Chennai Court April 1892 Judgments
Naramelli Rama Kurup Vs. Valiarampath Parkum Shekkedath Vazhangott Sri ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1892
Reported in: (1892)2MLJ173
1. It is the case for all parties that the land sued for originally was the jenm of Thekkedath Nair. Plaintiff's case is that it was demised to 1st defendant's tarwad in 1038 (1862-63) on a kanom of Rs. 65, that the jenm right was sold in 1883 in execution of a decree against the Thekkedath Nair and purchased by Raman Nambiyar, from whom it was purchased by plaintiff. Hence plaintiff sues to redeem the kanom and recover the land from 1st defendant and his tenant 2nd defendant.2. First defendant denies that he holds under the kanom sued on, and alleges that prior to the purchase by Raman Nambiyar the jenm right of the Thekkedath Nair had been sold in execution of a certain decree against the jenmi and purchased by Sridevi Amma a female member of the tar wad of the Thekkedath Nair, reserving a kanom right of Rs. 325 in. favor of 1st defendant, which was subsequently renewed for Rs. 525. Sridevi Amma was made 3rd defendant and supported 1st defendant.3. The Munsif found that the purchase ...
Tag this Judgment!Rama Kurup Vs. Sridevi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1892
Reported in: (1893)ILR16Mad290
1. It is the case for all parties that the land sued for originally was the jenm of Thekkadath Nair. Plaintiff's case is that it was demised to first defendant's tarwad in 1038 (1862-63) on a kanom of Rs. 65, that the jenm right was sold in 1883 in execution of a decree against the ThekkadathNair and purchased by Raman Nambiar from whom it was purchased by plaintiff Hence plaintiff sues to redeem the kanom and recover the land from first defendant and his tenant, second defendant.2. The first defendant denies that he holds under the kanom sued on, and alleges that prior to the purchase by Raman Nambiar the jenm right of the Thekkadath Nair had been sold in execution of a certain decree against the jenm and purchased by Sridevi Ammal, a female member of the tarwad of the Thekkadath Nair, reserving a kanom right of Rs. 325 in favour of defend. ant No. 1, which was subsequently renewed for Rs. 525. Sridevi Ammal was made defendant No. 3 and supported defendant No. 1.3. The Munsif found th...
Tag this Judgment!Nagasami Vs. Sundararajan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-1892
Reported in: (1892)2MLJ203
1. In suit No. 582 of 1884 the plaintiff obtained a decree for his share in the house, it being held that the sale effected by his father to defendant was purely nominal and that the property did not pass. Plaintiff's half-share was placed in his possession, and after his father's death he made an ineffectual attempt to get possession of the other half--vide Exh. I--to which as his father's legal representative in that suit, he was of course not entitled. He now sues as his father's heir to get possession on the ground that the sale-deed executed by his father did not pass the property.2. It was urged that plaintiff could have no higher rights than his father would have had if alive; and that his father could not recover against defendant. In support of this contention the decision in Seshaiya v. Kandaiya, 2 M. H. C. R 249 was quoted.3. We do not think that this case applies. It may be true that in certain cases a defendant may plead the joint fraud of himself and plaintiff as a bar to...
Tag this Judgment!Muthuvaduganatha Tevar Vs. Periasami Alias Oodayana Tevar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1892
Reported in: (1892)2MLJ265
Muthusami Aiyar, J.1. The contest in this appeal is as to the right of succession to the Zamindari of Sivaganga. Dorasinga Tevar was the last male holder, respondent is his son and appellant is the son of Kattama Nachiyar, Dorasinga's predecessor. Appellant is related to the Istimrar Zamindar as daughter's son and respondent as the son of a senior daughter's son. The question for determination is whether, under the Mitakshara law, succession is to be traced from the last male holder or the Istimrar Zamindar. The 1st and 3rd to 6th issues recorded in this case relate rather to the different grounds on, which appellant presses his claim than to independent questions.2. As regards the 1st issue, viz., whether succession is to be traced from the last male holder or his maternal grandfather, appellant's contention is that, when a person succeeds to an obstructed heritage, that person is not, whether a male or female, a full owner. There is, however, no warrant for it in the Mitakshara. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Muthia Chetti Alias Ramanathan Chetti Vs. Subbayyan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1892
Reported in: (1892)2MLJ294
1. The mortgage to Chidambara Chetti by Venkatasami Naidn and others was in April 1875. The sale of the land hyphothecated by the mortgagor to the defendants was in June or July 1876. The suit by plaintiff's assignor was in 1878. The District Munsif. found that there was 'no proof worth the name to show that plaintiff's assignors had any knowledge of the defendants being in occupation of the sites.' The District Judge was therefore in error in holding that plaintiff's assignors were bound to have made defendants parties to O.S. No. 36 of 1878. If they had no notice of their interest they could not make them parties not having been parties to that suit. Defendants are not bound by it but they are not entitled to ask that plaintiff's present suit shall be dismissed. At the time when they purchased the land was subject to the mortgage and the sales by Venkatasami Naidu in no way prejudiced the right of the prior mortgagee. The purchasers of Venkatasami Naidu's rights are entitled to have ...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnan Vs. Chadayan Kutti Haji and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1892
Reported in: (1894)ILR17Mad17
1. There are two questions for determination in this second appeal, first, whether the provisions of Sections 278--283 of the Code are applicable to the case, and, secondly, whether the failure of plaintiff to make first defendant, the puisne mortgagee, a party to his Suit No. 18 of 1883 is fatal to his present suit.2. The facts are as follows: In July 1879 plaintiff advanced Rs. 3,000 to one Koyotti to enable him to pay off the kanom and value of improvements which, by the decree in Original Suit No. 124 of 1875, he had been ordered to pay to the tenants in possession. As security Koyotti, executed in favour of the plaintiff a mortgage deed of the land, agreeing to pay interest at 12 per cent, until he put plaintiff in possession. Although Koyotti, in execution of his decree in Original Suit No. 124 of 1875, obtained possession early in 1880, he failed to put plaintiff in possession and mortgaged the lands with possession to first defendant and others. In 1883 plaintiff instituted a s...
Tag this Judgment!Ramunni Vs. Brahma Dattan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1892
Reported in: (1892)ILR15Mad366
Muttusami Ayyar, J.1. This was a suit to redeem a kanom dated September 1849. Respondents the present jenmi and appellant is the assignee of the kanom right. In Original Suit No. 493 of 1886, the former sued the assignor of the latter for redemption of the kanom, and obtained a decree which directed surrender of the property under kanom on payment of the kanom amount and the value of improvements within three months from the date of the decree, i.e., 28th June 1887. Respondent, however, failed to pay into Court the amount he was ordered to pay within the appointed time, and his application to execute the decree afterwards was held barred. The decree, however, contained no declarations that, on default of payment on or before the due date, the mortgage be foreclosed or the property be sold. In January 1890 respondent brought the present suit for redemption and his claim was resisted on the ground that it was barred by the former decree. Both the Courts below decreed redemption and relie...
Tag this Judgment!Muttuvaduganatha Tevar Vs. Periasami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1892
Reported in: (1893)ILR15Mad11
Muttusami Ayyar, J.1. The contest in this appeal is as to the right of succession to the zamindari of Shivagunga. Dora Singha Tevar was the last male holder, respondent is his son and appellant is the son of Kattama Natchi-yar, Dora Singha's predecessor, Appellant is related to the istimrar zamindar as daughter's son and respondent as the son of a senior daughter's son. The question for determination is whether, under the Mitakshara law, succession is to be traced from the last male holder or the istimrar zamindar. The first and third to sixth issues recorded in this case relate rather to the different grounds on which appellant presses his claim than to independent questions.2. As regards the first issue, viz., whether succession is to be traced from the last male holder or his maternal grandfather, appellant's contention is that when a person succeeds to an obstructed heritage, that person is not, whether a male or female, a full owner. There is, however, no warrant for it in the Mit...
Tag this Judgment!Manasing and ors. Vs. Amad Kunhi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1892
Reported in: (1894)ILR17Mad14
1. The plaintiffs (appellants 1 to 5) are the executors of the will of one Singjo Rayasi, a native of Cutch, and they sue through their agent Purushottaman Amarasi Sett to recover a debt due to the estate of the deceased.2. By Section 4 of Act VII of 1889 it is enacted that no Court shall pass a decree against a debtor of a deceased person for payment of his debt to a person claiming to be entitled to the effects of the deceased person, except on the production, by the person so claiming of (i) a probate or letters of administration evidencing the grant to him of administration to the estate of the deceased or (ii) a certificate granted under this Act and having the debt specified therein.3. The Lower Courts have found that the plaintiffs are not entitled to sue, inasmuch as they have produced neither probate nor letters of administration, nor a certificate granted under Act VII of 1889.4. It is contended by the learned Advocate-General that the executors having obtained probate of the...
Tag this Judgment!Sattappa Pillai Vs. Raman Chetti and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-1892
Reported in: (1894)ILR17Mad1
1. It is contended for the appellant that the Judge was in error in passing a decree in respondents favour under Section 10 of the Rent Recovery Act. Our order, dated 21st November 1889, directed him to determine what patta ought to be offered and to direct the tenant to execute a muchalka in accordance therewith. The question whether a Civil Court is competent to act under that section has been since considered by a Full Bench in Ramayyar v. Vedachalla I.L.R. 14 Mad. 441. It was held by the majority of the Court that though it was not competent to a Civil Court to act under that section which conferred a special power on the Revenue Courts, yet it may declare what a proper patta is in a suit properly framed for that purpose. It is argued that there was no prayer for a declaration as part of the substantive relief, and hence that this was not a proper suit for a declaratory decree. The objection is merely formal and was not taken before; moreover the plaint contains a prayer for such o...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »