Chennai Court December 1891 Judgments
Ex Parte Ragavaloo Chetti and anr. Vs. in Re Rangiah Chetti.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1891
Reported in: (1892)ILR15Mad356
1. We cannot agree with the learned Commissioner in Insolvency that petitioners are not entitled, under Section 9 of the Insolvent Act, to petition for an adjudication of insolvency against their debtor. It appears to us that the construction put by the learned Judge upon Section 9 would prevent a Hindu joint trading family, or, indeed, any other joint creditors from obtaining an adjudication of insolvency whatever were the amount of their debts, for, in our opinion, the two last classes of persons named in the section, as entitled to apply, are intended to be separate creditors, whose debts amount, in the aggregate, to Rs. 700 and Rs. 1,000, respectively, and not joint creditors to whom one debt is due. In our view the object of this part of the section is to prevent a debtor from being harassed in respect of single small debts or a number of petty debts coming to a small amount in the aggregate. This object is attained by providing that proceedings for adjudication as an insolvent, s...
Tag this Judgment!Rajaram and ors. Vs. Narasinga
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1891
Reported in: (1892)ILR15Mad199
Shephard, J.1. Two questions are raised by this appeal. It is contended, on the plaintiffs' behalf, that the Subordinate Judge was wrong in his finding of fact with reference to the instrument on which the plaintiffs found their claim; and on the defendant's side it is urged that by that instrument the plaintiffs claiming as the heirs of the original grantee, who died in 1867, acquired no title. On the question of fact, I am unable to agree with the decision of the Subordinate Judge, for, in my opinion, there is abundant evidence to prove the execution of the instrument (Exhibit K); but, in the view I take, it is unnecessary to discuss the evidence, because the construction which I think must be put on the instrument is fatal to the plaintiffs' claim.2. The instrument is described as a fixed permanent ijara patta, and it provides for a rent to be paid according to the permanent beriz. There are no special words to show that it was to operate beyond the life-time of the grantee, Dowlatr...
Tag this Judgment!Vithilinga Padayachi Vs. Vithilinga Mudali and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1891
Reported in: (1892)ILR15Mad111
1. The inam village of Puttoor in the Tanjore district forms the endowment of certain charities founded by one Lakshmana Mudali, deceased, of Madras. The first defendant is the present executor of the said Lakshmana Mudali's estate and the trustee of the said charities.2. A lease of the village of Puttoor was granted on the 17th April 1883 by the first defendant under an instrument purporting to be for the benefit of the plaintiff and of the second defendant. The parties exchanged registered instruments regarding the lease. It was for a term of nine years from fasli 1293 and the rent reserved was 2,200 calams of paddy per annum, deliverable in two instalments within the year. The lessees had further to pay certain taxes amounting to Rs. 200 annually. The instruments between the parties provided that the lease might be forfeited for non-payment of the rent or the taxes. The plaintiff at once entered into possession under the lease. So far the facts are undisputed.3. I shall now briefly ...
Tag this Judgment!Nagamuthu Muthrian and ors. Vs. Savarimuthu Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1891
Reported in: (1892)2MLJ109
Shephard, J.1. The only question argued was whether the maintenance of the suit was precluded by the provisions of Section 244 of the Civil Procedure Code by reason of the plaintiff and the defendants having been parties to a prior suit. As far as the plaintiff is concerned, there can be no doubt that, although it is in the character of purchaser at the sale in execution of her decree that she now brings the suit to secure possession of the lands sold to her, she is nevertheless a party to the suit, in which the decree was obtained within the meaning of Section 244 of the Civil Procedure Code. The defendants also having been defendants in the prior suit, are parties to that suit and none the less so, because ultimately it was as against them dismissed while as against their co-defendants who did not appeal the decree in the plaintiff's favor remained standing. But although both plaintiff and defendants are parties to the former suit, I do not think: that the question now raised is one ...
Tag this Judgment!Chinnammal and anr. Vs. Venkatachella Nadavan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1891
Reported in: (1892)2MLJ86
1. The only question is--who is the nearer heir to the last male owner, his father's sister, or his mother's father The Lower Courts have decided in favour of the father's' sister on the ground that she being related through a male must be held to be more closely related to Kuppusami than the defendants, the parents of Kuppusami's mother, who are related through a female. It is argued here that in virtue of the rule excluding females in favor of male heirs the maternal grandfather has the preference, (Narasimma v. Mangammal I. L. R 13 M. 10). On the other side, it is contended that the father's sister comes in under the father's brother as the sister is included in the term brethren. This construction of the text, of the Mitakshara has not been approved by commentators and has been rejected by the Privy Council, (Thakoorain Sahiba v. Mohun hall 11 M. I. A 403). A father's sister cannot be a gotraja sapinda, because as soon as a female marries she passes into a different gotra but she i...
Tag this Judgment!Subbaraya Mudaliar Vs. Kylasa Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1891
Reported in: (1892)2MLJ89
1. The question is whether the plaintiff whose mother is found to have been the step-sister of Ramasami Mudaliar now deceased stands in the line of inheritance to him.2. If he were the son of Ramasami's sister of the full blood, there can be no doubt that he would be so entitled, being a bandhu of the deceased. But it has been argued that a step-sister's son does not stand on the same footing as a sister's son, and with regard to the cases cited, it is said that they are of no authority in this Presidency.3. Apart from the cases we are of opinion that the position of the step-sister's son cannot be distinguished from that of the sister's son. The relationship between the maternal uncle and his sister's son or step-sisters's son is alike that of sapindas, for in both cases there is a common grandfather and ' the relation of sapindas arises from connection of parts of one body.' See Mitakshara cited in Amrita Kumari Debi v. Lakhinarayan Chuckerbutty 2 B. L. E. 28, Mari v. Chinnammal I. L...
Tag this Judgment!Nagamuthu and ors. Vs. Savarimuthu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1891
Reported in: (1892)ILR15Mad226
Shaphard, J.1. The only question argued was whether the maintenance of the suit was precluded by the provisions of Section 244 of the Civil Procedure Code by reason of the plaintiff and the defendants having been parties to a prior suit. As far as the plaintiff is concerned, there can be no doubt that, although it is in the character of purchaser at the sale in execution of her decree that he now brings the suit to secure possession of the lands sold to her, she is, nevertheless, a party to the suit in which the decree was obtained within the meaning of Section 244 of the Civil Procedure Code. The defendants, also having been defendants in the prior suit, are parties to that suit, and none the less so, because ultimately it was as against them dismissed, while as against their co-defendants, who did not appeal, the decree in the plaintiff's favour remained standing. But, although both the plaintiff and the defendants are parties to the former suit, I do not think that the question now ...
Tag this Judgment!Subbarazu and ors. Vs. Venkataratnam and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1891
Reported in: (1892)ILR15Mad234
1. Venkatarazu and Sreeramulu were undivided brothers. They owned 13 odd acres of inam land in Penkarametta as well as other property. Venkatarazu, who was the elder brother, mortgaged a moiety of the land in Penkarametta to one Peddiah, and the other moiety to the father of Defendants Nos. 2 to 6 and put each of his mortgagees in possession of 6 acres 59 cents, that is of the whole land. Both the lower Courts have found that these mortgages were not binding on Sreeramulu and the finding is not impeached on second appeal. Sreeramulu mortgaged his share of the land in Penkarametta to the plaintiff, who, having obtained a decree on his mortgage in Original Suit No. 132 of 1887, purchased in execution Sreoramulu's half share, and having settled with Peddiah and purchased the shave of Venkatarazu, now sues for a moiety of the land in the possession of the defendants Nos. 2 to 6, on the ground that Sreeramulu was entitled to that moiety. Both the lower Courts have decided in his favour, and...
Tag this Judgment!Subbaraya Vs. Kylasa and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1891
Reported in: (1892)ILR15Mad300
1. The question is whether the plaintiff, whose mother is found to have been the step-sister of Ramasami Mudaliar, now deceased, stands in the line of inheritance to him?2. If he were the son of Ramasami's sister of the full blood, there can be no doubt that he would be so entitled, being a bandhu of the deceased; but it has been argued that a step-sister's son does not stand on the same footing as a sister's son, and, with regard to the oases cited, it is said that they are of no authority in this presidency.3. Apart from those cases we are of opinion that the position of the stepsister's son cannot be distinguished from that of the sister's son. The relationship between the maternal uncle and his sister's son or step-sister's son is alike that of sapindas, for, in both cases, there is a common grandfather and 'the relation of sapindas arises from connection as parts of one body.' See Mitak-shara cited in Amrita Kumari Debi v. Lakhinarayan Chuckerbutty 2 B.L.R., 33 and Mart v. Chinnam...
Tag this Judgment!Chinnammal and anr. Vs. VenkatachalA.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1891
Reported in: (1892)ILR15Mad421
1. The only question is, who is the nearest heir to the last male owner--his father's sister or hie mother's father? The lower Courts have decided in favour of the father's sister, on the ground that she being related through a male must be held to be more closely related to Kuppusami than the defendants, the parents of Kuppusami's mother, who are related through a female. It is argued here that, in virtue of the rule excluding females in favour of male heirs, the maternal grandfather has the preference--Narasimma v. Mangammal I.L.R. 13 Mad. 10. On the other side, it is contended that the father's sister comes in under the father's brother, as the sister is included in the term brethren. This construction of the text of the Mitakshara has not been approved by commentators and has been rejected by the Privy Council--Thakoorain Sahiba v. Mohun Lall 11 M.I.A., 386. A father's sister cannot be a gotraja sapinda, because as soon as a female marries, she passes into a different gotra, but sh...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »