Chennai Court September 1897 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
The Municipal Council Vs. Visvanatha Rau
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1897
Reported in: (1898)ILR21Mad4
1. The fact that Section 212 of the District Municipalities Act refers only to new buildings and not to repairs, is highly significant and clearly indicates that a distinction was intended to be drawn between the two classes of cases.2. In the present case there was no erection of any new building over the drain. There was only a repair of the existing covering which had been there for the past 40 years.3. We do not think that such repair can he said to be interference with the drain within the meaning of Section 211. The interference referred to in that Section is, as the District Judge remarks, interference similar in character to the kinds of interference specifically referred to in the earlier part of the Section.4. We, therefore, conclude that the decision of the Courts below is correct, and we dismiss this second appeal with costs....
P.M. Srinivasa Chary and ors. Vs. V. Rangachariar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-1897
Reported in: (1897)7MLJ281
Shephard, J.1. The issue which I have to try refers me to the written statements of the defendants and the objections therein stated to the maintenance of this suit. The written statement of the 1st defendant states two grounds of objections. It says, that the suit is bad, as it was not brought in conformity with Section 30 of the Civil Procedure Code,' and the objection is taken that the sanction of the Advocate-General was not obtained. This latter objection was abandoned by the defendants' vakil in deference to the ruling of this Court in Rangasami Naickan v. Varadappa Naichanl. In lieu of it, however, he took a point which is not raised in the pleadings, namely, whether the Advocate-General ought not to be made a party to the suit. It will be convenient to dispose of that point at the outset. In England there can be little doubt that a suit framed as this is, alleging no proprietary right in the plaintiffs and no particular injury suffered by them but complaining of a grievance com...
Venkata Krishna Rao Vs. Venkatachalam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-1897
Reported in: (1897)7MLJ299
1. The mere circumstance that interest is stipulated for by the parties does not by itself indicate that a document which apparently is a sale was intended to be a mortgage. It might be important as indicating that there was a subsisting debt secured by the instrument. But the mention of interest is accounted for by the intention of the parties to arrange before-hand the terms on which the re-conveyances were to take place. The profits and the interest were to be set off against each other. Except the mention of interest, there is no indication of an intention to create a mortgage security. The finding as to the value of the property as throwing light on the intention of the parties cannot be questioned here.2. We must dismiss the appeal with costs....
Seshamma and anr. Vs. Chennappa
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-1897
Reported in: (1897)ILR20Mad467
1. We are not satisfied that this is a case in which the plaintiffs would be entitled to probate as executors by implication. The duties which the plaintiffs are directed to perform are not specifically the duties of an executor. It is not the administration of the estate which they are told to carry out. But rather it is as guardians of the child whose adoption is contemplated that they are intended to act. We think, it is quite clear, that there was no intention to vest any property in them. They were only directed to protect the property during the minority. For these reasons, we think that the suit is wrongly brought in the name of the plaintiffs as executors. But as the objection was not taken in the Court of First Instance, and was apparently taken by the Judge himself, we think the suit ought not to have been dismissed without giving the plaintiffs an opportunity to amend. We shall now allow the amendment which, we think, the Judge ought to have allowed and which, if it had been...
Visvalinga Pillai Vs. Palaniappa Chetti and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-1897
Reported in: (1898)ILR21Mad1
1. On the whole, though not without hesitation, we think that the instrument may be considered to be a mortgage, but we are of opinion that it falls within Section 98 of the Transfer of Property Act, and that the rights and liabilities of the parties must be determined by the contract itself. The contract does not provide for the contingency which has occurred. No special usage applicable to the present circumstances is set up. It is, however, contended that, under Section 68 of the Transfer of Property Act, it was open to the mortgagee to sue for the mortgage money as possession of part of the mortgaged property had not been delivered to him or to acquire a charge on the part which had been delivered to him until he was repaid the mortgage money. It appears to us, however, that Section 68 does not apply to a case like this. That Section contemplates cases where the mortgagee is entitled to claim, repayment of the mortgage money before redemption. In the present case, however, the cont...
Achamma Vs. Basappa
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1897
Reported in: (1898)8MLJ1
1. The District Munsif's Court at Bellary which passed the decree ordered the transfer of execution of the decree to the District Munsif's Court at Gooty.2. It is Contended that in doing so the Bellary Court was misled as to the existence of property in Gooty by the representations then made on behalf of the judgment creditor. Assuming that it was so misled, that did not affect the validity of the order. The Court at Gooty in executing that decree was, therefore, acting lawfully and the sale cannot be impeached on the ground that the latter Court had no jurisdiction.3. As to the next objection to the sale, we are clearly of opinion that what was attached and sold was the mortgage bond. The omission to attach the immovable property hypothecated by the bond under Section 274, was a mere irregularity which does not affect the sale. The sale was not opposed by the judgment-debtor and became final, Muniappa Naik v. Subramania Ayyan, I.L.R. 18 M. 437. The mortgagor is not entitled to questio...
Visvalingam Pillai Vs. Palaniappa Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1897
Reported in: (1898)8MLJ113
1. On the whole, though not without hesitation, we think that the instrument may be considered to be a mortgage, but we are of opinion that it falls within S. 98 of the Transfer of Property Act and that the rights and liabilities of the parties must be determined by the contract itself. The contract does not provide for the contingency which has occurred. No special usage applicable to the present circumstances is set up. It is, however, contended that under S. 68 of the Transfer of Property Act it was open to the mortgagee to sue for the mortgage money as possession of part of the mortgaged property had not been delivered to him or to acquire a charge on the part which had been delivered to him until he was repaid the mortgage money. It appears to us, however that Section 68 does not apply to a case like this. That Section contemplates cases where the mortgagee is entitled to claim repayment of the mortgage money before redemption. In the present case however the contract gives no rig...
Manuel S. Lobo Vs. Nicholos Britto
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1897
Reported in: (1897)7MLJ268
1. It is contended that because the plaintiff acquired the property in the defendant's name for the purpose of concealing it from Government, he being an official of Government who was not authorized to acquire by law, the plaintiff cannot recover possession of it form the defendant or obtain any relief in respect of it> We are unable to accept this view. No doubt the plaintiff intended to conceal the acquisition of the land from the authorities and acted dishonestly and in contravention of the rules of his department. But we do not think he can be said to have acted illegally so as to bring the ease within the principle that a man is precluded from obtaining relief in respect of a transaction, the purpose of which was illegal and has been accomplished.2. As to the question whether a declaratory suit lay, we are of opi-nion that the Judge is right. The defendant never asserted that he was in possession, and the finding is that he was not.3. We dismiss the appeal without costs, as also ...
Uthunganakath Avuthala Vs. Thazhatharayil Kunhali and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-1897
Reported in: (1897)7MLJ293
Subrahmania Aiyar, J.1. Though, the amount involved in this case is small, the questions, raised are not unimportant; The facts of the case are briefly as follows:The land for the possession of which the plaintiff (appellant) sued in this case, had, many years ago, been originally demised by the assignor of the plaintiff to the first defendant's father. After the father's death; the first defendant succeeded to the possession of the land : but in 1890 he executed to the landlord Exhibit A. By that instrument it was provided that the first defendant was to hold the land for one year and to surrender it at the end of the term. Theinstrument further stated that the landlord having agreed to the first defendant holding the land for the year at a rent which was less (by six paras of paddy worth about Rs. 3) than what was payable under the instrument of demise executed when the land was originally let to the first defendant's father the defendant agreed not to claim compensation for certain ...
Syamalarayudu Vs. Subbarayudu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-1897
Reported in: (1898)ILR21Mad143
1. There is no dispute that the plaintiff did pay off the mortgagees with a sum of Rs. 1,084. He would ordinarily be entitled to step into their shoes and to claim payment of his mortgage money out of the property originally mortgaged now in the hands of the second defendant whose liability to pay the mortgage amount was established in the very suit in which the sale to him was upheld. The ground given in the Courts below for refusing to allow plaintiff's payment to be a charge upon the property was that the payment was not bond fide, and that it was not bond fide because it was made during the tendency of the suit between plaintiff and second defendant about the sale. We fail to see in this circumstance anything to affect the validity of the payment which was no doubt made by the plaintiff for the purpose of strengthening his own claim. The plaintiff's illegal act in antedating his sale-deed, also for the purpose of supporting his title does not vitiate the payment subsequently made, ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »