Chennai Court January 1893 Judgments
Gopal Row and anr. Vs. the Bank of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1893
Reported in: (1893)3MLJ197
1. The suit out of which this appeal has arisen was instituted by the Bank of Madras, for a declaration that an instrument dated 12th April 1889 executed by, 1st defendant to 2nd and 3rd defendants, transferring to the latter a decree held by the former against the Zamindar of Karvetnaggar is void, if not altogether, at least as against the plaintiff Bank.2. The plaintiff's case is that the instrument in question was executed by 1st defendant fraudulently and in collusion with 2nd and 3rd defendants with the object of delaying and defeating the just claims of the plaintiff to whom he was indebted at the time on account of bills executed or endorsed by him amounting to Rs. 25,000. The 1st defendant has not defended the suit. The 2nd and 3rd defendants pleaded that the transfer in question was neither fraudulent nor collusive but that it was taken by them in good faith and for valuable consideration.3. The District Judge has found that the 2nd and 3rd defendants acted in good faith in ac...
Tag this Judgment!Srinivasa Sastrial Vs. Sami Rau
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1893
Reported in: (1894)ILR17Mad180
1. We have no doubt that a suit for a declaratory decree is maintainable. The plaintiff's petition was put in under Section 278 of the Code of Civil Procedure and a suit under Section 2831 is his only possible remedy.2. The next point urged is that an appeal should have been preferred against the order of the District Munsif directing a second attachment. But that order was a mere direction of the Court without notice to either party and in no case could defendant have been made a party to the appeal if there had been one.3. The decision quoted in Puddomonee Dossee v. Roy Muthooranath Chowdhry 12 B.L.R. 411 lays down no general rule, but the effect of it is that it is a matter of inference in the particular case whether the striking off of an execution petition terminates an attachment. We agree with the District Judge that in this case there was no intention to abandon or to terminate the attachment. This may he inferred not only from plaintiff's subsequent conduct, but from the very ...
Tag this Judgment!Gopal and anr. Vs. Bank of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1893
Reported in: (1893)ILR16Mad397
1. The suit out of which this appeal has arisen was instituted by the Bank of Madras for a declaration that an instrument, dated 12th April, 1889, executed by first defendant to second and third defendants, transferring to the latter a decree held by the former against the Zamindar of Karvetnagar is void, if not altogether, at least as against the plaintiff bank.2. The plaintiff's case is that the instrument in question was executed by first defendant fraudulently and in collusion with second and third defendants with the object of delaying and defeating the just claims of the plaintiff to whom he was indebted at the time on account of bills executed or endorsed by him amounting to Rs. 25,000. The first defendant has not defended the suit. The second and third defendants pleaded that the transfer in question was neither fraudulent nor collusive, but that it was taken by them in good faith and for valuable consideration.3. The District Judge has found that the second and third defendant...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Rajah Narayya Appa Row Bahadur Zamindar Garu, Minor, by His Guardi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1893
Reported in: (1893)3MLJ80
1. The property which is the subject of this litigation is the Zamindari of Nidadavole in the Godavari District. Rajah Narayya Appa Rao was its last male owner, and on 7th December 1864, he died, leaving him surviving two widows named Raja Papamma Rao, the 1st defendant, and Raja Chinnamma Rao who died in 1881. In June 1885 Raja Papamma Rao adopted Venkata Ramayya Appa Rao, the father of the minor 2nd defendant. The last male owner had two half-brothers named Rama-chandra Appa Rao and Narasimha Appa Rao, and the plaintiff Venkatadri Appa Rao was the son of the latter.2. The previous history of the family as shown by the pedigree set out in Exh. XII is shortly this. One Raja Narayya Appa Rao was the common ancestor of the plaintiff and the 1st defendant's husband. He had married five wives and had one son by his third wife, viz., Venkata Narasimha Appa Rao, and two sons by his fifth wife, viz., Ramachandra Appa Rao and Narasimha Appa Rao. Narayya Appa Rao rebelled against the late East ...
Tag this Judgment!Papamma and Vs. V. Appa Rau and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1893
Reported in: (1893)ILR16Mad384
1. The property which is the subject of this litigation is the zamindari of Nidadavole in the Godavari district. Rajah Narayya Appa Rau was its last male owner, and on 7th December 1864 he died leaving him surviving two widows named Rajah Papamma Rau, the defendant No. 1, and Rajah Chinnamma Rau who died in 1881. In June 1885 Rajah Papamma Rau adopted Venkata Ramayya Appa Rau, the father of the minor defendant No. 2. The last male owner had two half-brothers named Ramachendra Appa Rau and Narasimha Appa Rau, and the plaintiff Venkatadri Appa Rau was the son of the latter,2. The previous history of the family; as shown by the pedigree set out in Exhibit XII, is shortly this. One Rajah Narayya Appa Rau was the common ancestor of the plaintiff and the first defendant's husband. He had married five wives and had one son by his third wife, viz., Venkata Narasimha Appa Rau, and two sons by his fifth wife, viz., Ramachandra Appa Rau and Narasimha Appa Rau. Narayya Appa Rau rebelled against th...
Tag this Judgment!Pranambal Achee Vs. Palaniappa Mudaliar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-16-1893
Reported in: (1893)3MLJ222
1. The fact of tenancy being admitted the burden of proof that defendant is a permanent tenant lies on the defendant. Exhibit A disproves the defendant's case that he is a permanent tenant paying a rent of Rs. 71/2 per annum.2. The only other question is whether the suit is bad for want of notice to quit. The case is not one in which the plaintiff's title is denied but merely his right to possession. Subba v. Nagappa, I. L. R 12 M 353 is authority for holding that in such a case notice is necessary and this is not over-ruled but distinguished in S. A. No. 512 of 1890, Chithambram Pillai v. Sabapathi Pillai, 1 Madras Law Journal, 218.3. As it is admitted by plaintiff's that the letting was an annual one, the notice of less than a month and that given after the end of the fasli is clearly insufficient.4. On this ground this second appeal must be allowed and the Lower Appellate Court's decree being set aside, that of the Court of First Instance restored. Decreed accordingly.5. Respondents...
Tag this Judgment!Sarangapani Aiyangar and ors. Vs. the Secretary of State for India in ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1893
Reported in: (1893)3MLJ47
1. In this case the Collector made the prior attachment under the provisions of the Madras Abkari Act (I of 1886), Section 28. The lands were subsequently attached by a private creditor and sold in execution. The question is whether the property passed to the purchaser subject to the liability to be sold under the attachment previously made by the Collector. The earned pleader contends that the terms of Section 28 of the Abkari Act do not extend the provision of Section 42, Madras Act II. of 1864, to sales for arrears of Abkari revenue, and that since the Revenue Recovery Act does not prohibit alienations after attachment, the attachment made by the Collector is absolutely void either against a private alienation or against a subsequent attachment in execution * of a court decree. If this contention be valid, it would follow that the Crown would be in a worse position than any private creditor, even though making the first attachment, since it could not even claim rateable distribution...
Tag this Judgment!Kottal Uppi Haji Vs. Vayoth Randupurayil Mammavan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1893
Reported in: (1893)3MLJ191
1. Relying on the case of Mylapore Iyasawmy Vyapoory Moodliar v. Yeo Kay, I. L. R. 14 C 801 the lower appellate court has held that the acknowledgment in Exh. A is not sufficient to remove the bar of limitation. Exh. A was a will executed by the mortgagee, the predecessor in title of the defendants. The testator therein described the plaint lands as 'demised to me on kanom.' The question is whether this is such an acknowledgment of liability in respect of the property as to bring it within the requirements of Section 19 of the Limitation Act. There can be no doubt that it was an acknowledgment by the testator, that he then held the estate on kanom title. The defendant in this suit admitted that the mortgage of 1805 was true but relied on the Act of Limitations. He failed to show that there was any other mortgage to which the acknowledgment of the testator could have referred. Under these circumstances the decision of the Munsif that the acknowledgment is sufficient must be upheld unles...
Tag this Judgment!Uppi Haji Vs. Mammavan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1893
Reported in: (1893)ILR16Mad366
1. Relying on Mylapore Iyasawmy Vyapoory Moodliar v. Yeo Kay I.L.R. 14 Cal. 801 the lower Appellate Court has held that the acknowledgment in Exhibit A is not sufficient to remove the bar of limitation. Exhibit A was a will executed by the mortgagee, the predecessor in title of the defendants. The testator therein described the plaint lands as 'demised to me on kanom.' The question is whether this is such an acknowledgment of liability in respect of the property as to bring it within the requirements of Section 19 of the Limitation Act. There can be no doubt that it was an acknowledgment by the testator that he then held the estate on kanom title. The defendant in this suit admitted that the mortgage of 1805 was true, but relied on the Act of Limitations. He failed to show that there was any other mortgage to which the acknowledgment of the testator could have referred. Under these circumstances the decision of the Munsif that the acknowledgment is sufficient must be upheld, unless we ...
Tag this Judgment!Sarangapani and ors. Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1893
Reported in: (1893)ILR16Mad479
1. In this case the Collector made the prior attachment under the provisions of the Madras Abkari Act I of 1886, Sction 28. The lands were subsequently attached by a private creditor and sold in execution. The question is whether the property passed to the purchaser subject to the liability to be sold under the attachment previously made by the Collector.2. The learned pleader contends that the terms of Section 28 of the Abkari Act do not extend the provision of Section 2, Madras Act II of 1864, to sales for arrears of abkari revenue, and that since the Revenue Recovery Act does not prohibit alienation after attachment, the attachment made by the Collector is absolutely void either against a private alienation or against a subsequent attachment in execution of a Court-decree. If this contention be valid, it would follow that the Crown would be in a worse position than any private creditor, even though making the first attachment, since it could not even claim rateable distribution unde...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »