Chennai Court August 1891 Judgments
Chinnan Vs. Ramachandra and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1891
Reported in: (1892)ILR15Mad54
1. The third issue has apparently been tried under a complete misapprehension of the law.2. Assuming that the person, who executed the mortgage in the plaintiff's favour, was the owner of the property, the only question is whether in fact he did mortgage it to the plaintiff. That is the only real question. It is found by the Subordinate Judge that the sums stated in the mortgage document to have been advanced on the security of it have not really been advanced, and on that finding apparently the Subordinate Judge arrives at the conclusion that the plaintiff's mortgage is 'not a bond fide one' and that he has no right to claim redemption. The expression 'bond fide mortgage' is a very loose and indefinite one, and it is not clear what the Subordinate Judge means. Prima facie when the execution of a mortgage or other conveyance is proved--and here apparently it was proved and not denied by the mortgagee--further evidence is not required to show that the purchaser has taken the interest wh...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Bhatta Vs. Lakshminaranappa
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1891
Reported in: (1892)2MLJ13
1. We are of opinion that Section 12 of the Rent Recovery Act does not apply to this case. In the first place it is not shown that the plaintiff comes within the class of landholders defined by Section 3, and next it is impossible to suppose that in an Act for consolidating and improving the law for the recovery of rent, it could possibly be intended to repeal the ordinary law relating to contracts and enact that one contracting party could put an end to the contract whenever he chose and the other never. (See the remarks of Holloway J. at page 173 in the case reported at 6 M.H.C.R. 164 Ghockalinga Pillai v. Vythealinga Pundara Sunnady.)2. The appeal is dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Vs. Lakshminaranappa
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1891
Reported in: (1892)ILR15Mad67
1. We are of opinion that Section 12 of the Rent Recovery Act does not apply to this case. In the first place it is not shown that the plaintiff comes within the class of landholders defined by Section 3, and next it is impossible to suppose that in an Act for consolidating and improving the law for the recovery of rent, it could possibly be intended to repeal the ordinary law relating to contracts and enact that one contracting party could put an end to the contract whenever he chose and the other never. See the remarks of Holloway, J., page 173, in the case of Chockalinga Pillai v. Vythealinga Pundara Sunnady 6 M.H.C.R. 164.2. The appeal is dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Saravana Vs. Chinnammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-1891
Reported in: (1893)ILR16Mad65
1. By the terms of the mortgage document, on failure of payment of interest at the stipulated time, plaintiff was entitled to possession of the mortgaged property. Defendant alleged tender of the interest at the due date, but it is found that this allegation is false. On the findings, therefore, plaintiff was, some months before suit, entitled to possession, and defendant did not put her in possession, but, on the contrary, denied her right to possession on a false plea of tender of the interest. We think, therefore, that, under Clause (c) of Section 68 of the Transfer of Property Act, plaintiff was entitled to sue for the mortgage amount, and the decree of the lower Court can be supported on this ground. The appeal is dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Narayana Vs. Chandra and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-1891
Reported in: (1892)ILR15Mad1
1. This was a suit by the Zamindar of Pedda Kimidi to set aside the decision of a District Panchayet under Regulation XII of 1816 awarding certain lands to the Zamindar of Chikati. The 1st defendant is the Zamindar of Chikati, 2nd defendant the Collector of Ganjam, the 3rd defendant the District Munsif of Berhampore who convened the Panchayet, defendants Nos. 4 to 8 are Panchayetdars.2. The District Judge held that defendants Nos. 2 to 8 were not necessary parties and struck them off the record, but plaintiff has made them respondents to this appeal.3. Plaintiff's Zamindari lies to the north of the 1st defendant's and the estates are conterminous for some distance, and there has been a long-standing dispute as to the boundary between the plaintiff's village of Jakkara and the 1st defendant's village of Kapanavugam involving about 200 acres of land, which each Zamindar claims to be within the boundaries of his own village.4. By an order of 5th June 1888 the Collector referred the matter...
