Chennai Court September 1893 Judgments
Sobhanadri Appa Rau Vs. Sriramulu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-26-1893
Reported in: (1894)ILR17Mad221
Muttusami Ayyar, J.1. This was a suit upon a bond executed by the defendant's mother as his guardian in renewal of an old debt. The Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit on the ground that, but for the new bond, the old debt would be barred by limitation at the date of suit, and that a guardian was not competent to make an acknowledgment on behalf of his ward so as to give a fresh start for the period of limitation. The decision of the High Court at Calcutta in Wajibun v. Kadir Buksh I.L.R. 13 Cal. 295 is not consistent with the principle and the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Chinnaya v. Gurunatham I.L.R. 5 Mad. 169 According to the last-mentioned decision, the manager of a joint Hindu family, in which there may be minors, has authority to acknowledge a debt, provided that it is not barred at the date of acknowledgment. In my opinion, such an acknowledgment may often be necessary to obtain an extension of time for payment of minor's debt and thereby prevent imminent pressu...
Tag this Judgment!Ponnayya Goundan Vs. Muttu Goundan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-25-1893
Reported in: (1894)ILR17Mad146
1. We are of opinion that the registration of the sale-deed to plaintiff effected a transfer of the property to him by virtue of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act. It has been held in Narain Chunder Chuckerbutty v. Dataram I.L.R. 5 Cal. 597 that a registered transfer without delivery of possession will pass any interest in land, and we consider that registration constitutes a sufficient delivery of the deed to pass such interest, otherwise the object of registration would be defeated, that object being to let all the world know in whom the title to property lies. We must, therefore, reverse the decree of the District Judge and restore that of the Munsif, the plaintiff still being liable for the balance of the unpaid purchase-money. The defendants must pay the plaintiff's costs in this and in the Lower Appellate Court....
Tag this Judgment!Sundara Gopalan Vs. Venkatavarada Ayyangar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-25-1893
Reported in: (1894)ILR17Mad228
Muttusami Ayyar, J.1. The petitioner is the judgment-creditor in Original Suit No. 25 of 1881 on the file of the Subordinate Court (West) at Madura, and the counter-petitioner is the purchaser at the Court-sale held in execution of the decree passed therein against one B. Krishnasami Chetty. The auction sale was held on the 27th July 1885, and it was since found that a portion of the property sold, valued at Rs. 60, belonged to one Velayudam at the date of the sale. The counter-petitioner thereupon claimed a refund of the purchase money, and the Subordinate Judge decreed the claim on the Small Cause side. It is contended for the petitioner that as Krishnasami Chetty had some saleable interest in the property sold, the counter-petitioner is entitled to no refund at all. It is true that in Runhamed v. Chathu I. L. R. 9 Mad. 437 it was held that where the judgment-debtor had some saleable interest in the property sold the Court had no jurisdiction to make an order under Section 315 for re...
Tag this Judgment!Kunhanujan Vs. Anjelu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-25-1893
Reported in: (1894)ILR17Mad296
Muttusami Ayyar, J.1. This was a suit for house-rent. The house was let to the first defendant under a kulichit, which he executed on the 23rd September, 1888. The first defendant assigned the lease to one Ali Koya, and defendants 2 to 7 are his heirs. The eighth defendant purchased Ali Koya's interest at a Court sale. The plaintiff claimed Rs. 210 as the balance of rent due by all the defendants. The eighth defendant did not enter into possession, and stated that he did not desire to take possession under his sale certificate, though it was his intention to insist on his claim as purchaser so far as the improvements made by Ali Koya are concerned. The Subordinate Judge held, on the Small Cause side, that, as the principal lessee, the first defendant was liable for rent, that defendants 2 to 7 were also liable, as Ali Koya's heirs, from date of Ali Koya's purchase, and that the eighth defendant was liable for rent from the date on which he purchased Ali Koya's interest. The eighth defe...
Tag this Judgment!Lakshmana Ayyan Vs. Rangasami Ayyan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1893
Reported in: (1894)ILR17Mad78
Muttusami Ayyar, J.1. Appellant and respondent are the sons of two brothers. On the 25th October 1887 the latter and the father of the former entered into a partition. An appeal was then pending in the High Court from the decision of the Subordinate Court of Negapatam in Original Suit No. 63 of 1884: which had been brought by them on a hypothecation bond executed in their favour by one Chokkammal Annee of Kulik&rai.; The partition deed provided, inter alia, that appellant's father should take for his share all the debts due to the joint family including the amount of the hypothecation bond, and that, if the appeal then pending was decided against them, appellant's father should pay all the costs of that litigation both in the Original and Appellate Courts. The appeal was dismissed in January 1889, and both the appellant's father and respondent were directed to pay Chokkammal's costs. One of her judgment-creditors took out execution against the judgment-debtors in Original Suit No. 63 o...
Tag this Judgment!Appu Pattar and anr. Vs. Sri Kurumba Bhagavati Devaswom Uttama Panampa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1893
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ588
ORDER1. The Subordinate Judge finds that the temple in question, though it might have originally belonged to the tarwad, has since, in the course of time, attained a quasi-public character. It is contended by appellants' pleader that the facts found do not warrant the conclusion arrived at. This contention appears to us to be well-founded. In the plaint there is a distinct averment that the temple belonged to the tarwad. It is also in evidence that for the maintenance of a member of the tarwad, the income derived from the Devaswom property was taken into account, and in that suit 1st plaintiff was a party.2. The Subordinate Judge refers to the fact that during the temple festival a horse is exhibited at the expense of the Palghat Rajah, and that the Cochin Rajah makes certain offer-rings to the idol in the temple. It must also be remembered that the family was originally that of a 'Naduvali' or Provincial Chief. These facts referred to by the Subordinate Judge are not in themselves con...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnaya Navada and ors. Vs. Panchu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1893
Reported in: (1894)ILR17Mad187
1. If the order is an order under Section 562 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as contended for by appellants, it is clearly bad, as the original Court had not disposed of the suit on a preliminary point. The course the Judge should have adopted in order to ascertain the boundaries of the plaint land, if that information was necessary, was to have sent down an issue on the point for trial under Section 5661 of the Code.2. It is however contended on the other side that the order was one merely for the amendment of the plaint in the matter of boundaries and was passed under Section 582 of the Code as an order that should have been passed by the original Court. But the answer is that there was no dispute as to the boundaries of the land before the original Court, and, therefore, that that Court could have bad no ground for returning the plaint for amendment. We are of opinion that this fact takes the case out of the purview of Section 582 even if that section is at all applicable. It follo...
Tag this Judgment!Oula and ors. Vs. Beepathee and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1893
Reported in: (1894)ILR17Mad209
Muttusami Ayyar, J.1. This was a suit brought by one Kutti Hammad upon a bond executed by his late ancle Abdul Rabiman Kutti. Hammad having since died, Beepathee and Kunhipathu, claiming to be his sisters by adoption, applied to have their names entered on the record in place of the deceased plaintiff. The third defendant denied the adoptions, but the Subordinate Judge granted the application without proper inquiry, and ordered that the suit be proceeded with; hence this appeal. It is contended for the appellants that the Subordinate Judge gave them no opportunity to disprove the alleged adoptions, and that the admission made by the deceased plaintiff is not binding upon them. It is also urged that before respondents were admitted as supplemental plaintiff's, the procedure prescribed by Section 367 had not been complied with and the factum of the adoptions determined. On the other hand, the contention for respondents is that the Subordinate Judge has acted in accordance with the provis...
Tag this Judgment!Mullolindavida Illikka Pakrammar and ors. Vs. Vendavamprath Kutti Kunh ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-1893
Reported in: (1894)4MLJ14
1. The suit is brought by the karnavan of a tarwad alleged by him to follow Marumakkathayam law to recover property acquired by the plaintiff's late sister, Mamotti. The defendants, who include the children of Mamotti, raise, among other defences, two pleas either of which is a complete answer to the plaintiff's claim. They say that Mamotti did not follow Marumakkathayam law and that if was not to her only, but to her and her children that the property sought to be recovered was given. On the latter plea the defendants succeeded on the trial of the suit by the District Munsif though he also found that the family was governed by the Marumakkathayam law. There was, as he observed, no evidence to the contrary. Against the District Munsif's decree dismissing the suit, the plaintiff appealed and he was successful in obtaining a reversal of the finding as to the title of Mamotti. The District Judge found on the 1st issue in the plaintiff's favor, and that finding we are bound to accept. Inst...
Tag this Judgment!illikka Pakramar and ors. Vs. Kutti Kunhamed and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-1893
Reported in: (1894)ILR17Mad69
1. The suit is brought by the karnavan of a tarwad, alleged by him to follow Marumakkatayam law, to recover property acquired by the plaintiffs' late sister, Mamotti. The defendants, who include the children of Mamotti, raise, among other defences, two pleas, either of which is a complete answer to the plaintiff's' claim. They say that Mamotti did not follow Marumakkatayam law, and that it was not to her only, but to her and her children that the property sought to be recovered was given. On the latter plea the defendants succeeded on the trial of the suit by the District Munsif, though he also found that the family was governed by Marumakkatayam law. There was, as he observed, no evidence to the contrary. Against the District Munsif's decree dismissing the suit, the plaintiff appealed, and he was successful in obtaining a reversal of the finding as to the title of Mamotti. The District Judge found on the first issue in the plaintiff's favour, and that finding we are bound to accept. I...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »