Chennai Court January 1895 Judgments
Annamalay Mudaly and anr. Vs. A. Moonesamy Mudaly and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1895
Reported in: (1895)5MLJ86
1. The learned Judge has not found--and we do not see any evidence, that 2nd defendant was the ostensible owner with the consent of the plaintiffs, and this being the case the plaintiffs are not debarred from putting forward their title as against the purchasers from the ostensible owner. All that is alleged against the plaintiffs is that they did not come forward to claim the property or warn the intending purchasers, but it is not alleged that this quiescence, whatever was the cause of it--was accompanied by any misrepresentation in act or word. See Bas-wantapa Shidapa v. Ranu and Malkhana I.L.R. (1884) B. 86. Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act merely gives expression to principles formerly well recognised. We must also hold that defendants 6th and 7th did not make reasonable enquiries as to the title they were purchasing. They do not state that they made inquiries as to who performed Chockalinga's funeral ceremonies, nor did they enquire of Moonesamy (1st defendant) who was ...
Tag this Judgment!Ammal Vs. Saminadaier
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-16-1895
Reported in: (1895)5MLJ63
1. In our opinion the order of the District Munsif of the 10th June 1893 and his decree dismissing the suit were wrong in point of law. It is quite clear that the adopted son is the legal representative of the person to whom he is adopted. This being so would prevent the institution by him of any fresh suit. An application was made on his behalf within due time claiming to be legal representative and therefore under Section 366 it was not competent to the Court to order that the suit should abate. The order of the District Munsif above mentioned must be taken to be an order within the meaning of Section 367, for we agree with the judge that a dispute within the meaning of that section need not be between persons., claiming to represent the deceased plaintiff. The title to represent being denied, there is in the present case a dispute between the claimant and the defendant. We therefore think that the District Judge ought to have entertained the appeal. We also think that an appeal lay ...
Tag this Judgment!Rajah Rangaya Appa Row Bahadur Zemindar Garu of Nuzuved Vs. Bhumavarap ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-16-1895
Reported in: (1895)5MLJ202
1. The suits are brought in 1893 to recover rent due for the Faslies ending June 1888 and 1889. Prima facie they are barred by the act of limitation and the contention that the cause of action was suspended during the pendency of proceed-ngs to enforce acceptance of puttas is one which has been admittedly overruled in previous decisions. But it was argued for the plaintift that the provisions of Section 72 of the Rent Recovery Act had been overlooked and that the effect of that section was to give the landlord a fresh right of action against the tenant. We do not think that the section bears this construction. It declares that a copy of the judgment shall be of the same force and effect as a Muchilika; the obligation would be to pay rent in the Fasli to which the Muchilika relates, and under the judgment there can be no other obligation. It is an apparent hardship for the landlord that he should after succeeding in compelling his tenants to accept puttahs be unable to recover his rent....
Tag this Judgment!Subbayya Vs. Saminadayyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-16-1895
Reported in: (1895)ILR18Mad496
1. In our opinion the order of the District Munsif of the 10th June 1893 and his decree dismissing the suit were wrong in point of law. It is quite clear that the adopted son is the legal representative of the person to whom he is adopted. This being so, Section 371 would prevent the institution by him of any fresh suit. An application was made on his behalf within due time claiming to be the legal representative, and therefore under Section 366 it was not competent to the Court to order that the suit should abate. The order of the District Munsif above mentioned must be taken to be an order within the meaning of Section 367; for we agree with the Judge that a ' dispute' within the meaning of that section need not be between persons claiming to represent the deceased plaintiff. The title to represent being denied, there is in the present case a dispute between the claimant and the defendant. We therefore think the District Judge ought to have entertained the appeal. We also think that ...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Reddy and anr. Vs. Rendankattalai Varadarajulu Reddy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1895
Reported in: (1895)5MLJ154
1. Although no contract for post diem interest can be inferred from Exhibit A, we think interest from 30th December 1884 can be given under the Interest Act XXXII of 1829 under the principle laid down in Bikramjit Tewari v. Ducag Dyal Tewari I.L.R. (1893) C. 274 which case has been followed by this Court in Second Appeal No. 1546 of 1893. We will therefore allow Rs 696 as interest at 6 per cent, per annum from the due date to the date of plaint and make it a charge upon the mortgaged property.2. The decree of the learned Judge will therefore be modified by adding this sum to the principal sum adjudged and decreeing Rs. 2,598 instead of Rs. 1,902 with costs and furtherinterest at 6 per cent, per annum. The appellants are entitled to proportionate costs on this appeal....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›