Tag this Judgment!Palakat Kasim and ors. Vs. Pudikudiyil Ayishamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-24-1891
Reported in: (1896)6MLJ778
1. The question for decision in this second appeal is whether the plaintiff's suit is barred by limitation. The District Judge held that the case was governed by Article 127 of the Limitation Act and that the suit was therefore within time. On behalf of the appellant fit is argued that Article 123 applies, whereas respondents'1 pleader maintains that Article 144 if any, is the proper article to apply.2. The suit was instituted by a Mahomedan (Moplah) lady who 3ought to obtain a declaration of her right to, and possession of a certain share in, property which she alleged belonged to her husband Hydros Kutti who died 14 years before the suit was filed. Admittedly Hydros Kutti died intestate. This then being a suit for a distributive share of the' property of an intestate, Article 123 is the only one that applies, and the suit not having been brought within 12 years from the time when the share became deliverable, It is clearly barred.3. But it is argued on behalf of the respondents that ...
Tag this Judgment!Patcha Saheb Vs. Sub-collector of North Arcot
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-24-1891
Reported in: (1892)ILR15Mad78
1. The petition of appeal was presented on 11th June in the recess, and the stamp was received and affixed on the 25th. The Court opened on 27th June.2. Following the principle laid down in Skinner v. Orde L.R. 6 IndAp 126 we must hold that the petition must be regarded as an appeal from the date on which it was presented and not from the date on which the stamp was received. The decree of the District Court must be reversed and the appeal remanded. The appellant is entitled to the costs of this appeal, and the cost in the lower Appellate Court will abide and follow the result....
Tag this Judgment!Kasmi and ors. Vs. Ayishamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-24-1891
Reported in: (1892)ILR15Mad61
1. The question for decision in this second appeal is whether the plaintiff's suit is barred by limitation. The District Judge held that the case was governed by Article 127 of the Limitation Act and that the suit was therefore within time. On behalf of the appellants, it is argued that Article 123 applies, whereas respondent's pleader maintains that Article 144, ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ [Article 144 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Description of Suit. | Period of | Time from which period begins | limitation. | to ren. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ For possession of immoveable | Twelve years ... | When the possession of the defen- property or any interest therein not | |...
Tag this Judgment!Byathamma Vs. Avulla and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1891
Reported in: (1892)ILR15Mad19
1. The plaintiff alleging himself to be the present karnavan of the Rayaroth tarwad, sued to recover properties which he alleged had been acquired by a former karnavan, one Kunhi Soopi Haji, who died in 1874, and which are now in the possession of the descendants of the said Soopi Haji or tenants under them. The Subordinate Judge decreed in plaintiff's favour for certain of the properties sued for, and the Appeals Nos. 125, 126, 127, 128, 140 of 1889, and Appeal No. 12 of 1890 are preferred by some of the defendants, while plaintiff appeals in Appeal No. 141 of 1889 as to some of the plaint items disallowed.2. Preliminary objections were taken as to (1) misjoinder of causes of action, (2) the right to a karnavan to sue alone, and (3) limitation. Upon the first point we entertain no doubt that plaintiff can implead the several defendants in one suit to recover the tarwad property--Vasudeva Shanbhaga v. Kuleadi Namapai 7 M.H.C.R. 290 Mahomed v. Krishnan I.L.R. Mad. 106--upon the second t...
Tag this Judgment!Gajapati Vs. Bhagavan Doss
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1891
Reported in: (1892)ILR15Mad44
1. It is an essential part of the plaintiff's case, as disclosed in his plaint, that he is the hereditary trustee and manager of the mutt, the subject of the suit. This he has altogether failed to prove and, on the contrary, the evidence--oral and documentary shows that the mutt and some of the property now attached to it were dedicated to the worship of Madana Mohana swami by the plaintiff's ancestor, and the management was handed over to a Brahman ascetic who, and his successors, have continued to manage the mutt and receive and administer its revenues down to the present time.2. The mutt is a religious institution under the management of Byragi Brahman ascetics, and the plaintiff and his family not being ascetics could not take an active part in the management of its affairs. The legal relation, therefore, between plaintiff and defendant is not that of a trustee and his servant, but that of the representative of the founder and the manager of the institution.3. The obligations attac...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »