Chennai Court November 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.
Kasinatha Ayyar and ors. Vs. Uthumansa Rowthan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1901
Reported in: (1902)ILR25Mad529
Moore, J.1. Nammalwar Chetti, in whose favour a mortgage had been executed under a document, dated 25th June 1884, with respect to the properties to which the present appeal relates, brought a suit (Original Suit No. 172 of 1887) on that mortgage and having obtained a decree brought the property to sale in 1890 and purchased certain of the items of property while others were bought by Saminatha Tevan. Of the several items of property thus purchased Nos. 8 to 12 were sold by the purchasers to the brother of Uthumansa Rowthan and Ahammad Bowthan, the first and second respondents, while items 13 and 14 were sold by Nammalwar to Saminatha and by him to the father of the third respondent. The first, second and the father of the third respondent were duly put in possessions of the items of property purchased by them. In 1897 Kasinatha Ayyar, the present appellant, brought a suit (No. 267 of 1897 on the file of the District Munsif of Kumbakonam) on a mortgage document, dated the 8th July 1884...
Sankaranarayana Vadhya Vs. Sankaranarayana Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-1901
Reported in: (1901)11MLJ421
Arnold White, C.J.1. In this case the defendant was indebted to the stake-holder of a chit fund in a sum of Rs. 750. He undertook to pay this sum in half-yearly instalments of Rs. 62-8-0, and in default he bound himself to pay in a lump sum on demand the principal debt and interest at the rate of 1 pie per diem per rupee from the date of default. The half-yearly instalments of Rs. 62-8-0, which the defendant undertook to pay, were on account of the principal only. There is some conflict' of authority with reference to the enforcement of the stipulations which provide for the payment of a higher rate of interest on default, but the authorities appear to be uniform at any rate to this extent--that when the higher rate of interest is payable as from the date of default and not as from the date of the contract, the contract rate is enforceable. See 2 M H.C.R. 205 Nanjappa v. Nanjappa I.L.R. 12 M. 161 the judgment of this Court (Shephard and Davies, JJ.) in S.A. No. 1303 of 1896 (unreported...
Sankaranarayana Vadhyar Vs. Sankaranarayana Ayyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-1901
Reported in: (1902)ILR25Mad343
Arnold White, C.J.1. In this case the defendant was indebted to the stake-holder of a chit fund in a sum of Rs. 750. He undertook to pay this sum by half-yearly instalments of Rs. 62-8-0 and in default he bound himself to pay in a lump sum on demand the principal debt and interest at the rate of 1 pie per diem per rupee from the date of default. The half-yearly instalments of Rs. 62-8-0, which the defendant undertook to pay, were on account of principal only. There is some conflict of authority with reference to the enforcement of stipulations which provide for the payment of a higher rate of interest on default, but the authorities appear to be uniform at any rate to this extent--that when the higher rate of interest is payable as from the date of default and not as from the date of the contract, the contract rate is enforceable. See Arulu Mastry v. Wakuthu Chinnayan 2 M.H.C.R. 205 Nanjappa v. Nanjappa I.L.R. 12 Mad. 161 the judgment of this Court (Shephard, J. and Davies, J.) in Kris...
Subyanakayanamurti and anr. Vs. Tammanna and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1901
Reported in: (1902)ILR25Mad504
1. A preliminary objection is taken that the suit is barred by the proviso to Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877. An issue was raised on this point in the lower Court, but the Subordinate Judge held that the objection was invalid, because the lands in suit were in the possession of tenants under leases granted by plaintiff and first defendant.2. We are unable to concur in this view. The leases, we observe, were granted in the life-time of the father of the plaintiff and first defendant, and were for a year only and had expired before the suit was filed. But even if the leases were subsisting leases granted after the father's death it would make no difference in the decision of the present question. The proviso to Section 42, Specific Relief Act, prohibits the Court from granting a declaration like that asked for in this suit 'where the plaintiff being able to seek further relief than a mere declaration of title omits to do so.' Here it was open to the plaintiff to have sued fo...
Rajaram Devai Vs. Lakshmi Sankara
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-1901
Reported in: (1903)13MLJ206
1. The appellant contends that the Subordinate Judge ought not to have charged him with the value of the remissions made by him in 1891, 1892, 1893. and 1898. As regards the 50 kalams remitted in 1898 we are not prepared to say that the Subordinate Judge's view is incorrect. The appellant was then a wrongdoer in that he was improperly retaining possession of the plaintiff's property after he had attained majority, and no sufficient reason is adduced to justify the grant of so large a remission, if it was in fact granted. As regards the three earlier remissions they were much smaller in amount and they were granted long before relations between the parties were strained. They are proved by the appellant's sworn evidence to have been, in fact, made, and to have been made on good grounds, and he is supported by his contemporaneously written accounts, which we see no reason to discredit. The appellant must be allowed the value of these remissions, viz-. Rs. 91-9-02. 2. The appellant furthe...
Venkatappiah and anr. Vs. Jagannadha Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-1901
Reported in: (1902)12MLJ24
1. The question raised in this second appeal is whether the execution of the decree for money, dated the 2nd December 1874, in Original Suit No. 560 of 1873 on the file of the District Munsifs Court of Ellore, is barred by limitation under Section 230, Civil Procedure Code, or under Article 178 or 179 of the 2nd schedule to the Indian Limitation Act of 1877. The immediate application from which this appeal has arisen is execution petition No. 2828 of 1898, dated 11th October 1898, on the file of the District Munsifs Court of Gudi-vada, to which Court the decree was ultimately sent for execution by the District Munsif of Ellore, about the beginning of 1897.2. The chief question for consideration is whether this petition is to be treated as a fresh application or as one in continuance of execution petition of the 2nd December 1886 presented to the District Munsifs Court of Bezwada, praying that the last-mentioned application (of 1886) may now be finally disposed of by sale of the landed ...
Subharaya Tawker Vs. Rajaram Tawker and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-1901
Reported in: (1902)12MLJ91
1. We fire unable to agree with the decision of the District Judge.2. Under Exhibit A the members of the family became completely divided in interest in respect of all their property, but so far as the village now in question is concerned, it was agreed that the plaintiff was to receive one-fourth of the net income (on account of his one-fourth share of the village) from the eldest member of the family who was to manage the village.3. Such an agreement cannot bar the plaintiff's right to sue for partition by metes and bounds of his one-fourth share of the village as one of the four tenants in common.4. As regards the house, the plaintiff agreed to receive Rs. 500 in lieu of his share in the event of his refusing to live in the house, He is not entitled to a portion of it if the co-sharers are willing to pay him the Rs. 500.5. We, therefore, set aside the decree of the lower appellate Court, and modify the decree of the District Munsif by directing that the plaintiff do recover one-four...
Viraraghava Ayyangar Vs. Kanagavalli Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-1901
Reported in: (1902)ILR25Mad503
1. We doubt whether the failure to state the place where the distrained property is kept can ever be a ground for a suit under Section 18 of the Rent Recovery Act to set aside the distraint. The appropriate remedey seems rather to be, under Section 17 of the Rent Recovery Act, to apply to the Collector for an order to restore the distrained property to the owner, if such omission was a material irregularity. However that may be, we are satisfied that, in the present case, in which the property distrained consisted of some small jewels, the statement that they were 'with the distrainer' was a sufficient statement of the place where they were kept, within the meaning of Section 15 of the Act. It is difficult to see what more information the plaintiff could have required for any practical purpose. Moreover, this objection was not taken before the Deputy Collector or even in the grounds of appeal to the District Judge, a fact which shows clearly enough that it was of no real materiality in...
Subbaraya Tawker Vs. Rajaram Tawker and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-1901
Reported in: (1902)ILR25Mad585
1. We are unable to agree with the decision of the District Judge.2. Under exhibit A the members of the family became completely divided in interest in respect of all their property, but so far as the village now in question is concerned it was agreed that the plaintiff was to receive one-fourth of the net income (on account of his one-fourth share of the village) from the oldest member of the family who was to manage the village.3. Such an agreement cannot bar the plaintiff's right to sue for partition by metes and bounds of his one-fourth share of the village, as one of the four tenants in common.4. As regards the house, the plaintiff agreed to receive Rs. 500 in lieu of his share in the event of his refusing to live in the house. He is not entitled to a partition of it if the co-sharers are willing to pay him the Rs. 500.5. We therefore set aside the decree of the lower Appellate Court, and modify the decree of the District Munsif by directing that the plaintiff do recover one-fourt...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›