Chennai Court February 1892 Judgments
Kasturi Vs. Venkatachalapathi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1892
Reported in: (1892)ILR15Mad412
1. There can be no doubt that if plaintiff himself had been the holder of the prior encumbrance when he brought the property to sale he would be subsequently estopped from enforcing the lien of which he had given no notice. See Agarchand Gumanchand v. Rakhma Hanmant I.L.R. 12 Bom. 678, followed by this Court in Jaganatha v. Gangi Reddi I.L.R. 15 Mad. 303, Nursing Narain Singh v. Roghoobur Singh I.L.R. 10 Cal. 609, Tinnappa v. Murugappa I.L.R. 7 Mad. 107. The decision in Banwari Das v. Muhammad Mashiat I.L.R. 9 All. 690 is not in conflict with these decisions, since in that case it was not attempted to be shown that the provisions of Section 287 of the Code of Civil Procedure had not been complied with vide judgment of edge, C.J., page 702. All that was urged was that plaintiff as a bidder had not personally announced his encumbrance.2. It is urged in this suit that it was not plaintiff but Aundi Chakrapani Chetti who held the prior mortgage. It is admitted, however, that this man was p...
Tag this Judgment!The Secretary of State for India in Council Represented by the Collect ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1892
Reported in: (1892)2MLJ158
ORDERBest, J.1. This is an appeal by the Secretary of State for India, represented by the Collector of Malabar, against the decision of the District Court of North Malabar allowing the claim of one Ponnampitath Parapraven Kunhamed Haji to certain lands, of which it had been intended by the Governor of Madras in Council to constitute a reserved forest under the 3rd and following sections of Madras Forest Act No. V. of 1882. A Forest Settlement officer was accordingly appointed and, it is to be presumed, proceeded as required by Section 6 of the Act, when the abovenamed Kunhamed (now respondent) came forward claiming to be the owner of the land in question. The Forest Settlement officer thereupon enquired into the case, and though he was not satisfied with the evidence adduced in support of the case set up for Government, viz., that the land in question belonged to the Kanot Nambiyar and was escheated to Government, rejected the claim of the present respondent on the ground that he had f...
Tag this Judgment!Secretary of State for India Vs. Bavotti Haji
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1892
Reported in: (1892)ILR15Mad315
Best, J.1. This is an appeal by the Secretary of State for India, represented by the Collector of Malabar, against the decision of the District Court of North Malabar, allowing the claim of one Ponnampilath Parapraven Kunham-ed Haji to certain lands, of which it had been intended by the Governor of Madras in Council to constitute a reserved forest under the third and following sections of Madras Forest Act (Act V of 1882). A Forest Settlement Officer was accordingly appointed, and, it is to be presumed, proceeded as required by Section 6 of the Act, when the above-named Kunhamed (now respondent) came forward, claiming to be the owner of the land in question. The Forest Settlement Officer thereupon inquired into the case, and, though he was not satisfied with the evidence adduced in support of the case, set up for Government, viz., that the land in question belonged to the Kanot Nambiyar and was escheated to Government, rejected the claim of the present respondent on the ground that he ...
Tag this Judgment!Sultan Moideen Rowthan Vs. Savalayammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1892
Reported in: (1892)2MLJ50
1. The finding is that the sum of Rs. 1000 was paid by the defendant to Appaji Chetti one of the two decree-holders. This finding is however not sufficient for the disposal of the case. A further finding is also necessary as to what was the share to which Appaji Chetti was entitled as between him and the 1st plaintiff Savalayammal, and the payment made to Appaji Chetti can be held valid only to the extent of the share to which he is entitled. Cf. Tarruch Chunder Bhuttacharjee v. Divendro Nath Sanyal I. L. R 9 C 831, with the decision in which case we agree. As to the contention that the application made by Savalayammal for execution of the whole was premature, we are unable to rule that the first instalment was paid in conformity with the directions contained in the decree.2. The payment was not certified by Appaji Chetti to have been received by him on behalf of both the judgment-creditors, and it appears that he applied the whole money to his own use. Having regard to Section 231 of ...
Tag this Judgment!Sultan Moideen Vs. Savalayammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1892
Reported in: (1892)ILR15Mad343
1. The finding is that the sum of Rs. 1,100 was paid by the defendant to Appaji Chetti, one of two decree-holders. This rinding is, however, not sufficient for the disposal of the case. A further finding is also necessary as to what was the share to which Appaji Chetti is entitled as between him and the first plaintiff Savalayammal. The payment made to Appaji Chetti can be held valid only to the extent of his share to which he is entitled:--See Tarruck Chunder Buttacharjee v. Divendro Nath Sanyal I.L.R. 9 Cal. 831 with the decision in which case we agree.2. As to the contention that the application made by Savalayammal for execution of the whole decree was premature, we are unable to rule that the first instalment was paid in conformity with the direction contained in the decree.3. The payment was not certified by Appaji Chetti to have been received by him on behalf of both judgment-creditors, and it appears that he has applied the whole of the money for his own use. Having regard to S...
Tag this Judgment!D. Lakshminarasimham Vs. D. Somasundram, Minor, by His Mother D. Brahm ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1892
Reported in: (1892)2MLJ45
1. There is nothing in the wording of Section 514 to limit the period within which the time may be extended by the court to the period mentioned in the previous order, nor will it be reasonable to do so. In the case reported in I. L. It 9 M 475, Simson v. Venkatagopalam, no order extending the time had been obtained before the award was given. The award in that case was therefore properly held to be invalid under tbe express terms of 8. 521. All that was decided in Suppu v. Govindacharyar I. L. R. 11 M. 85 was that as the application for extension of the period had been made within the time originally fixed, the mere fact of the order having been passed after such time did not invalidate the award. It was not then necessary to consider the point now raised. But as far as that decision goes it supports the contention of the present appellant, that the real test is whether the time was in fact extended so as to validate the award which the arbitrators would otherwise have had no jurisdic...
Tag this Judgment!Lakshminarasimham Vs. Somasundaram
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1892
Reported in: (1892)ILR15Mad384
1. There is nothing in the wording of Section 514 to limit the period within which the time may be extended by the Court to the period mentioned in the previous order, nor would it be reasonable to so limit it. In the case reported as Simson v. Venkatagopalam I.L.R. 9 Mad. 475 no order extending the time had been obtained before the award was given. The award in that case was, therefore, properly held to be invalid under the express terms of Section 521. All that was decided in Suppu v. Govindacharyar I.L.R. 11 Mad. 85 was that, as the application for extension of the period had been made within the time originally fixed, the mere fact of the order having been passed after such time did not invalidate the award. It was not then necessary to consider the point now raised. But so far as that decision goes, it supports the contention of the present appellant, that the real test is whether the time was in fact extended so as to validate the award which the arbitrators would otherwise have ...
Tag this Judgment!Jagannadha Vs. Gopanna and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1892
Reported in: (1893)ILR16Mad229
1. The Agent having dismissed the appeal under Rule 18 of the Agency Rules, we have no power to interfere. Rule 20 only applies to cases in which the Agent has passed a judgment under Rule 19.2. The petition must be dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Thandavan Chetti and anr. Vs. Valliammai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1892
Reported in: (1892)IIMLJ130
Subramania Aiyar, J.1. One Paramasivan Chetti died on the 27th December 1887 leaving him surviving, his divided brother, the 1st plaintiff, his widow, the 1st defendant, and his daughter, the 2nd defendant. The plaintiffs 2 and 4 are the sons of the 1st plaintiff, who died after the institution of the suit.2. The case for the plaintiffs is that the late 1st plaintiff was entitled, according to the custom of the caste, to succeed, to the exclusion of the 1st defendant, to the properties left by Paramasivan Chetti, that on his death, disputes arose between the late 1st plaintiff, and the 1st defendant respecting his properties, that through the mediation of certain persons, the disputes were settled and the terms of the settlement were embodied in an agreement executed between the 1st plaintiff and the 1st and 2nd defendants on the 28th December 1887, that according to the said agreement the 1st plaintiff became entitled to one-third of the movable properties and certain immovable proper...
Tag this Judgment!Govinda Vs. Krishnan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1892
Reported in: (1892)ILR15Mad333
1. It has been held by the Full Bench in Ittiachan v. Velappan I.L.R. 8 Mad. 484 that when the karnavan of a Malabar tarwad has not been impleaded as such in a suit, and. there is nothing on the face of the proceedings to show that it was intended to implead him in his representative character, tarwad property cannot be attached and sold in execution of the decree, even though it is proved that the decree was obtained for a debt binding on the tarwad. Compare also Sankaran v. Farvathi I.L.R. 12 Mad. 434.2. The Judge has found that; the law applicable to plaintiff's family is that to which Nambudri Brahmans in the Malabar district are subject, i.e., Hindu law modified by special custom. Compare Vishnu v. Krishnan I.L.R. 7 Mad. 3 and Vasudevan v. The Secretary of State for India I.L.R. 11 Mad. 157 As was found in Nilakandan v. Madhavan I.L.R. 10 Mad. 9 'the customs of the Nambudris in the management and assignment of property do not differ from the customs of the Nayars. Impartibility is...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »