Chennai Court December 1892 Judgments
Muthuram Aiyar Vs. Subramania Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-23-1892
Reported in: (1893)3MLJ172
1. The judge has dismissed the suit on the ground that the hypothecation bonds sued on created no right which could be enforced against the share of Pichuvier, the maker of the bonds, after his death. We cannot agree with this view of the law.2. It is clear law in the Madras Presidency that a sale or mortgage for value by a Hindu coparcener of his share in the family property will be enforced after his death against his (surviving) coparcener. It is sought to make a distinction in the case of a hypothecation which, it is said, transfers no interest in land but merely creates a charge. We see no reason for such a distinction. The principles of equity which have led the Madras Courts to enforce alienations for value of the share of an undivided coparcener against the family property after his death apply equally to a charge created by him. This was held in S. A. No. 49 of 1888 to be the law and we shall follow that decision.3. It is argued for respondent that the District Judge was wrong...
Tag this Judgment!Rathnam Aiyar Vs. Sivasubramania Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-23-1892
Reported in: (1893)3MLJ139
Wilkinson, J.1. It is contended that the lower courts erred in giving plaintiff relief on grounds not alleged in the plaint. The lower courts have decided that the defendant, the adopted son of one Narayanasami Aiyar is bound to pay to plaintiff Rs. 600 devised by the deceased Narayanasami Aiyar in his Will for a silver Vrishabhavahanam. It appears from the plaint that the plaintiff rested his case on two grounds, the direction in the Will and the liability of the deceased to repay a loan. The latter cause of action however was relinquished and the plaintiff relied on the devise alone.2. It is then contended that the legacy is void and that the defendant is not bound to carry out the promise made by his father. The District Judge upheld the legacy on the ground that it was a gift to religious uses which the son can be compelled to carry out. There is no Madras case in support of this contention. So long ago as 1874 it was decided, Vitla Butten v. Yamenamma 8 M. H. C. R 6, that a member...
Tag this Judgment!Rajah Kamadana Venkata Hanumanta Jagannadha Row, Minor, by Next Friend ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-23-1892
Reported in: (1893)3MLJ193
1. These are appeals against the decree of the District Court of Kistna in Original Suit No. 25 of 1889.2. In that suit plaintiff, a minor, by his natural father as next friend, sued for a declaration that he is the adopted son of one Rajah Kamadana Sobhanadri Row, deceased, and for recovery of the property movable and immovable of his adoptive father. The adoption is alleged to have been made by the two widows, of Sobhanadri under an authority given by his Will. First defendant is the surviving widow and 2nd and 3rd defendants are her daughters. Defendants denied the genuineness of the Will of Sobhanadri and pleaded that it was concocted by his senior wife Seethamma who persuaded 1st defendant to join in the adoption and other proceedings in order to secure the continuance of the Government allowance. They also pleaded that the 109 acres 14 cents of her lands claimed in the plaint were the Stridhanam property of Seethamma who had given them by Will to 2nd defendant. They denied posses...
Tag this Judgment!Sankaran Narayanan Vs. Ananthanarayanayyan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-23-1892
Reported in: (1897)ILR20Mad375
Wilkinson, J.1. I reserved judgment in this ease not on account of any point of law which required further consideration, for upon the facts found the second appeal must fail; but because the case seemed to me at the hearing to be a typical instance of a class of eases which are too common in Malabar in which an ordinary suit between landlord and tenant valued at a few rupees, is allowed to be converted into a suit in which the title to extensive properties is determined. On further examination I find that the present is a remarkable case of that nature. The value of the suit was Rs. 20 and the stamp duty paid Rs. 1-8-0. The first plaintiff instituted the suit in 1888 to recover, with arrears of rent from 1882, a paramba leased by first plaintiff's deceased brother in February 1874 under a registered pattam chit to the first and eighth defendants. These, viz., first plaintiff and first and eighth defendants, were the only necessary parties to the suit, but for some reason or other the ...
Tag this Judgment!Vencata Mahalakshmamma Vs. Ramajogi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-23-1892
Reported in: (1893)ILR16Mad271
1. The appellant is the zamindarni of Kasimkota and respondent is a raiyat in the zamindari. In fasli 1298 the former gave the latter notice to quit, and there is no dispute as to the sufficiency of the notice. The respondent, however, denied that he was a tenant from year to year and contended that he had occupancy right. Both the Courts below dismissed the plaintiff's suit. The District Munsif considered that it was for the plaintiff to show that defendant was a tenant from year to year and liable as such to be ejected after due notice. On appeal the District Judge held that, as between the zamindar and the raiyat, the former was merely the assignee of land revenue, whilst the latter was prima facie the owner of the soil, and that the zamindar was not entitled to eject the raiyat. For the appellant it is contended that it was for the raiyat to establish his occupancy right, and that, as he failed to do so, the zamindar was entitled to a decree. The facts found by the District Judge a...
Tag this Judgment!Jagannadha Vs. Papamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-23-1892
Reported in: (1893)ILR16Mad400
1. These are appeals against the decree of the District Court of Kistna in Original Suit No. 25 of 1889.2. In that suit plaintiff, a minor, by his natural father as next friend sued for a declaration that he is the adopted son of one Rajah Kamadana Sobhanadri Row, deceased, and for recovery of the property, moveable and immoveable, of his adoptive father. The adoption is alleged to have been made by the two widows of Sobhanadri under an authority given by his will. First defendant is the surviving widow and second and third defendants are her daughters. Defendants denied the genuineness of the will of Sobhanadri and pleaded that it was concocted by his senior wife Seetamma, who persuaded first defendant to join in the adoption and other proceedings in order to secure the continuance of the Government allowance. They also pleaded that the 109 acres 14 cents of her lands claimed in the plaint were the stridhanam property of Seetamma who had given them by will to second defendant. They de...
Tag this Judgment!Mallikarjuna Vs. Pullaya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-23-1892
Reported in: (1893)ILR16Mad319
1. It does not appear that leave to amend was asked for in the Court of First Instance before decree. We do not think that an amendment ought to be allowed on appeal, if by so doing the defendant is likely to be precluded from pleading limitation. Weldon v. Neal L.R. 19 Q.B.D. 394.2. Upon the facts stated, therefore, we are of opinion that the amendment asked for should be refused and the plaintiff left to his remedy by a regular suit....
Tag this Judgment!Amuthu Vs. Muthayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-23-1892
Reported in: (1893)ILR16Mad339
1. It has been found that there was a settlement of accounts between plaintiff and defendant on 13th July 1887, and that defendant promised to pay R Section 642-5-6, the balance struck, with interest at 12 per cent. per annum, within one month. The suit was instituted on the 10th July 1890. The question is whether the promise to pay amounted to a new contract. On behalf of the defendant-appellant it is argued that the agreement was void as made without consideration.2. The learned Judge appears to have misapprehended the remarks of GARTH, C.J., in Dukhi Sahu v. Mahomed Bikhu I.L.R. 10 Cal. 284 An account stated is only a substantive cause of suit in itself when it is in writing signed by the defendant or his agent duly authorized in this behalf. As remarked by the learned Chief Justice, a promise to take a debt out of the operation of the Limitation Act must be in writing. The promise in the present case was only oral and amounted to no more than an admission of the debt due. It is, ho...
Tag this Judgment!Rathnam Vs. Sivasubramania
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-23-1892
Reported in: (1893)ILR16Mad353
Wilkinson, J.1. It is contended that the lower Courts erred in giving plaintiff relief on grounds not alleged in the plaint. The Lower Courts have decided that the defendant, the adopted son of one Narayanasami Ayyar, is bound to pay to plaintiff Rs. 600 bequeathed by the deceased Narayanasami Ayyar in his will for a silver Vrishabhavahanam. It appears from the plaint that the paintiff rested his case on two grounds--the direction in the will and the liability of the deceased to repay a loan. The latter cause of action, however, was relinquished and the plaintiff relied on the bequest alone.2. It is then contended that the legacy is void and that the defendant is not bound to carry out the promise made by his father. The District Judge upheld the legacy on the ground that it was a gift to religious uses which the son can be compelled to carry out. There is no Madras case in support of this contention. So long ago as 1874 it was decided Vitla Butten v. Yamenamma 8 M.H.C.R. 6 that a memb...
Tag this Judgment!Rama Varma Rajah. Vs. Kadar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-1892
Reported in: (1893)ILR16Mad415
1. The claim to arrears of rent and the right to redeem are two distinct causes of action. It does not appear that the arrears were intended to be set off against the mortgage-debt and rendered items of account to be taken between the mortgagor and mortgagee.2. The District Judge is right in holding that the Court fee ought to be computed on the principal amount of the panayom debt and on the amount of arrears of rent disallowed by the Subordinate Judge and claimed in appeal....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »