Chennai Court August 1901 Judgments
Rajagopala Tevar Vs. Sundara Nachiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-1901
Reported in: (1902)12MLJ64
1. The question argued in support of this appeal is that the appellant who is a junior adoptive maternal uncle of the deceased adopted son of the 1st defendant is a preferential reversionary heir to his senior brother by reason of his being the natural father of the deceased adopted son, the estate in question being admittedly an impartible estate governed by the law of primogeniture. In illustration of this contention it was maintained that if the property had been partible, the appellant would be entitled to the whole of it, to the exclusion of his brothers. We consider the contention to be untenable. We cannot accede to the argument that in determining the degree of propinquity to the deceased adopted son in his adoptive family in which the question of reversionary succession arises, the appellant should be regarded as nearer of kin, because of his relationship as natural father-a relationship which for purposes of inheritance is entirely immaterial. It has been definitely decided i...
Tag this Judgment!Muthayya Rajagopala thevar Vs. Minakshisundara Nachiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-1901
Reported in: (1902)ILR25Mad394
1. The question argued in support of this appeal is that the appellant who is a junior adoptive maternal uncle of the deceased adopted son of the first defendant is a preferential reversionary heir to his senior brother by reason of his being the natural father of the deceased adopted son, the estate in question being admittedly an impartible estate governed by the law of primogeniture. In illustration of this contention it was maintained that if the property bad been partible, the appellant would be entitled to the whole of it to the exclusion of his brothers. We consider the contention to be untenable. We cannot accede to the argument that, in determining the degree of propinquity to the deceased adopted son in his adoptive family in which the question of reversionary succession arises, the appellant should be regarded as nearer of kin, because of his relationship as natural father--a relationship which for purposes of inheritance is entirely immaterial. It has been definitely decide...
Tag this Judgment!Sriramulu Vs. Chinna Venkatasami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-1901
Reported in: (1902)ILR25Mad396
1. We think that the Courts below were in error in having dismissed the plaintiff's suit as barred by limitation. No doubt the mortgage assignment, dated 21st August 1895, executed by the defendant to the plaintiff, being unregistered, could not affect the mortgaged property. It was inoperative as regards the land mortgaged as security for the debt, but it was not inoperative as an assignment of the debt itself; Jagappa v. Latchappa I.L.R. 5 Mad. 119; Gomaji v. Subbarayappa I.L.R. 15 Mad. 253 and Subramaniam v. Perumal Reddi I.L.R. 18 Mad. 454.2. Whether the defendant in fraud of the plaintiff's right received the money from the mortgagor, he must be regarded as having received it for the plaintiff's use. In this view the suit would fall under Article 62 of the Limitation Act, and was not barred since it was brought within three years of the receipt of the money by the defendant. Moreover, under the instrument of the 21st August 1895, possession of the mortgaged land passed from the de...
Tag this Judgment!Nalam Bheemaraju Vs. Kunja Behari Gajendra Devu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-1901
Reported in: (1901)11MLJ327
1. The instrument of simple mortgage, dated 22nd October 1892, on which the suit is brought by the plaintiff, the mortgagee, for the recovery of the mortgage debt by sale of the mortgaged property, purports to be a Zemindari mortgage, the property mortgaged being the Zemindari of the mortgagor, described in Schedule No. 2 annexed to the mortgage instrument. The operative part of the instrument of mortgage runs as follows:In respect of the principal, interest, etc., of this document are (mortgaged) the following:The entire Zemindari of Palur, which is situate in Chatrapur Sub-Registry of Ganjam District, which has passed to our possession from our ancestors, which is in our possession and enjoyment, which yields an annual income of about Rs. 9,975, which is described in detail in Schedule No. 2 herein, on which is payable annually a peishkush of Rs. 22-0-0 and a land cess of Rs. 463-0-0, and which bears Zemindari Patta No. 364, together with the hills, jungles, cultivated and uncultivat...
Tag this Judgment!Jagannadha Rao Pantulu Garu Vs. Vellanki Venkatarama Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-1901
Reported in: (1901)11MLJ332
1. The only question argued for appellant is that Section 43 of the Code of Civil Procedure is a bar to the present suit in which mesne profits are claimed for a period subsequent to the date of plaint in the former suit in which the plaintiff got a decree for recovery of the immoveable property, but did not claim or get a decree for mesne profits subsequent to the date of the suit.2. In regard to this it is sufficient to say that the penultimate paragraph of Section 244 of the Code of Civil Procedure necessarily implies that Section 43 is no bar to the suit. We dismiss the appeal with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Bhimaraju Chetti Vs. Sri Kunja Behari Gajendra Devu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-1901
Reported in: (1902)ILR25Mad42
1. The instrument of simple mortgage, dated 22nd October 1892, on which the suit is brought by the plaintiff, the mortgagee, for the recovery of the mortgage debt by sale of the mortgaged property, purports to be a zamindari mortgage, the property mortgaged being the zamindari of the mortgagor, described in schedule No. 2 annexed to the mortgage instrument. The operative part of the instrument of mortgage runs as follows:In respect of the principal, interest, &c;, of this document are (mortgaged) the following: The entire zamindari of Palur, which is situate in Chatbrapur Sub-Registry of Ganjam district, which has passed to our possession from our ancestors, which is in our possession and enjoyment, which yields an annual income of about Rs. 9,975, which is described in detail in schedule No. 2 herein, on which is payable annually a peishkusb of Rs. 22 and a land cess of Rs. 463, and which bears zamindari patta No. 364, together with the hills, jungles, cultivated and uncultivated land...
Tag this Judgment!Sivaswami Chetty and ors. Vs. Sevugan Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-1901
Reported in: (1902)12MLJ17
1. Plaintiff sues on a hypothecation bond, Exhibit J, dated 31st October 1897, purporting to be made between the plaintiff on the one part and the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants as well as one Pothu Chetty, now deceased, on the other part, and to be executed by the 1st defendant for himself and for the 2nd defendant, his minor son. The 3rd defendant and the deceased Pothu Chetty are as described in Exhibit J, the younger brothers of the 1st defendant. Exhibit J recites that the 1st and 3rd defendants and Pothu Chetty execute the document on their behalf respectively and the 1st defendant also on behalf of the 2nd defendant a minor.2. The 1st defendant on behalf of himself and the 2nd defendant denied the execution by him of the hypothecation bond, and also contended that no suit could be brought upon the bond apparently on the ground that it was not completed. The 3rd defendant also denied the genuineness of Exhibit J, and contended that the loans recited in Exhibit J were not contracted ...
Tag this Judgment!Pydal Nambiar and anr. Vs. Kannan Nambiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-1901
Reported in: (1902)12MLJ87
ORDER1. We are of opinion that these are not suits for declaratory decrees and that consequential relief is prayed for.2. The institution fee is, therefore, to be calculated under Section 7, Clause IV-c, according to the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plnint.3. The stamp duty paid is only Rs. 10 in each case, and is insufficient. The proper stamp duty on the appeal must be paid within three weeks from to-day.4. After payment the appeals will be posted for disposal.5. The valuation in each case has been stated in the plaint. The ad ralorem duty was paid and the appeal was again posted for hearing on the merits before the same Bench, on 8th November 1901, when judgment was given dismissing the appeal on the merits....
Tag this Judgment!Venkataramana Bhatta Vs. Badarayan Bhatta and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-1901
Reported in: (1901)11MLJ433
1. The District Judge was not authorized to transfer to the Subordinate Judge the appeal which had been part-heard by the District Judge. Kumarasami Reddiar v. Subbaraya Reddiar I.L.R. 23 M. 314.2. We must therefore reverse the decree of the Subordinate Judge and remand the appeal to the District Judge for hearing and disposal according to law. Costs will follow the result....
Tag this Judgment!Sivasami Chetti and anr. Vs. Sevugan Chetti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-1901
Reported in: (1902)ILR25Mad389
Bhashyam Ayyangar, J.1. (After stating the facts already set out): I concur with the Subordinate Judge in holding that exhibit J was signed by the first defendant and that the consideration for the mortgage bond, i.e., Rs. 5,470 was real and such as would bind the family. Negotiations were going on for sometime between the defendants and the plaintiff, in view to the plaintiff advancing a further loan and obtaining a mortgage bond for Rs. 10,000 from the defendants, hypothecating all their property. Owing, apparently, to disagreement as to rate of interest, the negotiations fell through, but, the plaintiff being anxious to obtain security for the various sums advanced by him on promissory notes, mainly to the first defendant, and partly to the third defendant, and the first defendant too, being desirous that the debts thus contracted by him should be undertaken by his brothers also, it was arranged between the plaintiff and the first defendant the at the exhibit J should be executed by...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »