Chennai Court April 1894 Judgments
Krishnaswamy Aiyangar and ors. and Rangasami Aiyangar and ors. Vs. Raj ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1894
Reported in: (1894)4MLJ212
1. These three appeals are all from the same decree (No. 7 being by the 5th Defendant, No. 50 by Defendants 2 to 4 and No. 51 by 1st Defendant) in a suit brought by plaintiff for partition of family property and recovery of a moiety as the share to which he is entitled.2. The relationship of the parties will be seen from the following genealogical table. Kuppanayyangar | |------------------------------------------------------------------------------| Ammalayyangar Kristnayyangar (died 1883) | (died 1858) |-------------------------------------------------------------------------------| Dorsisami | Varadiayyangar |Rangasami |Periasami Chinnasami (died 1856-7) | (died 1880-1) | | Sreenivasa Iyengar |-------------------------------| Krishnasami 5th Deft. (died 1883) | | 1 st Deft. Sindh alias deceased hus- | Srinivasan band of 7th Deft. Plaintiff Defts. 2 & 3 and 43. Plaintiff's case is that his grand-father Varadayyangar, the second son of Kristniengar, was adopted by the latter's b...
Tag this Judgment!Soodamani Pattar and ors. Vs. Somasundara Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1894
Reported in: (1894)4MLJ201
1. This appeal arises from a suit brought by plaintiffs to recover possession of certain land with arrears of rent due thereon from 1888 to 1890 and interest at 12 per annum on those arrears and with mesne profits from date of the plaint. The and in question belongs to defendants. On the 27th July 1887, they mortgaged it to plaintiff's family with possession for a period of 12 years for Rs. 14,000. On the 29th idem defendants took it back under a lease of which Exhibit A is the counterpart, the contest in the suit related to three matters, viz., (1) to plaintiff's right to cancel the lease and to claim possession, (2) to. defendants' right to pay rent in cash at the rate mentioned therein and (3) to three items in the account claimed by plaintiffs from defendants on the footing of the mortgage and the lease.2. As to the first, the District. Judge of Coimbatore recognized plaintiffs' right to resume possession; as for the second he held that defendants were entitled to pay rent in money...
Tag this Judgment!Kammaran Nambiar Vs. Chindan Nambiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-1894
Reported in: (1895)ILR18Mad32
1. We do not agree with the Judge that, if the clause for forfeiture of the perpetual lease is enforceable, plaintiff is only entitled to a decree on refund of the consideration paid by the tenant at the time of obtaining the lease. Exhibit A contains no provision for such repayment, and an obligation to refund cannot be inferred from the clause for forfeiture.2. In the case of a kanom referred to by the Judge, what is forfeited is the right to retain possession for the full period of twelve years, the liability to repay the debt being in no way affected. Whereas in the case of a lease the consideration paid for it is exhausted by the grant of the lease, and the tenant's forfeiture of the lease cannot operate to convert the original consideration into a debt.3. This is the only point that has been argued for appellant, and respondents have not appeared.4. We, therefore, allow this appeal and setting aside the decrees of the lower Courts so far as they disallow plaintiff's claim to poss...
Tag this Judgment!Govinda Pillai Vs. Ramanuja Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1894
Reported in: (1895)ILR18Mad171
1. We must accept the Judge's finding that plaintiff was not dispossessed in February 1891 as alleged, and that neither plaintiff nor his vendor had possession for the last forty years. The finding, however, that defendants' possession was adverse is not warranted by the circumstances from which it is inferred. Defendants themselves admitted that they paid raelvarara and claimed only a kudivaram right. Mere non-payment of molvaram for any number of years is not sufficient to give defendants a kudivaram right unless their possession has boon accompanied by an assertion of such right for more than twelve years prior to the suit. The Judge's finding that plaintiffs vendor exorcised no rights of ownership for a period of forty years is opposed to the defendants' plea that melvaram was paid till fifteen years ago, and Courts are not at liberty to go in defendants' favour behind the plea set up by the defendants themselves in the suit.2. Therefore the question whether the defendants have acq...
Tag this Judgment!MoidIn Kutti and ors. Vs. Beevi Kutti Ummah and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-1894
Reported in: (1895)ILR18Mad38
1. Two questions arise for determination in this appeal, viz., (i) whether the suit is time-barred, and (ii) whether the karar (BB) is binding 6n the plaintiff's.2. As to the first question, the suit was brought on the 6th October 1891 to set aside the karar, dated 30th May 1878, and to recover, for the benefit of the tarwad, possession with mesne profits of the properties, the subject of the karar.3. The plaintiffs are members of the tarwad called Thayattum house and were minors at the date of BB, which purports to be a compromise executed in favour of the ninth, tenth and thirteenth defendants by defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3, who are the mothers of the plaintiff's. Defendants 4 to 8 are also members of plaintiffs' tarwad; of them fourth defendant was a major at the date of BB and consented to it. Defendants 5 to 8, who were then minors, attained, majority more than three years prior to the suit and never attempted to get the karar set aside. It is contended for the appellants that thei...
Tag this Judgment!Oliver Vs. Anantharamayyan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-1894
Reported in: (1895)ILR18Mad30
1. The District Judge has reversed the decision of the Sub-Collector and dismissed the suit on the ground that there was no proper tender of patta in the manner prescribed by law (Sections 7 and 89, Madras Act VIII of 1865).2. Defendant was a clerk in the District Court of Cochin at Trichoor and was not residing in the Tanjore district. One Ganapathi Subbier was looking after his cultivation for him in Tanjore, but had no power-of-attorney from him. Ganapathi Subbier denies that any patta was tendered to him, and though the kurnam deposed that there was, there is no finding by the Judge upon that point.3. The patta tendered was stuck up on the land in the manner prescribed by Section 39, and the question is whether this mode of service was justifiable when the defendant was known to be living in foreign territory and had no authorised agent on the spot.4. The procedure is only justifiable when service cannot be effected on the tenant himself or on some adult male member of his family a...
Tag this Judgment!Muthukutti Nayakan Vs. Acha Nayakan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-10-1894
Reported in: (1895)ILR18Mad22
1. It is argued that no time having been fixed for the making of the award, the award is invalid. We cannot accede to this contention. Section 508 is directory merely and not mandatory, as observed in Har Narain Singh v. Bhagivant Kuar I.L.R. 10 All. 137 and the mere omission to fix a time is not fatal. In the case before us the award was not made till about a year after the submission to arbitration, but there is no allegation that either party attempted to recede from the submission; and, having regard to the fact that rights to immoveable property were in question, it is not unreasonable to hold that the parties did not consider there was any undue delay. Under these circumstances, we must disallow the objection that the award is invalid under the final clause of Section 521.2. Another objection is that the award was not signed by the arbitrators in each other's presence. We consider it sufficient, if they all agreed to it as provided in Section 516. There is no provision of law req...
Tag this Judgment!Sangu Ayyar Vs. Cumarasami Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-1894
Reported in: (1895)ILR18Mad61
1. It is contended that document A being registered the property passed to the first defendant, though it is found that no consideration was paid as specified in A, and that, consequently, the subsequent sale to defendants Nos. 3 and 5 is invalid on the ground that it was made by a person having no title to convey. In support of this contention reliance is placed on Ram Lakhan Rai v. Bandan Rai I.L.R. 2 All. 711; Bishenmun Singh v. The Land Mortgage Bank of India I.L.R. 11 Cal. 244; Umedmal Motiram v. Davu Bin Dhondiba I.L.R. 2 Bom. 547 and also on Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act.2. The present case is, however, distinguishable from the above. Here the first purchaser abstained from paying the purchase-money from 1887 to 1890, and allowed his vendor to retain possession, and then to sell the property to defendants 3 and 5, who, in consequence, paid off the mortgage that was to be discharged by the original purchaser.3. The plaintiff purchased the same property from the first...
Tag this Judgment!Sesham Patter and anr. Vs. L.S. Moss
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-1894
Reported in: (1894)ILR17Mad445
Muttusami Ayyar, J.1. Under Section 72 of the Indian Railways Act, the responsibility of the Railway Company for loss of goods delivered to be carried by the Railway is, subject to the provisions of that Act, that of a bailee under Sections 151, 152 and 1611 [1]of the Indian Contract Act. Under Section 76[2] of the former enactment, it is not necessary for the plaintiffs to prove how the loss was caused. Act III of 1865, Sections 8[3] and 9[4] are declared by Section 72 not to affect the responsibility of the Eailway Company as defined by the latter section. The plaintiffs must show in the first instance the alleged loss or deficiency, and then the Railway Company will be bound to show that the loss occurred under circumstances which would exempt a bailee from responsibility for it.3. The District Munsif finds that the plaintiffs' allegation that the bags of pepper were cut open and their contents were extracted whilst they remained in the custody of the Railway Company is not proved. ...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Chadaga Vs. Govinda Adiga
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-1894
Reported in: (1894)ILR17Mad404
1. Our answer to the question is that the Government can attach, under Section 11 of Madras Act II of 1864, for arrears of revenue, gathered products belonging to a tenant, provided that they are the products of the land on account of which the arrears of revenue have accrued.2. The products belonging to a tenant are made liable by the section, and Clause 3 gives a right to the tenant to deduct the value of the same from rent then due or thereafter to become due to the landlord on account of the land on which the products were grown.3. It follows that the products liable to distraint are the products of the defaulter's land, though such products may belong to the tenant....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›