Chennai Court December 1899 Judgments
Vachooru Balarami Reddy and ors. Vs. Vachooru Ramamma and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1899
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.698
1. The case is from a district where the custom of 'illatom' prevails. Though the position of an 'illatom' son-in-law was not claimed for the 2nd defendant, the fact remains that he was taken into Lakshminarasa Reddy's house for the express purpose of marrying a girl who was treated as his daughter and in Exhibit X, the 2nd defendant is described as his 'son-in-law.' It may be that because the daughter was a foster-daughter that the 'Illatom' custom was not pleaded but all the circumstances show the existence of an agreement that the 2nd defendant was to take Lakshminarasa Reddy's property in consideration of his marrying the foster-daughter and residing with and managing the affairs of Lakshminarasa Reddy. This was, no doubt, a valid contract and on that ground, the case was rightly decided by the District Judge. The appeal is dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Kunhi Moosa Vs. Akath Makki and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1899
Reported in: (1900)10MLJ98
Subrahmania Aiyar, J.1. The question in this case is as to the validity of the kanom obtained by the respondent when the land comprised in the instrument of kanom was under attachment in execution of a decree against the party who granted the kanom.2. Now there is no doubt that the invalidation of a private transfer made pending an attachment of the property transferred only results from a subsisting attachment.3. In the present case, however, the attachment, subject to which the kanom was granted, ceased on the respondent discharging the judgment-debt due to the attaching creditor to be operative in so far as that creditor was concerned. Ramdhan Mitter v. Kailas Nath Dutt (1869) 4 B.L.R. Ap. Jur. 20 and per Mitter, J., in Anandalal Das v. Radhamohan Shaw (1868) 2 B.L.R. 73. And on principle it follows that with reference to the other judgment-creditors also, who had the attachment resulted in the realization of assets, would have been entitled to a rateable distribution, the attachmen...
Tag this Judgment!Singaracharlu Vs. Upendraiya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1899
Reported in: (1900)10MLJ69
ORDERO'Farrell, J.1. This is a singular suit. It would appear that the plaintiff executed a sale-deed of lands to which he was not entitled, in favour of the defendant, and the lattter, being well aware that the plaintiff had no title, accepted the sale-deed and gave the plaintiff a receipt acknowledging that the possession of the lands had passed to him and also a promissory note for the purchase-money. The suit is laid on the' pro-note and the defence was failure of consideration because, as the defendant alleged, at the time of the execution of the sale-deed, the plaintiff expressly covenanted to put the defendant in possession of the lands and had not done so. The defendant desired to produce evidence of this oral agreement but the District Judge declined to allow him to do so, on the ground that it was inadmissible, I presume, in reference to Sections 91 and 92, Indian Evidence Act. Proviso (2) to the latter section, however, enacts that 'existence of any separate oral agreement a...
Tag this Judgment!Narasimha Nayanivaru Vs. Ramalingama Rao and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1899
Reported in: (1900)10MLJ104
1. As regards the 2nd defendant who signed the schedule besides executing the principal instrument, there is no question of the insufficiency of the description of the property and, therefore, there is no valid reason for the refusal of the Registrar to register the instrument with its chedule.2. As regards the 1st defendant the question arises whether the description given in the instrument itself is sufficient description of the property within the meaning of Section 21 of the Registration Act. The description is to be sufficient to identify the property, but as Section 22 of the Registration Act shows, it need not be a description of a local character. It need not mention the street in which the house is or give the name or the superficial area. It follows that the description is not required to be such as to indicate to one searching the register without further enquiry or information the precise property to which the entry relates. It is enough forinstance that the property is des...
Tag this Judgment!Venkatasubba Naidu Vs. W.D. Smith and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-1899
Reported in: (1900)10MLJ116
1. In respect of the decree sought to be executed, namely, the decree in O.S. No. 33 of 1899, it appears to us clear that {he appellant is neither a party nor a representative ' party; He is a complete stranger to that decree seeking to save his property, to wit, the decree in the City Civil Court, Suit No. 28 of 1898, from attachment claim. In our opinioh the claim was rightly framed under Section 278 of the Code of Civil Procedure and ought to have been disposed of accordingly.2. We must, accordingly desire the learned Judge to deal with the claim providing also for the costs of this appeal....
Tag this Judgment!Narayana Aiyar and anr. Vs. Kumarasami Mudaliar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-1899
Reported in: (1900)10MLJ106
1. We do not think that the order of the District Judge can be sustained. This is a suit by two persons, one of whom' is the General Trustee of the Temple and the other merely a worshipper instituted after leave obtained under Sectional 18, Act XX of 1863 and Section 539, Civil Procedure Code.2. Even assuming that the first plaintiff as General Trustee of the Temple was at liberty to sue for the removal of the defendants in the Ordinary Courts, there can be no doubt he is not precluded from suing under Section 14, Act XX of 1863. This is clear from the very wide language of Section 15 of that Act which is framed so as to include not only persons having a pecuniary or direct interest in the institution, but also persons having interests of a far inferior character. 3. If the 1st plaintiff were the sole plaintiff, it would be right that he should comply with the rule laid down in Section 15, Civil Procedure Code, and bring his suit in the Subordinate Judge's Court as the Court of the low...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›