Chennai Court October 1902 Judgments
Arunachela Reddi and anr. Vs. Chidambara Reddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1902
Reported in: (1903)13MLJ223
1. The Lower Appellate Court decided against the validity of the alienations to defendants 3 and 4 on the ground,(1) that they were made by the 1st defendant who was the de facto guardian of the minor, her adopted son, at a time when there was a testamentary guardian who had been appointed under the will of the widow's husband.(2) that the alienees had failed to show that the alienations were necessary in the interest of the minor.2. As regards the 1st ground it is well settled that an alienation may be validly made by a de facto guardian (assuming, of course, the necessity). In the present case, the 1st defendant, as the minor's mother, was his natural guardian. The evidence shows that the testamentary guardian, the plaintiff's father, (2nd defendant), acquiesced in the alienations made by the 1st defendant, and that he assisted her in the management of the estate. In our judgment the fact that at the time the alienations were made by the 1st defendant, the 2nd defendant had been appo...
Tag this Judgment!Mathureswara Bhattar and anr. Vs. Karpura Kutti Bhattar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1902
Reported in: (1903)13MLJ222
1. As the District Judge has pointed out the defendants were under a legal obligation to joint the plaintiffs in the puttahs tendered to the tenants. Section 3 of the Rent Recovery Act requires the Inamdar to grant a puttah to the tenant and under the rulings of this Court when there are joint Inamdars all of them must join in granting the puttah. Under Section 7 of the same Act rent cannot be recovered unless such puttah has been granted. Owing to the defendants' refusal to join the plaintiff the rents for the faslis named in the plaint have become irrecoverable and the plaintiffs' share has been lost to them. In circumstances such, as the present, we think that there was not only a legal obligation on the defendants with reference to the tenant, but also between them and the plaintiffs inter se. To hold otherwise would be lo allow a co--owner with impunity so to conduct himself in regard to the common property as would result, in its being damaged or destroyed. If there is one obliga...
Tag this Judgment!Lakshmi Ammal Vs. Subramania Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1902
Reported in: (1904)14MLJ103
1. It appears that an application for a sale of property other than that mortgaged was made in 1898 and execution granted after notice to the appellant. In the face of that order the present objection cannot be taken.2. The appeal is dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Mohamedsha Khan Sahib and ors. Vs. Srinivasulu Alias Srinivasa Rao and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-23-1902
Reported in: (1903)13MLJ221
1. The sale never having been confirmed, but having been set aside under Section 310-A, C.P.C. was not a completed sale, and that sale therefore cannot have the effect of removing the attachment which had previously been made at the instance of another decree--holder, the present respondent, who would have been entitled to rate able distribution under Section 295 of the C.P.C. only if the sale had not been set aside. The appellant also contends that the attachment was abandoned by the respondent, because he again caused an attachment to be made after the sale was set aside under Section 310--A. This was only a precautionary step and cannot amount to an abandonment of the prior attachment, and we may add that the petitioner expressly atated in the petition that the former attachment was in law subsisting, but that if the court thought it necessary a re-attachment might issue. The decree of the Subordinate Judge is therefore right, and this second appeal is dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Shouri Anna Vs. Anthoni Muthu and 6 ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-22-1902
Reported in: (1903)13MLJ375
1. We are unable to agree with the appellant's Vakil's contention that the 2nd defendant is not entitled to rely on the possession of the Sub-mortgagee whose title has passed to the 2nd defendant. As the title passed under an express assignment, no question as to whether there was an intention to keep alive the sub-mortgage can arise.2. The Subordinate Judge was, however, wrong in giving possession to the plaintiff under Section 264 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the lands comprised in the Sub-mortgage (Exhibit No. 20).3. He should have given a redemption decree as to them also. In substitution of the decrees of the Courts below, it is hereby ordered and decreed that upon payment by the plaintiff to the 2nd defendant within six months from this date of the mortgage amount Rs. 285-11-6 secured by Exhibit 20 and of the value of improvements Rs. 35-1-3 less the plaintiffs' costs of the suit decreed to him by the Court of first instance and amounting to Rs. 100-6-0 with interest on such...
Tag this Judgment!V.R.R. Ramanatha Chettiar Vs. Kamvatha Anthoni Udayan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-22-1902
Reported in: (1906)16MLJ432
1. The prayer for a declaration that the lands are nanjah lands is only one precedent to the prayer for recovery of the rent due according to the terms of the agreement, and this view is supported by the fact that the stamp duty is only that for the rent sued and not for a declaration.2. The suit is therefore one of a small cause nature and is for less than Rs. 500. No second appeal therefore lies. It is dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Kalliyanasundaram Pillai, Minor, by His Natural Father and Guardian Ch ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-1902
Reported in: (1904)14MLJ139
1. This a suit on an hypothecation bond (Exhibit A) executed on the 4th November 1886, by Athakutti, the senior widow of the last male owner of the property in favour of Appavu Moopanar; a deceased undivided member of the plaintiff's family. The bond was repayable on the 4th November 1887 with interest at 12 per cent to that date and thereafter at 15 per cent. The 1st defendant Sellathachi, is the surviving junior widow of the deceased owner and defendants 2 and 3 are the reversionary heirs in whose favour the 1st defendant executed an instrument of renunciation (Exhibit 7) in 1898 and who are joined in the suit as being in possession of the property jointly with the 1st defendant. The defendants 2 and 3 pleaded that the mortgage was without any lawful consideration, in that the money was not in fact lent. The Subordinate Judge, however, gave the plaintiffs a decree for the full amount sued for and the 3rd defendant now appeals against the whole decree. A preliminary objection is taken...
Tag this Judgment!Kalabariga Sivamma Vs. Ravikanty Venkatramana Moorthy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-1902
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.169
1. The plaintiff asks for a declaration that he, as heir of his father, is entitled to the trusteeship of a certain temple. It is alleged that the father has resigned his trusteeship and that the plaintiff is, therefore, entitled to succeed through the father is still alive.2. The defendant in the suit is the daughter of Reddi Puntulu, who was appointed trustee by the founder of the trust, who vested the trusteeship in him as an estate of inheritance. This Reddi Puntulu left him surviving a widow, who is still alive and also other daughters besides the defendant who are also still alive. He, however, appointed his daughter's son, the plaintiff's father, by Will to be his successor.3. The plaintiff's right will depend upon the effect of the alleged resignation by his father, whether in the life-time of his father the plaintiff can succeed, and whether the father himself acquired a title by prescription which would descend upon his heirs.4. The widow and the other daughters of Reddi Punt...
Tag this Judgment!Ponnammal Vs. Ratnam Asari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-1902
Reported in: (1903)13MLJ144
1. We cannot agree with the Subordinate Judge that the suit is governed by Article 142 of the Indian Limitation Act as the plaintiff cannot make out a title otherwise than as an adopted son. The appellant took possession of the plaint property in 1891 by virtue of a deed of gift in her favour executed by her mother professedly in obedience to a testamentary direction given by her late husband. The plaintiff had already been adopted by her in 1886, and she did not execute the deed of gift as his guardian. It is found that no such testamentary direction was given by the adoptive father and, that being so, the plaintiff was entitled to possession of the property as his adopted son and the possession taken by the defendant under the deed of gift was a direct interference with the right of the plaintiff as the adopted son, The suit was brought more than six years after the defendant took possession of the property and is, therefore, barred by Article 119, schedule 2 Indian Limitation Act, i...
Tag this Judgment!Akilandammal Vs. Ratnam Asari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-1902
Reported in: (1903)13MLJ145
1. The Subordinate Judge held that Article 119 of the Indian Limitation Act does not apply to this case because there was no interference with the plaintiff's right as adopted son in the property claimed in this suit more than six years before the suit was brought.2. In is admitted and found by the Subordinate Judge that this very defendant did interfere with the plaintiff's rights as adopted son in 1889 in regard to-certain property which was the subject matter of Original Suit No. 7 of 1897. This interference was more than six years before the present suit, and there is nothing in column 3 of Article 119 of schedule 2 of the Indian Limitation Act to justify the view of the Subordinate Judge that the interference which is the starting point for limitation should relate directly to the property sought to be recovered in the suit.3. The present suit is brought to recover certain sums which were recovered, or which ought to have been recovered by the defendant in virtue of a certificate ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »