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.
Vairananda Nadar Vs. Miyakan Rowter
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-03-1897
Reported in: (1898)ILR21Mad109
1. Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act is declared to be read as supplemental to the Registration Act, It is therefore to be read with Section 17 (d) of the Registration Act. The proviso to that clause must, therefore, be restricted to cases not falling under Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act, which absolutely requires the registration of the leases referred to therein. Our answer to the question therefore is that leases falling under Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act, are compulsorily registrable not withstanding the Government notification issued under the proviso to Clause (d), Section 17 of the Registration Act....
Mithala Cheruvittil Mammod Vs. Locke and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-1897
Reported in: (1898)8MLJ7
1. Certain immovable property was sold by the Subordinate Court of Cochin in execution of a decree obtained by the Cochin Municipal Commissioners against the appellant upon a mortgage instrument executed by him. The sale was confirmed. But before the certificate of sale was issued, disputes arose as to whether certain buildings should be included in the certificate as part of the property sold. After hearing the auction-purchaser, the judgment-creditor and the judgment-debtor, the Subordinate Court passed an order directing that the buildings should be included in the certificate. The appellant preferred an appeal against the order to the District Court. The appeal, however, was rejected on the ground that no such appeal lay. On behalf of the appellant, it was contended that the view taken by the District Court was wrong inasmuch as the question in dispute was one which fell under Section 244 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. This contention is, in our opinion, untenable. Now, if the d...
Arumugam Chetty Vs. Sundararaja Aiyangar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-1897
Reported in: (1898)8MLJ3
1. The plaintiff and 2 others sued the defendants in a mortgage and obtained a decree and the property was sold.2. The plaintiff obtained leave to bid at the sale of the plaint property. He bought it in his own name and for himself alone. He obtained the sale certificate in his own name and he was put into possession of the property by the Court. The fact that two others were interested in the original decree and to that extent interested in the plaintiff's purchase is not sufficient to justify the lower Court in dismissing his action for non-joinder of those who were co-plaintiffs with him in the original suit. This is the interpretation put upon the petitions even by the Munsif, and we think rightly; and the District Judge gives no reason for thinking otherwise.3. We must reverse the decree of the District Judge and restore that of the District Munsif. The respondent must pay the appellant's costs in this and in the lower appellate Court....
Natesan Chetti and ors. Vs. Soundararajayyangar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-1897
Reported in: (1897)7MLJ275
1. This is a suit to enforce the lien possessed by a vendor of immovable property in respect of unpaid purchase-money. The Court of First Instance decided that the case fell within Article, 111 of the Limitation Act. But the Lower Appellate Court following Virchand Lalchand v. Kwmaji I.L.R., 18 B., 48 held that Article 132 applied, Now Article Ill refers solely and in unmistakable terms to suits such as the present, while Article 132 deals with suits for money charged upon immovable property generally. In the case cited above, no reasons were stated as to why the learned Judges arrived at the conclusion that Article Ill was inapplicable to cases similar to this; and that conclusion is opposed to the well established canon rule of interpretation that, as a rule, general provisions do not derogate from special provisions, but that the latter do derogate from the former. Generalia Specialiabus non derogant; Specialia derogant generalibus. It is scarcely necessary to observe that if Articl...
Oliver Vs. Anantharamayyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-1897
Reported in: (1897)ILR20Mad498
1. It is admitted in this ease that the first application to the Collector for sale under Section 40 of the Act (VIII of 1865) was made within the time prescribed by Section 18, and that the sale which took place in the pursuance of that application was set aside on the ground of an irregularity in conduct of the sale by the officer carrying it out. After the sale was thus set aside, the landlord applied again to the Collector for a fresh sale without giving a second notice to the tenant of his intention to sell under Section 39. The Lower Appellate Court has held that such notice was necessary; in other words, that all that had been done up to the irregular sale was practically void, and that the landlord must begin 'de novo.' We are unable to accept this view. The landlord was in no way responsible for the irregularity in the sale, and he was entitled to ask the Collector to rectify what had gone wrong by giving orders for a proper sale. The second application to the Collector must b...
Durgamma Vs. Kadambari Virrazu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-01-1897
Reported in: (1897)7MLJ233
1. It is contended for the appellant that the decision of the Lower Appellate Court is opposed to the ruling in Narayana v. Chengalamma I.L.R. 10 M. 1. 2. It may, perhaps, be that the contention is well founded, but it is not necessary for us to consider the question, as it is clear that the decision is in accordance with the decision of the Full Bench in the case of Venkata v. Rama I.L.R. 8 M. 249 This decision of the Full Bench was not referred to in the case on which the appellant now relies, and we are bound to follow the ruling of the Full Bench. Under that ruling the widow must be held to have acquired the land under the inam titledeed as her own absolute property by grant from Government. That decision proceeded on the broad ground that the plaintiff did not hold the office of karnam at the time of the enfranchisement, and, therefore, had no title to sue for the lands, and that the land when enfranchised was at the disposal of Government and alienable to whomsoever the Governmen...
Musaliyam Kunhi Vs. Valiyakath Periyattail
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-01-1897
Reported in: (1897)7MLJ236
1. Albeit there may have been no memo of objections, it was incumbent on the Judge to examine into the correctness of the finding and come to a conclusion whether he accepted it or not, unless its correctness had been admitted by the parties to whom it was adverse, viz., the defendant in this case. There is nothing to show there was such admission and the Judge has not expressed any opinion on the matter in question. There is, therefore, no judgment as prescribed by the Code. We must, therefore, reverse the decree and remand the appeal to be disposed of according to law; see Umed Ali v. Salinia Bibi I.L.R. 383 Bhagvan v. Kesur Kiwerji I.L.R. B. 428 and Barnar chandra Govind Sono Sadashiv I.L.R. B. 551. Costs to abide and follow the result....
Kunhi Marakkar Haji Vs. Kutti Umma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-01-1897
Reported in: (1897)ILR20Mad496
1. Albeit there may have been no memorandum of objections, it was incumbent on the Judge to examine into the correctness of the finding and come to a conclusion whether he accepted it or not, unless its correctness had been admitted by the party to whom it was adverse, viz., the defendant in this case. There is nothing to show there was such admission, and the Judge has not expressed any opinion on the matter in question. There is therefore no judgment as prescribed by the Code. We must, therefore, reverse the decree and remand the appeal to be disposed of according to law. See Umed Ah v. Salima Bibi I.L.R. 6 All. 383 Mumtaz Begam v. Fateh Husain I.L.R. 6 All. 391 Bhagvan v. Kesur Kuverji I.L.R. 17 Bom. 428 and see also Ramachandra Goivind Manik v. Sono Sadashiv Sarkhot I.L.R. 19 Bom. 551. Costs will abide and follow the result....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›