Chennai Court September 1892 Judgments
Simanapalli Krishnamma Vs. Rongali Suranna and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-29-1892
Reported in: (1893)3MLJ54
1. The question referred to the Full Bench is whether when it is proved that a subsequent incumbrancer under a registered conveyance had notice of a valid prior unregistered incumbrance and of possession by such incumbrancer or of such conveyance without possession, the courts are bound to interpret Section 50 of the present Registration Act so as to defeat the title of the prior incumbrancer.2. The first attempt to compel the registration of deeds &c;, in India was by Regulation XVII of 1802, a regulation for establishing a Registry for Wills and Deeds for the transfer or mortgage of real property and it was enacted by Section 6, Clause 3, that, 'it being the object, however, of the rules in the two preceding clauses, to prevent persons being defrauded by purchasing or receiving in gift, or taking in mortgage, real property which may have been before sold, given, or mortgaged, subsequent to the period fixed for the operation of this regulation ; and as persons can never suffer such im...
Tag this Judgment!Vasudeva Vs. Madhava and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-29-1892
Reported in: (1893)ILR16Mad326
1. Two preliminary objections are taken to the hearing of this appeal: (i) that the appeal has not been properly stamped and (ii) that the appeal lies to the District Court and not to the High Court.2. The appeal is from a decree for the redemption of one-fourth of the property in the schedule on payment of one-fourth of the mortgage-debt. The Subordinate Judge held that 15 1/4 padipads claimed by defendants Nos. 3 to 18 as their jenm were not liable to the mortgage-debt and belonged to the defendants Nos. 3 to 18. He decreed redemption of one-fourth part of the remainder of the property mortgaged. Plaintiff appeals on the ground that the decision of the Subordinate Judge so far as it relates to the 15 1/4 padipads was erroneous. Instead of valuing the appeal as required by Section 7, Clause 9 of the Court Fees Act at one-fourth of the mortgage-debt, he has fixed an arbitrary value of Rs. 200 on the 15 1/2 padipads and paid Rs. 15 only. No explanation is given why this arbitrary value ...
Tag this Judgment!Kerala Varmah Valia Rajah Avergal of Cherakkal Kovilagam and ors. Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-26-1892
Reported in: (1893)3MLJ51
1. Exhibit A provides for the planting of four kinds of fruit trees for which compensation at the ordinary rate is to be paid on the surrender of the paramba. There is no special contract such as is contemplated in Section 7, Madras Act I of 1887, which would exempt the agreement from the operation of the Act. The stipulation is apparently for the benefit of the landlord. Nothing is said about other improvements, but the right of the tenant to make customary improvements is not excluded.2. The landlord is therefore bound to pay compensation for improvements at the ordinary rate, and the only question is whether that rate is to be the rate prevailing at the time compensation has to be paid or that prevailing at some former date.3. We have no doubt that the landlord is bound to pay the rate prevailing at the date the compensation is paid.4. That rate is now governed by Madras Act I of 1887 and we answer the question referred to the Full Bench in the affirmative. The compensation must of ...
Tag this Judgment!Kerala Varmah Valia Rajah Avargal of Cherakkal Kovilagam and ors. Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-26-1892
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.696
1. Exhibit A provides for the planting of four kinds of fruit trees for which compensation at the ordinary rate is to be paid on the surrender of the paramba. There is no special contract such as is contemplated in Section 7, Madras Act I of 1887, which would exempt the agreement from the operation of the Act. The stipulation is apparently for the benefit of the landlord. Nothing is said about other improvements, but the right of the tenant to make customary improvements is not excluded.2. The landlord is, therefore, bound to pay compensation for improvements at the ordinary rate, and the only question is whether that rate is to be the rate prevailing at the time compensation has to be paid or that prevailing at some former date.3. We have no doubt that the landlord is bound to pay the rate prevailing at the date the compensation is paid.4. That rate is now governed by Madras Act I of 1887 and we answer the question referred to the Full Bench in the affirmative. The compensation must, ...
Tag this Judgment!Venkatavaraga Vs. the District Board of Tanjore in Charge of the Nadar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-1892
Reported in: (1893)ILR16Mad305
1. The principal point argued in these appeals is limitation. For appellant it is contended that the amendment of the plaint ordered by the District Judge by which the District Board was substituted for the President of the Local Fund Board was in fact the substitution of a new plaintiff, and that, therefore, by Section 22 of the Limitation Act, the suit must be deemed to have been instituted at the date of the order, and at that date (12th March 1890) the suit was barred by limitation, being a suit for merais for faslis 1293, 1294 which ended 30th June 1885. The appellant's vakil argues that the suit comes under Article 110 of schedule II of the Limitation Act, suits for arrears of rent, and that the period of limitation is therefore three years. We think this is not a suit for arrears of rent. The merais or customary dues sued for are not claimed by plaintiff as landlord, but as due to the chattram by custom. There is no definition of the term rent in the Limitation Act, and we must ...
Tag this Judgment!Srimana Vikraman and anr. Vs. Rayan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1892
Reported in: (1893)ILR16Mad293
1. The only point urged is that the Subordinate Judge was in error in reversing the whole decree when only two of the defendants appealed, one of whom withdrew from the appeal and reliance is placed on the wording of Section 544, Civil Procedure Code, and a case reported, Boydonath Surmah v. Ojan Bibee 11 W.R., 238. That case is not on all fours with the present. The ground common to all the defendants was that the plaintiff was not the jenmi and that defendants Nos. 1 and 2 never held under him. The first and second defendants disclaimed all interest. The third defendant claimed to be the jenmi and the eighth defendant, the appellant in the Lower Appellate Court, claimed as kanomdar under the third defendant. The decree of the District Munsif proceeded on the ground that the plaintiffs were the jenmis and that defendants Nos. 1 and 2 held under them. The defendants Nos. 1 and 2 having disclaimed all interest, the only substantial defendants were the third and eighth. We cannot, theref...
Tag this Judgment!N. Subbaraya Pillai Vs. Coo. Vythilinga Padayachi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-1892
Reported in: (1893)3MLJ30
ORDER1. On the 25th of April 1887 the firm of Coo. Vythilingam & Co., and Coo. Vythilingam (1st defendant) personally, were adjudicated bankrupts by the Bankruptcy Court of Mauritius, and a. Mr. Newton was appointed by the court manager and receiver of the bankrupt's property.2. On the 23rd May 1887 Rangasami and three others, members of the firm of Coo. Vythilingam & Co., were adjudicated bankrupts, and Mr. Newton was appointed receiver.3. On the 22nd July 1887 a meeting of creditors was called by Mr, Newton under the presidency of the judge in Bankruptcy and the creditors by a majority in number and three-fourths in value passed the following resolutions : (1) that a composition of 50 cents in the Rupee be accepted in full satisfaction of the debts in principal and costs, due to the creditors of the bankrupts, exclusive of all privileged costs and preferential claims which are to be paid in full, and on condition that the two orders of adjudication of 25th April and 23rd May last be ...
Tag this Judgment!Subbaraya Vs. Vythilinga and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-1892
Reported in: (1893)ILR16Mad85
1. On the 25th April 1887 the firm of Coo. Vythilingam and Company and Coo. Vythilingam (first defendant) personally were adjudicated bankrupts by the Bankruptcy Court of Mauritius, and a Mr. Newton was appointed by the Court manager and receiver of the bankrupts' property.2. On the 23rd May 1887 Rungasawmy and three others, members of the firm of Coo. Vythilingam and Company, were adjudicated bankrupts, and Mr. Newton was appointed receiver.3. On the 22nd July 1887 a meeting of creditors was called by Mr. Newton under the presidency of the Judge in Bankruptcy, and the creditors, by a majority in number and three-fourths in value, passed the following resolutions: (i) that a composition of 50 cents in the rupee be accepted in full satisfaction of the debts in principal and costs due to the creditors of the bankrupts, exclusive of all privileged costs and preferential claims which are to be paid in full, and on condition that the two orders of adjudication of 25th April and 23rd May las...
Tag this Judgment!Rangasami Vs. Ranga and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-1892
Reported in: (1893)ILR16Mad146
Best, J.1. It is urged on behalf of the appellant that the District Judge is wrong in holding the office, the subject of this suit, to be a religious office and therefore extra commercium.2. The duties of the office are, it appears, to hold the poles of the God's seat when taken in procession, to tie cloths (parivattam) on the heads of the athat-athars, and to distribute sacred food to the spectators. It is admitted that ('the office) can only be held by a Vaishnava Brahmin; and the duties are performed as part of a religious ceremony. The Judge is therefore right in holding it to be a religious office. As a rule, such offices cannot be the subject of sale. In the present case, however, it has been admitted by the second respondent himself that the office is saleable, and, as a matter of fact, first defendant, by whom it was sold to appellant, acquired his right to it by purchase. Second respondent, who is the adopted son of first defendant, contended originally that the acquisition by...
Tag this Judgment!Venkayya Vs. Lakshmayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-1892
Reported in: (1893)ILR16Mad98
1. The District Judge has reversed the decree of the District Munsif on the ground that a suit to enforce partition in a specific item of the immoveable property of the family is not maintainable. We think this decision is right. The general rule is that a suit will not lie for a partial partition of family property. In this case the action is really one in ejectment, and the plaintiff, if he established that first defendant is a trespasser, can claim to eject him, notwithstanding that his brother supports a false title which first defendant sets up.2. The case is not similar to Chinna Sanyasi v. Suriya I.L.R. 5 Mad. 196 as here there has been no alienation by a coparcener to a stranger.3. The plaintiff, if he does not choose to sue for partition of the whole estate, can sue to eject first defendant from the house, making his brothers, who refuse to join as co-plaintiffs, defendants, in the suit.4. The second appeal fails, and we dismiss it with costs....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »