Chennai Court October 1901 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.
Subbaraya Iyen Vs. Padmanabha Vadhyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-1901
Reported in: (1902)12MLJ63
1. There is no direction in the decree that the mortgagee in default of delivering up the title deeds of the property lo the mortgagor should furnish security to the value of the property. The order directing security is, therefore, set aside and the respondent will pay the appellant's costs in this and in the lower appellate Court. The appellant's petition will be disposed of according to law....
Natesa Ayyar Vs. Annasaml Ayyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-1901
Reported in: (1902)ILR25Mad426
1. The Appeal No. 135 of 1896 on this Court's tile was preferred jointly by the first and second defendants, against both of whom the decree appealed against was passed. During the pendency of the appeal one of the appellants, namely, the first defendant died, and without his legal representative being brought on the record the appeal came on for hearing. Mr. Sankara Nayar, as the surviving appellant's vakil, then represented. to the Court that he was prepared to go on with the appeal on behalf of the survivor; and the appeal was accordingly heard, with the result that the decree appealed against was reversed and the suit dismissed with costs throughout.2. It is contended by the petitioner, the appellant before us, who is the son and legal representative of the deceased first defendant, that in the appeal prosecuted by the second defendant alone, the whole decree was reversed and the suit as against both the defendants was dismissed and that consequently the petitioner, as the legal re...
Subba Naidu Vs. Nagayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-1901
Reported in: (1902)ILR25Mad424; (1902)12MLJ89
1. The plaintiff sues to recover land in the possession of the defendants on the strength of his purchase from the reversioners of a Hindu widow in whose favour the land was enfranchised as a personal inam. The District Judge dismissed the suit on the authority of Dharanipragada Durgamma v. Kadambari Virrazu I.L.R. 21 Mad. 47 considering that the same principle would apply to a personal inam as to a service inam. We do not think, however, that the cases are parallel. When a service inam is enfranchised the reversionary interest of Government is given up, but when a personal inam is enfranchised the reversionary right of Government is expressly reserved under the rules of the Inam Settlement. The plaintiff does not produce the inam title-deed or show that the grant in this case was made on terms other than those sanctioned by the general rules, the reason no doubt being that there is no variation. The plaintiff in fact comes into Court without any title, his vendor the reversioner, havi...
Chinnasami Mudali Vs. Tirumalai Pillai and the Right Honourable the Se ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-1901
Reported in: (1902)ILR25Mad572
1. Muthu Annathai Naick obtained a loan under Act XIX of 1883 to be expended in digging a well in land No. 315 held by him on patta. Land No. 105-B was also held by the borrower on patta, but it was not made collateral security for the loan under Section 7, Clause 1 (d) of the Act. As the loan was not repaid on the date on which it fell due, land No. 315 was attached and sold by Government. No one bid for it and the land was bought in by Government. On the 12th November 1895 Muthu Annathai Naick sold land No. 105-B under a registered document (exhibit BE) to the plaintiff. In 1896 this land was attached by Government in order to realise the amount of the loan still due by the plaintiff's vendor. The plaintiff on the 25th July put in a petition to the Revenue authorities objecting to the sale of land No. 105-B on the ground that he had purchased it from the defaulter. The sale was estopped, but the land, as it appears, remained under attachment. In March 1897 the plaintiff and the defau...
Punithavelu Mudaliar Vs. Bhashyam Aiyangar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-09-1901
Reported in: (1902)12MLJ282
Charles Arnold White, CJ.1. This is an appeal from an order of Boddam, J., dismissing an application by a judgment-creditor of an insolvent for an order that a sum of Rs. 3,400 in the hands of the Official Assignee should be paid by the Official Assignee to the judgment-creditor (the appellant).2. A preliminary objection was taken by the Official Assignee that no appeal lay from the order of the learned Judge. I think the order is a 'Judgment' within the meaning of article 15 of the Letters Patent and that the preliminary objection should be overruled.3. The facts are these. By an instrument, dated 13th March 1897, one C. Bhashyam Aiyangar, who was afterwards adjudged an insolvent, in consideration of a sum of Rs. 5,600 found due from him 1 to the appellant on a settlement of accounts, covenanted to repay this sum to the appellant in quarterly instalments and mortgaged to the appellant his stock-in-trade and all outstandings and moneys then due and owing and thereafter to become due an...
Puninthavelu Mudaliar Vs. Bhashyam Ayyangar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-09-1901
Reported in: (1902)ILR25Mad406
Arnold White, C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order of Boddam, J., dismissing an application by a judgment-creditor of an insolvent for an order that a sum of Rs. 3,400 in the hands of the Official Assignee should be paid by the Official Assignee to the judgment-creditor (the appellant).2. A preliminary objection was taken by the Official Assignee that no appeal lay from the order of the learned Judge. I think the order is a 'Judgment' within the meaning of Article 15 of the Letters Patent and that the preliminary objection should be overruled.3. The facts are these. By an instrument, dated March 13th, 1897, one C. Bhashyam Ayyangar, who was afterwards adjudged an insolvent, in consideration of a sum of Rs. 5,600 found due from him to the appellant on a settlement of accounts, covenanted to repay this sum to the appellant in quarterly instalments and mortgaged to the appellant his stock-in-trade and all outstandings and moneys then due and owing and thereafter to become due and payabl...
Lakshminarasayya Setti Vs. Venkanna Setti and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-1901
Reported in: (1902)ILR25Mad576
Davies, J.1. The respondents were served with notice of the appeal within the extended time allowed by a Bench of this Court, but the respondents allege that the time should not have been extended without notice to them, or at any rate that they should now be permitted to urge their objections to the extension. I am of opinion that no notice was necessary in the first instance, but as the order extending the time was passed ex parte, I think the respondents are now entitled to object thereto.2. As in my opinion, however, the appeal against the order must, under Section 169 of the Indian Company's Act, 1882, itself be filed within three weeks of the date of the order at the very latest, it makes it practically impossible to have the notice of the appeal also served within that time. It follows that the Court could not reasonably have refused the extension applied for. The preliminary objection is therefore overruled. On the merits, I consider the Judge was right in dismissing the applic...
Ahamod Kutti Vs. Raman Nambudri
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-04-1901
Reported in: (1901)11MLJ323
1. We are clearly of opinion that when in execution of a money-decree immoveable property of a judgment-debtor, in which, his real interest is only that of a mortgagee is attached and brought to sale, the auction purchaser cannot be regarded as a purchaser from the mortgagee within the meaning of Article 134 of the second schedule of the Limitation Act, even though the property was sold as the property of the judgment-debtor without any limitation of his interest therein. Article 134 is, in our opinion, intended solely to apply to cases in which the mortgagee disposes of the property voluntarily. But in the case of an involuntary sale in execution of a decree, the purchaser cannot be regarded as a purchaser from the judgment-debtor. The decision in Muthu v. Kumbalinga I.L.R. 12 M. 316 proceeds, we think, on the erroneous assumption that the court in selling the judgment-debtor's property in which his interest is that of a mortgagee for the discharge of the debt due by him under the dec...
Ahamed Kutti Vs. Raman Nambudri
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-04-1901
Reported in: (1902)ILR25Mad99
Davies and Bhashyam Ayyangar, JJ.1. Following the decision of the Full Bench on the question referred to it, this second appeal is dismissed with costs....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›