Chennai Court September 1893 Judgments
Narainasami Naidu Vs. Naraina Row Gaikkavadi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-1893
Reported in: (1894)4MLJ17
Muthusami Aiyar, J.1. The parties to this appeal are prior and subsequent mortgagees of the land in dispute which is 17 maws and odd in extent. The land in question originally belonged to Saminatha Bosalai and his coparceners. On the 10th March 1881 they sold it together with other property to 1st defendant for Rs. 1,500 (Exh. J). The purchaser mortgaged it and other property to one Vengusami for Rs. 3,000, under Exh. I, dated the 19th March 1881. The mortgagee instituted Original Suit No. 84 of 1882 and obtained a mortgage decree, in execution of which he purchased the 7 velies mortgaged to him (including the land in dispute) and other land, and obtained possession of the same on the 2nd October 1885. On the 20th January 1886 the purchaser at the execution sale sold the lands to appellant's father for Rs. 8,750 by Exh. H. This document recites that out of the purchase-money, viz., Rs. 3,750, Rs. 760 were retained by the purchaser for payment of prior encurnbran6es. Thus appellant's cl...
Tag this Judgment!Venkatalingam Vs. Veerasami and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-1893
Reported in: (1894)ILR17Mad89
1. The facts of this case as found by the Courts below are shortly these: Appellant purchased the land in dispute at the Court-sale held in execution of the decree in Original Suit No. 654 of 1873 on the file of the District Munsif of Narsapur. The property was put up to sale and knocked down to appellant as the highest bidder on the 20th June 1978. It was, however, on the 31st March 1879 that the sale was confirmed. The sale certificate hears that date whilst this suit was brought on 1st April 1891. The question for determination is whether the Courts below are right in holding that the suit was barred by Article 138 of the second schedule of the Act of Limitation. For appellant (plaintiff) it is urged first, that there is no evidence to show that the judgment-debtor was in possession of the property in dispute at the date of the Court-sale, and that even if that article applied, the sale referred to in the third column is not the actual sale but the sale which has been confirmed and ...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Raja Sobhanadri Appa Row Bahadur Zamindar Garu, Minor by Next Frie ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-1893
Reported in: (1894)4MLJ5
Muthusami Aiyar, J.1. The plaintiff is a minor Zamindar under the care of the Court of Wards and the defendant is his tenant. The present suit was brought on the small cause side of the District Munsif's Court of Bezwada to recover the balance of sist due for Fasli 1296. It was admitted by both parties that according to kistbandi, rent was payable every year in instalments from October to March of each fasli. The plaintiff's father tendered patta for fasli 1296 but the defendant refused to accept it. Thereupon the plaintiff's father instituted a suit in the Revenue Court to enforce acceptance of the patta and the parties joined issue on the question whether the patta tendered was proper or such as the tenant was bound to accept. It was only in May 1888 that the summary suit instituted in 1886 before the Head Assistant Collector was dealt with by the District Judge on appeal. He held that the patta tendered was not a proper one and passed a decree under Section 10 of A.ct VIII of 1865. ...
Tag this Judgment!Sobhanadri Appa Rau Vs. Chalamanna and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-1893
Reported in: (1894)ILR17Mad225
Muttusami Ayyar, J.1. In Civil Revision Petition No. 42 of 1892.--The plaintiff is a minor zamindar under the care of the Court of Wards and the defendant is his tenant. The present suit was brought on the small cause side of the District Munsif's Court of Bezwada to recover the balance of sist due for fasli 1296. It was admitted by both parties that according to the kistbandi rent was payable every year in instalments from October to March of each fasli. The plaintiff's father tendered patta for fasli 1296, but the defendant refused to accept it, Thereupon the plaintiff's father instituted a suit in the Revenue Court to enforce acceptance of the patta and the parties joined issue on the question whether the patta tendered was proper or such as the tenant was bound to accept. It was only in May 1888 that the summary suit instituted in 1886 before the Head Assistant Collector was dealt with by the District Judge on appeal. He held that the patta tendered was not a proper one and passed ...
Tag this Judgment!Gnanasammanda Pandaram Vs. Palaniyandi Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-1893
Reported in: (1894)ILR17Mad61
1. The question is whether the claim is barred by limitation. If there had been thirty days in Masi of the year Tharana, the suit would not be barred; but in the year Tharana there happened to have been only twenty-nine days in Masi. Following the decision in Almas Banee v. Mahomed Ruja I.L.R. 6 Cal. 239 we hold that the suit brought on the 12th March 1891 is not barred. The decision in Migotti v. Colvill L.R. 4 C.P.D. 233 referred to by the District Munsif, relates to computation of a sentence on a prisoner and is not in point.2. We sot aside the decree of the District Munsif and remand the suit for disposal on merits.The costs hitherto will abide and follow the result....
Tag this Judgment!Sreenivasa Thathachar and ors. Vs. Trichengod Pykist Rama Aiyan and an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-1893
Reported in: (1894)4MLJ73
Best, J.1. The following are the facts of the case:--The plaintiff (now respondent) was assignee of 'the mortgage of 38 1/8th out of 51 1/8th pangus of the agraharam of Byrojee effected by some of the pangudars on 8th January 1881 for a sum of Rs. 8,245-7-5 borrowed to pay off the assessment &c.; due on the whole agraharam. As such assignee, plaintiff brought a suit (Original Suit No. 2 of 1884) against the executants of the mortgage and obtained a decree on 22nd June 1885 (Exhibit H.) While the above suit was pending the agraharam was again advertised for sale for arrears of revenue &c.; which plaintiff paid off and instituted Original Suit No. 2 of 1886 for recovery of the amount so paid and obtained a decree for the same with interest on 27th August 1888 (Exhibit M). While Original Suit No. 2 of 1886 was pending, arrears accrued for subsequent Faslies, and to prevent the sale of the properties for such arrears plaintiff paid a sum of Es. 3,618-2-7 on the 13th April 1887 and a furthe...
Tag this Judgment!Rowlandson Vs. Champion and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-1893
Reported in: (1894)ILR17Mad21
Best, J.1. The question for decision in this appeal is whether the mortgage of a house and land made by an adjudicated insolvent with regard to whose property a vesting order had been passed under Section 7 of the Insolvent Act, 11 and 12 Vic., cap. 21, prior to the acquisition of the property by the insolvent, is binding on the Official Assignee so that the latter can only get possession of the property (under Section 26 of the Act) on paying to the mortgagees the mortgage amount with interest.2. The findings are that one Annie Smith was duly adjudicated an insolvent in 1888 and had not received a final discharge (under Section 57 of the Act) up to the time of her death (which is said to have taken place in or about May 1892); that on the 3rd April 1891 she acquired the property in question under an absolute deed of gift; that in December 1891 she mortgaged the same to the respondents; that such mortgage was executed bond fide and for valuable consideration; but that the respondents w...
Tag this Judgment!Srinivasa Thathachar Vs. Rama Ayyan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-1893
Reported in: (1894)ILR17Mad247
Best, J.1. The following are the facts of the case. The plaintiff (now respondent) was assignee of the mortgagee of 38-1/8th out of 51-1/8th pangus of the agraharam of Byrojee effected by some of the pangudars on 8th January 1881 for a sum of Rs. 8,245-7-5, borrowed to pay off the assessment, &c;, due on the whole agraharam. As such assignee plaintiff brought a suit (Original Suit No. 2 of 1884) against the executants of the mortgage and obtained a decree on 22nd June 1885. While the above suit was pending, the agraharam was again advertised for sale for arrears of revenue, &c;, which plaintiff paid off and instituted Original Suit No. 2 of 1386 for recovery of the amount so paid and obtained a decree for the same with interest on 27th August 1888. While Original Suit No. 2 of 1886 was pending, arrears accrued for subsequent faslies, and to prevent the sale of the properties for such arrears plaintiff paid a sum of Rs. 3,618-2-7 on the 13th April 1887 and a further sum of Rs. 1,707-7-0...
Tag this Judgment!Chathoth Parkum Kuttempeth Chalapreth Komappan Nambiar and ors. Vs. Ku ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-1893
Reported in: (1894)4MLJ3
1. The present suit is brought by twelve persons alleged to belong with Chathu Nambiar, the 12th defendant, to a branch tarwad. They claim a property held under lease by the 13th defendant. In 1887 the 1st defendant in the suit, who is karnavan of the tarwad, brought a suit to recover the same property. In that suit the tenant was joined as 1st defendant and the other two defendants were the above-mentioned Chathu Nambiar and another member of the branch, Rainan Nambiar. The main contention in that suit was that these two, Chathu and Banian, belonged to a branch -having no community of interest with the main tarwad. That contention, was overruled and a decree was passed in favor of the then plaintiff, the karnavan. This decree, it has been held by the District Judge, is binding on the present plaintiffs because in the former suit they were represented by Chathu and Baman, respectively, the karnavan and senior anandravan of their branch. The District Judge held that the question sought ...
Tag this Judgment!Dinakarasami Setupati Vs. Bhaskarasami Setupati
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-1893
Reported in: (1901)11MLJ29
Muttusami Aiyar, J.1. This was a suit for partition of the Zemindary of Ramnad in the District of Madura The last Zemindar was one Muthuramalinga Setupati who died in February 1873 leaving him surviving two sons, three widows and five daughters. Respondent Bhaskarasami Setupati, the present Zemindar, is his eldest son by his wife Muttatta Nachiar, and appellant Dinakarasami is his second son by his fourth wife Dora-raja Nachiar. The former was born on the 3rd November 1868, and the latter on the 26th April 1871. During Muthuramalinga's life-time, the Court of Wards entered into management of the Zemindary under an arrangement made for the liquidation of a loan advanced to him by the Government and upon his death, continued in possession during respondent's minority. In November 1889, respondent attained his majority and the Court of Wards placed him in possession of the estate. In April 1889, appellant completed his eighteenth year and instituted this suit on the 27th January 1890. 2. ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »