Chennai Court March 1901 Judgments
Murugesa Chetti Vs. Chinnathambi Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1901
Reported in: (1901)ILR24Mad421
Bhashyam Ayyangar, J.1. This suit is brought for the recovery of rent due under an unregistered instrument of lease of a betel garden, dated 20th of December 1895, reserving an annual rent of Rs. 38, The District Munsif dismissed the suit on two grounds, viz.:(1) that it was not a lease for agricultural purposes and therefore its registration was compulsory under Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act;(2) that, assuming it was an agricultural lease, its registration was compulsory under Section 17, Clause (d) of the Indian Registration Act, 1877, inasmuch as it was not a lease, 'for a period not exceeding five years.'2. The second ground is clearly untenable and the Munsif has evidently overlooked the ruling of this Court in Virammal v. Runqayyangar I.L.R. 4 Mad. 381. The term of the lease may no doubt continue beyond five years in the event of neither party determining it in the meanwhile, but as either party may determine it before five years, it cannot be said to be a lease for...
Tag this Judgment!A. Sundararamayya Vs. C. Sitamma and Seven ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-1901
Reported in: (1912)ILR35Mad628
1. The plaintiff and his father were members of an undivided family. The father made a gift of about 8 acres of land, which formed ancestral property, to the first defendant, his daughter, in 1899, The father died in 1904 and the plaintiff sues to recover possession of the land given to the first defendant by his father, on the ground that the father was not competent to make a gift of joint family property. The family owned not leas than two hundred acres at the time of the gift.2. The lower Appellate Court; was of opinion that the plain- tiff's father had intended at the time of her marriage to give some properties to the first defendant and as ho was only carrying out that intention by making this gift, it is valid.3. The marriage took place about forty years before the gift. There was no evidence that the father then had any intention to give any property to the first defendant. We are therefore unable to accept that finding. Is the gift then valid?4. The Hindu Law texts fully supp...
Tag this Judgment!Kachi Yuva Oodayar Vs. Kachi Kaliyana Oodayar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-1901
Reported in: (1901)11MLJ191
1. The principal question in the case is whether the estate now known as the Zemindari of Udayarpaliam is the partible property of the plaintiff's family or is hold as an impartible estate. The District Judge has found that the original palayam as it stood until the expulsion of the 1st defendant's ancestor in 1765 was, like other palayams in the Carnatic, an impartible estate. Having read the evidence discussed by him and heard arguments upon it, we are of opinion that the conclusion at which he has arrived is right and that there can be no doubt that the palayam was up to 1765 held by one member of the family only not being subject to the ordinary rule of Hindu law.2. The question regarding which there is the chief contest is whether, in view of the circumstances in which the sannad was granted in 1817, the estate comprised in that sannad came to be held by the family on terms different from those on which the original palayam was enjoyed. The plaintiff's case is that the estate comp...
Tag this Judgment!Sauney Kotappa Vs. Venkata Narasimham Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1901
Reported in: (1901)11MLJ125
1. The only right of action to which the plaintiff on the allegations made in the plaint could be entitled is a right to recover damages for breach of contract. The plaint certainly does not set out in terms that cause of action, for the plaintiff seeks to recover the money exacted from him under the decree of the High Court with interest thereon and does not ask for damages. But all the necessary allegations are made in the plaint. The contract and the breach of it are alleged, and the written statement shows clearly that the defendant understood what the claim against him was We think the plaint must be read as sufficiently disclosing a cause of action. It cannot possibly be said that the defendant has been prejudiced by the omission to ask specifically for damages. Then it is said that the suit is barred by limitation, because the breach was made more than throe years before the suit was filed. The answer to this is that the undertaking of the defendant to withdraw his second appeal...
Tag this Judgment!Kotappa Vs. Vallur Zamindar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1901
Reported in: (1902)ILR25Mad50
1. The only right of action to which the plaintiff, on the allegations made in the plaint, could be entitled, is a right to recover damages for breach of contract, The plaint certainly does not set out in terms that cause of action for the plaintiff seeks to recover the money extracted from him under the decree of the High Court with interest thereon and does not ask for damages. But all the necessary allegations are made in the plaint. The contract and the breach of it are alleged and the written statement shows clearly that the defendant understood what the claim against him was. We think the plaint must be read as sufficiently disclosing a cause of action. It cannot possibly be said that the defendant has been prejudiced by the omission to ask specifically for damages.2. Then it is said that the suit is barred by limitation because the breach was made more than three years before the suit was filed. The answer to this is that the undertaking of the defendant to withdraw his second a...
Tag this Judgment!Gurusam1 Chetti Vs. Krishnasami Naikar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1901
Reported in: (1901)ILR24Mad419
1. In Chapter XXVI of the Code of Civil Procedure and particularly in petitions 402 and 407, the restrictions on the liberty of the right to sue as a pauper are expressly prescribed. We should be adding to those restrictions if we hold that a man should not be allowed to sue as a pauper when his suit is one that is brought under the Devasthanam Act.2. We must reverse the order and remand the case for the proper disposal of the petitions. Respondents must pay the costs of the present petitions....
Tag this Judgment!Ahmed Vs. MoidIn and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1901
Reported in: (1901)ILR24Mad444
1. Two questions are raised in this second appeal. It is first contended that the Court which tried the original case was not a Court competent to try the present suit within the meaning of Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure because the former suit was cognizable by a Small Cause Court, whereas the present suit is a suit to recover land and therefore a second appeal is admissible. Following the case of Subhammal v. Huddleston I.L.R. 17 Mad. 273 which we find to be in accordance with the view accepted in Calcutta Bhugwanbutti Chowdhrani v. Forbes I.L.R. 28 Calc. 78 we hold that the present suit was within the competency of the Court which tried the other suit notwithstanding that in that other case there could have been no second appeal. We see that in Srirangachariar v. Ramasami Ayyangar I.L.R. 18 Mad. 189 the case of Subbammal v. Huddleston I.L.R. 17 Mad. 273 was not cited. It was apparently overlooked.2. The other question relates to the fact that the first decree was affirmed...
Tag this Judgment!Venkatapathi Naidu Vs. Tirumalai Chetti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1901
Reported in: (1901)ILR24Mad447
1. The order appealed against is an order passed on appeal against an order passed under Section 493 of the Code of Civil Procedure. According to Section 588 of the Coda any order passed on appeal against an order passed under Section 493 is final and no appeal lies. It is true that the order appealed against happens to be an order of remand and the same Section 588 shows that in the case of some such orders an appeal does lie. But, in our opinion, that makes no difference. The words used are clear and amount to this, that every order which is passed in an appeal presented under the provisions of Section 588 is final.2. There are orders of remand which are not passed on such appeals, but in the present; case it is clear that the appeal to the District Court was an appeal given by Section 588.3. The appeal must be dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Narayana Kamti and ors. Vs. Handu Shetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1901
Reported in: (1905)15MLJ210
ORDER1. In the instrument in the case (Exhibit A) there is a peculiar provision which does not appear in the cases cited. Here there is a covenant to pay rent on the 15th of April. No forfeiture is provided for on account of default in such payment. But it is provided that if the default continue until December, then the lease is to be forfeited. It appears to us that it was clearly not intended that the clause of forfeiture was to be merely in terrorem.2. There is another ground on which the defendant must fail and that is that when pleading his alleged right to be relieved against the forfeiture he omitted to make any tender or to pay the money into Court but on the contrary pleaded payment unsuccessfully.3. The maxim 'he who seeks equity must do equity' applies apart from the Transfer of Property Act.4. The appeal is allowed. The decrees are reversed. There must be a decree for the property and for Rs. 26-6-8.5. [Their Lordships then remitted an issue for finding on the question of ...
Tag this Judgment!Harischandra Deo Vs. Narayana and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1901
Reported in: (1901)ILR24Mad508
Shephard, J.1. In my opinion the nature of the suit must be ascertained by considering all the allegations in the plaint and the prayer.2. In the present plaint a muchalka is alleged to have been executed by the first defendant, and the second defendant is said to be in possession. There are no other allegations made.3. Then there is the prayer as for the enforcement of a charge. There is nothing in the allegations to justify such a prayer. I therefore think that the plaint must be read simply as a plaint for the enforcement of the terms of the muchalka, and that the suit is therefore of a small cause nature.4. The second appeal is dismissed with costs.Bhashyam Ayyangar, J.5. If the question were res integra, I should be inclined to hold that in determining whether or not a second appeal is barred by Section 586 of the Civil Procedure Code, we ought to regard the suit not as it ought to have been framed but as it is in fact framed and brought, unless the plaintiff has, with the object ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »