Chennai Court February 1897 Judgments
Venkayya Vs. Raghavacharlu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1897
Reported in: (1898)8MLJ79
1. We have no doubt but that the learned Judge is right in holding that applications made to obtain restitution under a decree in accordance with Section 583, Civil Procedure Code, are proceedings in execution of that decree, and are governed as regards limitation by Article 179 of the second schedule of the Limitation Act. This is in accordance with the view taken in Nand Ram v. Sita Ram, I.L.R. 8 A., 545.2. The appellant's vakil relies on a remark in the case reported in Kurupam Zamindar v. Sadasiva, I.L.R. 10 M. 60 to the effect --that the learned Judges in that case were disposed to think that the application in a similar case was governed by Article 178. That remark, however, is a mere obiter dictum, and as such is not binding on us. One of the Judges who took part in that case is the learned Judge whose order in the present case rules that Article 179 is the article properly applicable.3. The appeal, therefore, fails and we dismiss it with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Sri Raja Chelikani Venkataramanayamma Garu and Vs. Appa Rau Bahadur Ga ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1897
Reported in: (1897)ILR20Mad207
1. The permanently-settled estates of Jaggompeta, Dontalooru and Rayavaram, the most important of the properties in litigation, belonged originally to Venkata Rao who died in July 1869. He left surviving him his widow, Venkayamma, his daughter, Chelikani Venkataramanayamma, and the latter's eldest son Niladri. Venkayarama, claiming to be the heir, took possession of the whole of his estate, moveable and immoveable, and held the same till her demise in July 1875. Then Venkataramanayamma succeeded to the property and died in July 1884, leaving behind her husband Sami Rao, Niladri, already referred to, and her second son, Appa Rao, as well as three daughters; the last four having been born subsequent to the death of Venkata Rao. At the time of their mother's death, Appa Rao was aged 13 years and Niladri was aged 19 years. He was, therefore, no longer a minor. He was, however, still treated as a minor, and Sami Rao, who had been managing the property ever since the death of Venkata Rao, co...
Tag this Judgment!Varadarajulu Naidu Vs. Srinivasulu Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1897
Reported in: (1897)ILR20Mad333
1. We agree with the learned Judge in holding that the plaintiff must have intended to defeat his son's claim to the property and that, therefore, the arrangement made between ban and the defendant was contrived in fraud of his son. But it was argued that since the plaintiff had repented of his conduct before any harm was done to his son or any effect given to the transaction, it was competent to him to repudiate it and have the property restored to him.2. The case of Symes v. Hughes L.R. 9 Eq. 475 cited by the appellant's counsel does not really support the proposition for which it was cited, for there, as the Master of the Rolls observes, the suit was prosecuted for the purpose of enabling the creditors to recover something. Here it is the party himself who, in his own interest, seeks to have the transaction annulled. It is very doubtful whether, in a case in which the maxim in pari delicto would otherwise apply, any exception arises by reason that the illegal purpose has not been ca...
Tag this Judgment!Thirukumaresan Chetti and anr. Vs. Subbaraya Chetti and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1897
Reported in: (1897)ILR20Mad313
1. This is a suit brought by two of the partners of a firm against the remainder for an account of the partnership business. The partnership was dissolved before the date of the suit. Although, in the first instance, certain issues were raised, those issues were not tried, and, in the result, nothing remained except to take an account. Under these circumstances, the proper course for the Judge to have adopted was to pass a decree under the 15th Section of the Code of Civil Procedure, in accordance with the form given in the schedule. The decree should have directed an account to be taken of all dealings and transactions between the partners, between the dates agreed upon by them, viz., the date of the settlement in Parthiva and the 27th Margali (9th January 1889), and also an account of the credits, property and effects due and belonging to the partnership; and further it should have directed the appointment of a receiver of the outstanding debts and effects (see Daniell's ' Chancery P...
Tag this Judgment!Nanjappa Goundan Vs. Nanjappa Goundan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1897
Reported in: (1897)7MLJ274
1. We consider the question as to whether the alienations by the widow were binding on the reversioner was necessary for the decision of the previous suit--quite as necessary as the question of limitation, and we accordingly consider that the decision oh that question being between the same parties as in this suit, and being a decision equally binding on them all, operates to make that decision res judicata.2. We accordingly dismiss the second appeal with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Muthia Chetti Vs. Orr
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1897
Reported in: (1897)ILR20Mad224
1. The appellant not being represented and not appearing, we dismiss the appeal with coats. Under the provisions of Section 575, Civil Procedure Code, the order of this Court, dated 24th January 1894, in Orr v. Muthia Ghetti I.L.R. 17 Mad. 501 prevails, and the order of the District Court of Madura, dated 26th August 1892, passed on C.M.A. No. 8 of 1892, is reversed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Srinivasasami Aiyangar Vs. Ponnammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1897
Reported in: (1897)7MLJ96
1. As regards the liability of the son's share for the debt of the father as a mere money claim, there can be no question since it is found that the mortgage was for consideration and was not illegal or immoral.2. The next question is whether the mortgage is binding on the son in. respect of his share. It is argued for the appellant that the father having borrowed money not prior to the mortgage but only at the time of the mortgage, the debt cannot be considered to be an antecedent debt so as to come within the rule in the Privy Council case Suraj Bunsi Koer v. Sheo Pershad Singh I.L.R.(1879) C. 148 . This is the view taken by this Court in the case in L, P., appeal No. 12 of 1893, and in Chinnayya v. Perumal I.L.R. (1889) M. 51. The respondent refers us. to. the case reported in Khalilul Rahman v. Gobind Pershad I.L.R. C. 328 in which it was held that even in circumstances, such as those of the present case the mortgage will be enforced against the son's share as well as against that ...
Tag this Judgment!Sami Ayyangar Vs. Ponnammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1897
Reported in: (1898)ILR21Mad28
1. As regards the liability of the son's share for the debt of the father as a more money claim, there can be no question, since it is found that the mortgage was for consideration and was not illegal or immoral 2. The next question is whether the mortgage is binding on the son in respect of his share. It is argued for the appellant that, the father having borrowed money not prior to the mortgage but only at the time of the mortgage, the debt cannot be considered to be an antecedent debt so as to come within the rule in the Privy Council case, Suraj Bunsi Koer v. Sheo Persad Singh I.L.R. 5 Cal. 148 . This is the view taken by this Court in Srini-vasa Ayyangar v. Ponnammal Letters Patent Appeal No. 12 of 1893 unreported and Chinnayya v. Perumal I.L.R. 13 Mad. 51. The respondent refers us to the case reported as Khalilul Rahman v. Govind Pershad I.L.R. 20 Cal. 328 in which it was held that even in circumstances such as those of the present case, the mortgage will be enforced against the ...
Tag this Judgment!Achutan Nayar Vs. Narasimham Patter
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1897
Reported in: (1898)ILR21Mad411
1. The value of such of the thirtieth defendant's improvements as consisted of timber trees, &c.;, was found to be Rs. 1,505-8-6. The Munsif disallowed about half of this amount as the landlord's share, on the authority of an unreported decision of this Court Govinda Menon v. Darnodaran Nambudripad Second Appeal No. 194 of 1889 unreported. We do not find in that decision any such authority as is supposed, nor is there anything in the Malabar Compensation for Tenants' Improvements Act I of 1887 authorizing the distribution of any share of any improvement to the landlord. The point that the one-half deduction that had been made in the total amount above referred to was wrong was taken in the appeal grounds to the lower Appellate Court, but the objection was overruled by the Subordinate Judge without his noticing the true ground on which it was made. We are of opinion that the disallowance of half the amount found due for the improvements proceeded on an erroneous view of the law, and tha...
Tag this Judgment!Purnamal Chund Vs. Venkata Subbarayadu Reddiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1897
Reported in: (1897)7MLJ198
1. The respondent, plaintiff, seeks to enforce a mortgage executed in his favour on the 15th December 1891. The sum of Rs 1,150 part of the sum advanced by him was, it is found, advanced and actually paid for the amount due under a decree dated the 20th March 1890, obtained by one Subba Reddi on a mortgage in his favour executed in the year 1887. The appellant was the holder of an intermediate incumbrance, dated the 4th February 1890 upon which also a decree was obtained on the 4th November 1890. Prior to the date of the respondent's mortgage, there were, therefore, two mortgage decrees in existence, the earlier one in favour of Subba Reddi, the later in favour of the appellant. It is found as a fact that the respondent, when advancing Rs. 1,150 for the discharge of the earlier decree, intended to keep aiive the prior incumbrance, and it has been held that he is to that extent entitled to priority as against the appellant whose incumbrance is intermediate in point of time.2. On the hea...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »