Chennai Court July 1892 Judgments
Rayakkal and ors. Vs. Subbanna
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-1892
Reported in: (1893)ILR16Mad84
1. The plea that some of the items of plaint property were the self-acquisition of Palani Gounden does not appear to have been pressed before the District Judge and apparently there is no evidence in support of the contention.2. The deeds of stridhanam executed to the two daughters were executed after their marriage, and without the consent of plaintiff who was a minor, and together with the deed in favour of first defendant, they amount to more than half of the ancestral property. No authority in support of a Hindu father's power to make such an alienation of ancestral immoveable property has been quoted at the bar, and we find that, in a similar case, the Allahabad High Court on the suit of a minor son held that such an alienation must be set aside, not only to the extent of the father's share, but altogether--Ganga Bisheshar v. Pirthi Pal I.L.R. 2 All. 635.3. The second appeal must be dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Narasimma Chetti Vs. Surianarayana Aiyar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-1892
Reported in: (1892)IIMLJ153
1. It is next contended that the judge is in error in holding that plaintiff's perpetual lease is not binding on the purchaser in that it was granted for a sum below the faisal assessment and the proportional revenue payable on it.2. A perpetual, lease is in our opinion an encumbrance within the meaning of Act II of 1864. It creates an under-tenure which diminishes the value of the estate.3. As for the contention that the permanent lease in question fell under Section 82 of the Act, as there was no declaration by the Collector of its being valid, it must be upheld. We are of opinion that the absence of the declaration by the Collector is immaterial and will not preclude the purchaser from avoiding it on the ground, of its being an encumbrance under Section 42. We are of opinion therefore that the decree of the judge must be upheld for the reasons stated above. This second appeal is dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Ammanna and ors. Vs. Gurumurthi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-1892
Reported in: (1893)ILR16Mad64
1. On the 28th March 1871, appellants' father executed a mortgage in favour of respondents' father. The instrument of mortgage, Exhibit A, purported to place the mortgaged property in the mortgagee's possession, and provided for the usufruct being applied first in liquidation of the stipulated interest and then in reduction of the principal debt. It contained also a covenant to repay the balance within four years and then proceeded to state that in default of payment on the due date, the mortgagor was to give up the mortgaged property to the mortgagee, as if it was sold to him. The plaint stated that though the mortgagor placed the mortgagee in possession, yet the former unlawfully resumed psssession in 1874 without repaying the mortgage debt, and prayed for a decree either for sale or foreclosure. It was contended on appellants' behalf that the mortgage debt was discharged, and that the suit was barred by limitation. On appeal, the Subordinate Judge at Cocanada found that the debt was...
Tag this Judgment!Narasimma Vs. Surianarayana and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-1892
Reported in: (1893)ILR16Mad144
1. It is first urged on behalf of the appellant that the Judge was in error in taking into consideration the evidence adduced by second defendant (whose name had been ordered to be removed from the suit) in proof of the revenue sale. The evidence was adduced when first and second defendants were jointly contending that the former's holding was under second defendant and not under plaintiff; and the finding originally called for had reference to that joint contention. Such being the case, we cannot say that the Judge was wrong in using this evidence in determining the issue as between plaintiff and first defendant. It is next contended that the Judge is in error in holding that plaintiff's perpetual lease is not binding on the purchaser in that it was granted for a sum below the faisal assessment and the proportional revenue payable on it.2. A permanent lease is, in our opinion, an encumbrance within the meaning of Section 42 of Madras Act II of 1864. It creates an under-tenure which di...
Tag this Judgment!Chinnagandham Ammanna and ors. Vs. Tota Gurumurti and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-1892
Reported in: (1892)2MLJ155
Muthusami Aiyar, J.1. On the 28th March 1891, appellants' father executed a mortgage in favor of respondents' father. The instrument of mortgage Exh. A. purported to place the mortgaged property in the mortgagee's possession and provided for the usufruct being applied first in liquidation of the stipulated interest and then in reduction of the principal debt. It contained also a covenant to repay the' balance within four years and then proceeded to state that in default of payment on the due date the mortgagor was to give up the mortgaged property to the mortgagee as if it was sold to him. The plaint stated that though the mortgagor placed the mortgagee in possession yet the former unlawfully resumed possession in 1874 without repaying' the mortgage debt and prayed for a decree either for sale or foreclosure. It was contended on appellants' behalf that the mortgage-debt was discharged and that the suit was barred by limitation. On appeal the Subordinate Judge of Cocanada found that the...
Tag this Judgment!Saminadha Vs. Samban
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-1892
Reported in: (1893)ILR16Mad274
1. The question is whether the suit has been rightly dismissed as being out of time. The facts are as follow:2. The appellant, claiming to be entitled to a sum of Rs. 174-14-0 as his share of moneys realized under an agreement, dated 28th August 1885, entered into between himself and defendant for taking emigrants to Burmah, instituted against defendant on the 2nd September 1887 Original Suit No. 91 of 1888 on the file of the District Munsif of Negapatam. That suit was pending on the Negapatam Munsif's file till 5th March 1888, when it was transferred to the District Munsif of Tiruturaipundi. The suit as brought was silent as to any settlement of accounts and if there had been no suoh settlement, it was properly instituted as a regular suit and having been brought within three years from the date of commencement of the partnership was well within time, even if the date of the agreement be taken as that from which the period of limitation should be calculated. But in the course of his e...
Tag this Judgment!Queen-empress Vs. Muthia
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-14-1892
Reported in: (1893)ILR16Mad410
1. By Section 15 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the Local Government is empowered to 'direct any two or more Magistrates in any place outside the presidency towns to sit together on a bench' and to 'invest such bench with any of the powers conferred or conferrable by or under this Code on a Magistrate of the first, second or third class, and direct it to exercise such powers in such cases or such classes of cases only and within such local limits as the Local Government thinks fit.'2. Under Section 16 of the same Code 'the Local Government may, or, subject to the control of the Local Government, the District Magistrate may, from time to time, make rules consistent with this Code for the guidance of Magistrates' benches in any district respecting the following subjects:(a) The classes of cases to be tried.(b) The times and places of sitting.(c) The constitution of the bench for conducting trials.(d) The mode of settling differences of opinion which may arise between the Magistrates i...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›