Chennai Court February 1892 Judgments
Modala Lakshmi Raghupathi Vs. Gulla Tirumala Reddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-29-1892
Reported in: (1892)2MLJ91
The only question argued before us is whether the 1st plaintiff is entitled to maintain the suit notwithstanding the existence of a daughter of Appala Reddi, the last male owner, and our attention has been drawn to the case reported in L. R 8 I. A 14, Rani Ammd Koer v. The Court of Wards. That case decided that the party entitled to sue is, as a general rule, the nearest reversionery heir; no question then arose as to whether the existence of a daughter, while the property was in possession of the widow, would bar a suit by the next male reversioner. The other decisions to which we are referred are those reported at 10 B. H. C. R 351, Bhikaji Apaji v. Jagannath Vithal; Madari v. Mallei I. L. R 6 A 428; Balgobind v. Ramkumar I. L. R 6 A 431; Raghu Nath v. Thakuri I. L. R 4 A 16. The decision at I. L. R G A 431 is a clear authority against the appellant's contention. We agree with the conclusion at which the learned judges arrived therein, and an estate taken by a daughter being a qualif...
Tag this Judgment!Saminadha Pandara Sannadhi Vs. Muthayya Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-29-1892
Reported in: (1892)2MLJ119
1. The only question is whether the suit is barred by Limitation. The plaintiff brought the suit against 1st and 2nd defendants as representatives of one Kylasanadha Pandara Sannadhi, the Adhinastan or trustee of the temple at Vedaranyam stating that the money was due on account of certain land purchased by Kylasanadha for the benefit of the temple 1st defendant having died, the suit was proceeded with against 2nd defendant alone as trustee of the temple. He pleaded that there were also other trustees who should be included as defendants, alleging at the same time that the property was purchased by Kylasanadha for the benefit of his own family. Under orders of the District Munsif the others named by 2nd defendant were made co-defendants. They also pleaded that the property was bought by Kylasanadha for his own benefit, and not for the temple. Thereupon, plaintiff with the permission of the court, amended the plaint and prayed for defendants 3 to 8 being removed from the suit and for a ...
Tag this Judgment!Saminatha Vs. Muthayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-29-1892
Reported in: (1892)ILR15Mad417
1. The only question is whether the suit is barred by limitation. The plaintiff brought the suit against first and second defendants as representatives of one Kailasanadha (Pandara Sannadhi), the adhinastom or trustee of the temple at Vadaranyam, stating that the money was due on account of certain land purchased by Kailasanadha for the benefit of the temple. First defendant having died, the suit was proceeded with against second defendant alone as trustee of the temple. He pleaded that there were also other trustees who should be included as defendants, alleging, at the same time, that the property was purchased by Kailasanadha for the benefit of his own family. Under orders of the District Munsif, the others named by second defendant were made co-defendants. They also pleaded that the property was bought by Kailasanadha for his own benefit, and not for the temple. There-unon plaintiff, with the permission of the Court, amended the plaint and prayed for Defendants Nos. 3 to 8 being re...
Tag this Judgment!Raghupati Vs. Tirumalai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-29-1892
Reported in: (1892)ILR15Mad422
1. The only question argued before us is whether first plaintiff was entitled to maintain the suit notwithstanding the existence of the daughter of Appala Reddi, the last male owner, and our attention has been drawn to Rani Anund Kder v. The Court of Wards L.R. 8 IndAp 14. That case decided that the party entitled to sue is, as a general rule, the nearest reversionary heir. No question then arose as to whether the existence of a daughter while the property was in possession of the widow would bar a suit by the next male reversioner. The other decisions to which we are referred are Bhikaji Apaji v. Jagannath Vithal 10 Bom. H.C.R. 351, Madari v. Malki I.L.R. 6 All. 428, Balgobind v. Ramkumar I.L.R. 6 All. 431 and Raghu Nath v. Thakuri I.L.R. 4 All. 16. The decision in Balgobind v. Ramkumar I.L.R. 6 All. 431 is a clear authority against the appellant's contention, and we agree with the conclusion at which the learned Judges arrived therein. An estate taken by a daughter being a qualified ...
Tag this Judgment!Ukku Vs. Kutti and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1892
Reported in: (1892)ILR15Mad401
1. The Judge finds that the sale is valid, but that the purchaser is under an obligation to convey the property to defendant on the latter paying the purchase-money in the exercise of his right of pre-emption. This is in accordance with the principle laid down in Vasudevan v. Keshavan, I.L.R. 7 Mad. 309.2. It is then argued that though the defendant may enforce his right of preemption by instituting a suit, he cannot resist a suit for redemption on this ground. This is opposed to the decision in Kanharankutti v. Uthotti I.L.R. 13 Mad. 490 and Cheria Krishnan v. Vishnu I.L.R. 5 Mad. 198.3. Whatever right he can assert as plaintiff is also available to him as a ground of defence.4. The appeal therefore fails and is dismissed with costs.5. As regards the memorandum of objections it is argued that the suit should have been dismissed and that the decree passed by the Judge is bad in law. But the decree passed appears to us to be just and proper. It gives effect to the right of pre-emption a...
Tag this Judgment!ittithi Kunji Amma and ors. Vs. Elayat Raman Menon and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1892
Reported in: (1892)2MLJ262
1. The only question we are called upon to deter-mine in this appeal is whether the court which tried O. S. No. 28 of 1877 was competent to try the present suit within the meaning of Section 13 of the Civil Procedure Code.2. Original Suit No. 28 of 1877 was a suit instituted in the court of the Subordinate Judge on behalf of the Vadakunathan Devasom to recover certain property from the family of the plaintiffs in the present suit. The main question for decision in that suit, as it is in the present suit, was, whether the land in suit was the jemn of the Devasom or of the tarwad to which the plaintiffs belong. That was a suit on behalf of the Devasom, this is a suit against the Devasom. It is argued that inasmuch as the Rajah of Cochin is a party-defendant in the present suit the Subordinate Court which tried O. S. No. 28 of 1877 was not a court of jurisdiction competent to try the present suit and that therefore Section 13 has no application.3. Original Suit No. 28 of 1877 was institut...
Tag this Judgment!Kunji Amma and ors. Vs. Raman Menon and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1892
Reported in: (1892)ILR15Mad494
1. The only question we are called upon to determine in this appeal is whether the Court, which tried Original Suit No. 28 of 1877, was competent to try the present suit within the meaning of Section 13 of the Civil Procedure Code.2. Original Suit No. 28 of 1877 was a suit instituted in the Court of the Subordinate Judge on behalf of the Vadakunathan devasom to recover certain property from the family of the plaintiffs in the present suit. The main question for decision in that suit, as it is in the present suit, was whether the land in suit was the jenm of the devasom or of the tarwad to which the plaintiffs belong. That was a suit on behalf of the devasom, this is a suit against the devasom. It is argued that, inasmuch as the Raja of Cochin is a party-defendant in the present suit, the Subordinate Court, which tried Original Suit No. 28 of 1877, was not 'a Court of jurisdiction competent to try' the present suit, and that therefore Section 13 has no application.3. Original suit No. 2...
Tag this Judgment!Kanagappa thevan Vs. Sokkalinga thevan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1892
Reported in: (1892)2MLJ175
Wilkinson, J.1. Two questions have been raised for determination in this appeal. The first question is whether the Subordinate Judge rightly exercised the discretion vested in him by Section 559 of the Civil Procedure Code, by adding the defendants 2-4 and making them respondents in the appeal presented by the 1st defendant. The other question is whether the Subordinate Judge was right in holding that plaintiff must look to Venkataswami alone for relief. With reference to the 1st question I think that defendants 2-4 were rightly added as respondents, for there can be no doubt that defendants 2-4 were interested in the result of the appeal presented by the 1st defendant, and that they were likely to be affected by the result of the suit. The suit was instituted to obtain a declaration that the transfer of a certain mortgage executed by the 4th defendant to one Venkataswami Pillai and the decree obtained thereon by 1st defendant against defendants 2-4 in Original Suit No. 56 of 1886 were...
Tag this Judgment!Ammayee Vs. Yalumalai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1892
Reported in: (1892)ILR15Mad261
1. We have no doubt that the learned Judge in the Court below was right in holding that the will was rightly attested.2. It is admitted by the learned Acting Advocate-General for appellant that, according to English Law, it is sufficient if the attesting witnesses affix either their marks or their initials. In the recent case of Margary v. Robinson L.R. 12 P.D. 8 the testator, two days before his death, being paralysed and partly speechless, expressed his wishes by signs which were interpreted to a medical man who wrote them down on a card. The testator made a cross with a pencil in the middle of the writing on the card and the same medical man and Anr. placed their initials on the back of the card. The will was held to be duly executed and attested. But it is contended that the Indian Succession Act, Section 50, which is made applicable to wills of Hindus by the Hindu Wills Act, by providing that the testator ' shall sign or shall affix his mark to the will ' and that the attesting wi...
Tag this Judgment!Kanagappa Vs. Sokkalinga and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1892
Reported in: (1892)ILR15Mad362
Wilkinson, J.1. Two questions have been raised for determination in this appeal. The first question is whether the Subordinate Judge rightly exercised the discretion vested in him by Section 559 of the Civil Procedure Code by adding the defendants Nos. 2 to 4 and making them respondents in the appeal presented by the first defendant. The other question is whether the Subordinate Judge was right in holding that plaintiff must look to Venkata-sami alone for relief. With reference to the first question, I think that defendants Nos. 2 to 4 were rightly added as respondents, for there can be no doubt that defendants Nos. 2 to 4 were interested in the result of the appeal presented by the first defendant and that they were likely to be affected by the result of the suit. The suit was instituted to obtain a declaration that the transfer of a certain mortgage executed by the fourth defendant to one Venkatasami Pillai and the decree obtained thereon by first defendant against defendants Nos. 2 ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »