Chennai Court April 1896 Judgments
Uppalakandi Kunhi Kutti Ali Haji Vs. Kunnam Mithal Kottaprath Abdul Ra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-10-1896
Reported in: (1896)ILR19Mad288
1. The only question is whether the receipt required registration under Clause (n) of Section 17 of the Registration Act.2. It may be doubted whether in view of the decision of this Court in Venkatarama Naik v. Chinnathambu Reddi 7 M.H.R. 1 and Venkayyar v. Subbayyar I.L.R. 3 Mad. 53 the money received in discharge of a mortgage can be deemed to be a consideration within the meaning of the clause. Since those decisions, however, the law has been amended, a clause is now added Clause (n) which, as it might be argued, indicates that receipts given by a mortgagee purporting to extinguish the mortgage do require registration in the present case, assuming that this is the effect of the amendment, we do not think that the language of the receipt indicates any intention to extinguish or limit the mortgagor's interest. The instrument, therefore, did not require registration. We must dismiss the appeal with costs.3. The memorandum of objection is also dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!JayinilabdIn Ravuttan Vs. Vijia Ragunadha Ayyarappa Maikan Gopalar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-1896
Reported in: (1896)ILR19Mad315
ORDER1. The appellant is the purchaser of eight villages sold on the 11th April 1891 at an auction sale held in execution of decrees passed against the respondent and his father. The respondent, who was at the date of sale a minor, has obtained an order setting aside the sale, and against that order this appeal is brought.2. The material facts found by the Subordinate Judge and forming the ground for his order are as follows:One of the decrees, in execution of which the sale was held, was a mortgage decree obtained by the appellant himself. The amount due under that decree at the time of the sale was about Rs. 60,000. The other decree was held by a third person whose agent, as it will appear, was Sundaram Chetti. The amount due under that decree was about Rs. 17,000. On the day for which the sale was advertised, the 6th of April, an agreement was made between the appellant and a person representing the Papanad Zamindar to the effect that the former should purchase the whole property fo...
Tag this Judgment!Kamalammal Vs. Raju Naicker and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-1896
Reported in: (1896)ILR19Mad308
1. Plaintiffs, as the alienees of two villages of the first defendant's zamindari under Exhibit I, applied to the Collector under Act I of 1876 to have the two villages registered in their names. Owing to the first defendant's objection the Revenue authorities refused to make the transfer of registry. Plaintiff's, as persons aggrieved by this order, sued first defendant and the Secretary of State for India (second defendant) under Section 6, Act I of 1876, for a declaration that such separate registry ought to be made. The lower Court decreed that it ought, and first defendant now appeals against that decree. The Government Pleader, on behalf of the second defendant, states that Government is indifferent to the result of the suit. It is urged by appellant that under the terms of Exhibit I the first defendant (appellant) alone and not the plaintiffs (respondents 1 to 4) are liable, notwithstanding the alienation, to pay the land revenue to Government, and that there is, therefore, no oc...
Tag this Judgment!Lakshmakka Vs. Boggaramanna
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-1896
Reported in: (1896)ILR19Mad501
1. The plaintiff can only recover on the strength of his title-deed (Exhibit B). By that instrument Subbarayadu, the then owner, agrees to hold the property only so long as there is male issue in his family. On failure of such issue he agrees to hand it over to Boggaramanna under whom the plaintiff claims. The document is somewhat obscure, but the meaning appears to be that Boggaramanna should take on failure of male issue at any time, however remote. It is in fact an attempt to create a new line of inheritance by excluding all heirs other than direct male heirs. This being so, the instrument is invalid. The plaintiff must, therefore, fail. We must reverse the decree of the District Judge and restore that of the District Munsif. Respondent must pay appellant's costs in this Court only....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›