Chennai Court February 1897 Judgments
Subbaraya Chetti and anr. Vs. Sadasiva Chetti and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1897
Reported in: (1897)ILR20Mad490
1. The first question is, what is this suit? Is it a suit to enforce an award or for a partition of family property or on a contract to accept the shares settled by arbitrators? The Judge has treated it as a suit on a contract to accept the shares settled by arbitrators, but we are unable to see that this is what was alleged or claimed by the plaintiff. We think the suit is a suit to enforce an award with an alternative claim for partition of family property.2. There having been an award, it is clear that the alternative claim for partition cannot succeed. See Krishna Panda v. Balaram Panda I.L.R. Mad. 290 with which we agree.3. It was argued before us that the suit to enforce the award will not lie, as the proper and only course open to the plaintiff was to proceed under the Civil Procedure Code, Section 525. Having regard, however, to the decision in Gopi Reddi v. Mahanandi I.L.R. 15 Mad. 99 and the apparent consensus of opinion in this Court from the time of Palaniappa Chetti v. Bay...
Tag this Judgment!Chinna Obayya Vs. Sura Reddi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1897
Reported in: (1898)ILR21Mad226
1. The question whether an illatom son-in-law can demand partition from his father-in-law is not a pure question of law, as the Judge has treated it, but one that depends upon custom and can only be determined upon evidence taken as to the custom. Such a question was indeed raised in Hanumantamma v. Rami Reddi I.L.R. 4 Mad. 272 but was not decided in that case. The Judge should, therefore, have acceded to the plaintiff's request to permit him to adduce evidence as to the custom alleged to be one of the incidents of an illatom adoption. We must, therefore, reverse the decree of the Judge and remand the case for re-trial, directing the eleventh issue to be dropped altogether and the following issue to be substituted for it, viz., whether it is one of the incidents of an illatom adoption that the adoptee may demand partition from his father-in-law. The costs hitherto incurred will be provided for in the revised decree....
Tag this Judgment!Kesavan and ors. Vs. Sankaran Nambudri and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-1897
Reported in: (1897)7MLJ266
1. The mortgagees were not made parties to the appeal either in this Court or in the Lower Appellate Court, though Section 85 of the Transfer of Property Act expressly requires that they should be made parties. The appellants' vakil applies that they may now be made parties and explains that he was not able to make them parties to this second appeal, as they had not been made parties in the Lower Appellate Court. He is, however, unable to give any satisfactory reason for the omission in that Court.2. In these circumstances, we think, we are bound to follow the ruling of this Court in second appeals 51 of 1892 and 1476 of 1889, and dismiss the second appeal with costs on the ground that the appellants have not complied wir,h the requirements of Section 85 of the Transfer of Property Act....
Tag this Judgment!Krishnammal Vs. Pichannavayyan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1897
Reported in: (1897)7MLJ186
1. The plaintiff's title being established, the only question is whether her right to recover the property she has purchased is barred by the Law of Limitation.2. We understand it to be found as a fact that the plaintiff's vendor, or rather Sellammal, the mother and guardian of the plaintiff's vendor, was along with the vendor's uncle in possession of the property up to the date of the partition effected on the 3rd November 1880. It is not found that Sellammal was disturbed in her possession or excluded from it by the uncle after that date. The conclusion at which the District Judge arrives is that there was a discontinuance of possession owing to the fact that the house was in bad repair. The District Munsif seems to have been of the 9ame opinion. We think that, having regard to the facts found the Courts' below were wrong in holding that the suit was barred by limitation. Discontinuance of possession takes place Only when the person in possession goes out and is followed into possess...
Tag this Judgment!Nityananda Patnayudu and ors. Vs. Sri Radha Cherana Deo and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-1897
Reported in: (1897)ILR20Mad371
1. There is nothing in the document to indicate that the parties did not intend that interest should be paid after the expiration of the eight years, within which the principal was to be re-paid, and we must, therefore, hold, having rogard to the ordinary expectations of parties who enter into transactions of this kind, that it was the intention of the parties in this case that interest should continue to be paid until the liquidation of the debt. This is in accordance with the principles laid down in the recent Privy Council Case, Mathura Das v. Baja Narindar Bahadur Pal L.R. 23 IndAp 138 which is now the authoritative guide on the question of post diem interest2. We must allow the appeal with costs in both Courts and modify the decree by allowing interest at the rate of 18 per cent, from the date of default up to 16th April 1888, and thereafter at 9 per cent, per annum up to the date of the lower Court's decree, and further interest on the whole amount at the rate of 6 per cent, till...
Tag this Judgment!Gurumurti Vs. Sivayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1897
Reported in: (1898)ILR21Mad391
1. We do not clearly understand the grounds on which the District Judge has dismissed this suit. The second defendant's Vakil, in the course of the trial, raised an objection that the promissory note was not endorsed to plaintiff by Subbamma, the payee. We are unable to agree with the District Judge that the objection was a fatal one. The allegation in the plaint is that the promissory note was executed in favour of Subbamma on account of plaintiff's estate. This was not traversed in the defendant's written statements, nor was any issue framed in regard to it. Even if it had been traversed, it was open to the plaintiff to have proved the truth of the allegation, and, if he had succeeded, he would have been entitled to a decree as the real owner of the amount due under the note.2. We must, therefore, allow the appeal with costs, set aside the decree of the District Judge, and remand the suit for disposal in accordance with law....
Tag this Judgment!Vasudevan Nambudri and ors. Vs. Sankaran Nambudri and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1897
Reported in: (1897)7MLJ102
Arthur Collins, Kt., C.J.1. The question referred to the Full Bench is whether the decree, made in a suit in which the karnavan of a Nambudri illom or a Marumakkatayam tarwad is in his representative capacity joined as a defendant and which he honestly defends, is binding on the other members of the family not actually made parties. I take it that the word ' honestly' means that the karnavan acted in good faith and in what he believed to be the interest of the tarwad. The Karnavan of a Malabar tarwad is, except under certain circumstances, the eldest male member of the tarwad;in him is vested actually all the property, moveable and immoveable belonging to the tarwad; he manages the. property of the tarwad and can invest the money of the tarwad either on loans or other security as he may think fit. He can also grant, the. land on kanom or on otti mortgage. No member of. the tarwad can call for an account of the income, nor can a suit be maintained against him for an account of the tarwa...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›