Chennai Court March 1897 Judgments
Meenatchi Ammal Vs. Kalyanarama Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-1897
Reported in: (1897)7MLJ213
1. The Subordinate Judge has given excellent reasons, founded on clear documentary and oral evidence for his conclusion that the transfers to the 6th defendant were bynami for the family of the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3, These reasons have not been shown to be incorrect in the argument before us. We concur in the finding of the Subordinate Judge on this issue. As to the effect of Section 317 of the Civil Procedure Code, with regard to the plaintiff's right to maintain the present suit to recover his share of the family property, we observe that the present case is governed by the decision in I.L.R. 6 M. 135. That case is exactly on all fours with the present case, and has not been overruled or dissented from in the cases referred to by the appellant's Vakil {Rama Kurup v. Sridevi I.L.R. 16 M. 290 Sanhunni Nayar v. Narayanan Nambudri I.L.R. 16 M. 209 Kumbalinga Pillai v. Ariyaputra Padiaohi Ib 17 M. 282....
Tag this Judgment!Minakshi Ammal Vs. Kalianarama Bayer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-1897
Reported in: (1897)ILR20Mad349
1. The Subordinate Judge has given excellent reasons founded on clear documentary and oral evidence, for his conclusion that the transfers to the sixth defendant were benami for the family of the plaintiff and defendants Nos. 1 to 3. These reasons have not been shown to be incorrect in the argument before us. We concur in the finding of the Subordinate Judge on this issue. As to the effect of Section 317 of the Civil Procedure Code with regard to the plaintiff's right to maintain the present suit to recover his share of the family property, we observe that the present case is governed by the decision in Natesa v. Venkatramayyan I.L.R. 6 Mad. 135 . That case is exactly on all fours with the present case, and has not been overruled or dissented from in the cases referred to by the appellant's vakil--Bamu, Kurup v. Sridevi I.L.R. 16 Mad. 290 Sankunni Nayar v. Narayanan Nambudri I.L.R. 17 Mad. 282 Kumbalinga Pillai v. Ariaputra Padiachi I.L.R. 18 Mad. 436 .2. Lastly, on the finding that th...
Tag this Judgment!Athappa Chetti Vs. Ramakrishna Nayakan.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-1897
Reported in: (1898)ILR21Mad51
1. We agree with the District Judge that there were material irregularities in publishing the sale and that these irregularities caused substantial injury to the respondents, who are decree-holders, within the meaning of Section 311, Civil Procedure Code Lakshmi v. Kuttunni I.L.R.10 Mad. 57.2. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal....
Tag this Judgment!Appu Udayan and anr. Vs. Appavu Goundan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1897
Reported in: (1906)16MLJ28
1. In No. 1890. - The appellants claim as purchasers under a conveyance executed on the 16th May 1892 by the 2nd and 3rd defendants.2. The respondent in his written statement charged that the sale in the appellants' favour was 'fraudulent or for no real consideration' and also averred that he, by an oral sale of prior date, had bought the land from the predecessor in title of the paintiffs' vendors.3. The 1st issue tried by the District Munsif is whether the plaint sale is a bona-fide transaction supported by real consideration. It is difficult to understand what question was really intended to be raised by this issue. It was never alleged that the sale to the appellants was a sham transaction and, therefore, no question of consideration could be raised. The District Munsif appears to have allowed under this issue the question of public policy to be raised. He holds that the transaction between the appellants and their vendors was not impeachable on that ground. He also finds that the ...
Tag this Judgment!Raghavendra Rao and anr. Vs. Jayaram Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1897
Reported in: (1897)7MLJ134
1. That the late Narasinga Rao's widow, Sesham-mal, did in fact adopt the respondent as the son of her husband was practically admitted on behalf of the appellants, the first of whom is Narasinga Rao's undivided nephew and the second that of appellant's son--a minor. It was, however, contended on their behalf that Narasinga Rao did not authorize Seshammal to make the adoption and even if it is found that he did so authorize her the adoption is invalid in consequence of the relationship which existed between Narasinga Rao and the natural mother of the respondent.Then the learned Judges discussed the evidence as to the question whether authority was or was not given by the deceased and concurred in the finding of the Lower Court that authority was given.2. Next as to the validity of the adoption, so far as we were able to follow the appellant's Vakil's arguments on the point, the chief contention was this:The respondent's natural mother, being Sesbammal's sister's daughter, could not und...
Tag this Judgment!Muthusubbia Chettiyar Vs. Rangiagoundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-1897
Reported in: (1897)7MLJ191
1. The guardians of the plaintiff, during the minority of the latter, lent 1st defendant a sum of Rs. 20,000 on the security of certain lands.2. Subsequently, the guardians released a portion of the property from liability to the mortgage on the ground that the remainder of the property, was sample security for the loan of Rs. 20,000, The property so released was subsequently mortgaged by the 1st defendant to the 14tb defendant for Rs. 8,000. The minor, having afterwards attained majority, brought the present suit to recover his money by sale of all the lands originally mortgaged to his guardians, including the portion afterwards released by them and mortgaged to the 14th defendant. The 14th defendant contended that the lands mortgaged to him having been released, were not liable for the plaintiff's debt. The Subordinate judge disallowed this.plea and gave plaintiff a decree, against all the lands. Against this decree the 14th defendant now appeals.. The question which we have to decid...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›