April was made,...
Tag this Judgment!Ramayee
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1890
Reported in: (1891)ILR14Mad398
1. We think that the ruling in Upendra Nath Dhal v. Sondamini Dasi I.L.R. 12 Cal. 535 is right, and that the rate of maintenance must be fixed, subject only to any possible alteration under the provisions of Section 489. With regard to that section, we think that the fact that the child has grown older would no less constitute 'a change in the circumstances of the person receiving the allowance,' than would the death of the child or the birth of another, and therefore the rate cam be varied from time to time on application being made as the child gets older. We think the order ought to be modified by setting aside that part of it which directs a prospective increase of the rate....
Tag this Judgment!Sathappayyar Vs. Periasami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1890
Reported in: (1891)ILR14Mad1
Muttusami Ayyar, J.1. This is a regular appeal preferred by defendant No. 1 from the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Madura, in the plaintiff's favour. The appellant is the paradesi or representative for the time being of a religious foundation called Sat happayyar's mutt, which is situated at Sivaganga, in the district of Madura; and the respondent is the present zamindar of Sivaganga, who succeeded to the zamindari upon his father's death in 1883.2. The matter in contest between them is the appellant's liability to be removed from possession of the mutt and its endowments in order that they may be made over either to the respondent or to an ascetic whom he may hereafter appoint. The respondent insisted on the appellant's removal from his position, first, because he was a married man living with his wives instead of being an ascetic who had renounced all secular ties, and, secondly, because he had violated the trusts of the institution by diverting the income of the endowment from ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »