Chennai Court October 1903 Judgments
Venkayya and anr. Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council, Rep ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1903
Reported in: (1904)14MLJ173
1. The suit in its alternative character is really a suit for damages for the wrongful refusal by the Collector appointed to acquire the land for public purposes to make an award settling the amount of compensation payable to the appellants in respect of the land which, by virtue of a direction made by the Local Government under Section 17 of Act I of 1894, was taken possession of by the Collector before any award had been made and thus became vested absolutely in the Government. The reason for the Collector's refusal was that it had been subsequently discovered that the land belonged to Government and not to the appellants and therefore the latter were not entitled to compensation. It is now found by both the Lower Courts that the land was the appellants' property and not the property of Government. But as the land vested absolutely in Government under Section 17, though in fact it was as now found the property of the appellants, they are not entitled to recover the land but can only ...
Tag this Judgment!Appavu Udayan Alias Savarimuthu Udayan Vs. Susai Udayan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-23-1903
Reported in: (1905)15MLJ235
1. The senior member of a native Christian family governed by the Indian Succession Act can not have the status of the managing member of a Joint Hindu family even if all the members of the family live together and the senior member manages the affairs of the family. It is not alleged nor proved that the first defendant was constituted by the other defendants as their agent to borrow for the purpose of conducting the litigation in which they wore engaged. The fact that he was conducting the litigation on behalf of all and advancing the costs out of borrowed funds is not enough to imply an agency such as would entitle him to borrow on their credit. The Second Appeal therefore fails and is dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Bharata Pisharodi Vs. Vasudevan Nambudri and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-1903
Reported in: (1904)14MLJ65
1. It is brought to our notice, that the words ' taking his acknowledgment below ' do not exist in the document which gave rise to the reference and we deal with the question on the looting that these words are not in the document. There is no unconditional undertaking on the face of the document to pay the money. It is clear on the face of the document that the undertaking is conditional on the amount being remitted as requested. The document is, no doubt, similar to that in the case reported in Channamma v. Ayyanna I.L.R. 16 Mad. 283 but we are unable to follow that decision. We think that the case reported in the foot-note to 23 M. 156 is correctly decided.2. Following that decision and the decision of the Division Bench of three Judges in the case reported in Dhond v. Atmaram I.L.R. 13 B. 669 we are of opinion that the document under reference is not a pro-note within the meaning of that term as used in Section 34, Act I of 1879....
Tag this Judgment!Samaram Singarachariar Vs. Krishna Swami Iyengar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-1903
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.874
1. Though the decision of the majority of the trustees of a public trust binds the minority in matters connected with the management of the trust property, it does not bind them in regard to matters which are ultra vires and beyond the proper sphere of the trust, as the acts complained of in this suit are alleged to be (Lewin on Trusts 10th Edition, p. 279, and the cases there quoted).2. We concur in the judgment of Subrahmanya Aiyar J., vide also the judgment of this Court in S.A. No. 690 of 1901.3. We reverse the decree of Davies, J., and of the lower appellate Court on the preliminary point that the suit is not, maintainable by reason of want of sanction under Act XX of 1863, and we remand the suit to the lower appellate Court for disposal according to law.4. Costs in this Court will be costs in the cause....
Tag this Judgment!Ponnusami Mudali Vs. Mandi Sundara Mudali
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-1903
Reported in: (1904)14MLJ356
1. We think that the matter is practically concluded by the dictum of the Privy Council in the recent case of Ghulam Jilani v. Muhammed Hassan L.R. 29 IndAp 51, that an order made on an application to file an award under Section 525 of the Civil Procedure Code ' would seem to be a decree within the meaning of that expression as denned in the Civil Procedure Code.' This is a considered dictum and is, we think, fully in accordance with the scheme and policy of the Code.2. The decision of the Privy Council in Muhammad Nawaz Khan v. Alam Khan I.L.R. 18 C. 414 is not at variance with the above view. We think that the contrary view taken in Mana Vihrama v. Krishnan Nambudri I.L.R. 3 M. 68 is erroneous.3. Our answer to the reference made to us is (1) that the order of the District Munsif refusing to file the award and setting it aside is a decree and (2) that an appeal lay against that decree....
Tag this Judgment!Bashyakarlu Naidu Vs. Gundapaneni Subbanna
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-1903
Reported in: (1903)13MLJ469
1. If the pattah which had been originally tendered before the Summary Suit under Section 9 of the Rent Recovery Act was one that the tenant was bound to accept, the landlord might by virtue of Section 7 sue for the recovery of rent on the strength of such tender alone, without any fresh tender of a pattah, or the execution of a muchilika after judgment.2. But if the pattah originally tendered was not such as the tenant was bound to accept, and if it had been modified by the judgment in the summary suit, and if before the expiry of the fusli to which the pattah relates, the landlord tendered the pattah as amended, he could also maintain a suit for rent under Section 7, relying on such tender. If, however, no such tender was made (and even in cases where it could not have been made by reason of the expiry of the fusli before the judgment was passed), the landlord could sue for rent only if the tenant had executed a muchilika, which he was directed to execute by the judgment, or if he ha...
Tag this Judgment!Ramanuja Reddiar, Minor, by His Guardian Krishnammal Vs. Rangaswami Ai ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-1903
Reported in: (1908)18MLJ51
S. Subrahmanya Aiyar, Officiating C.J.1. The facts of the case, so far as they are necessary for the present purpose, are as follows : - The plaintiffs, sons of one Singam Aiyangar, brought this suit against the first defendant and his son, the second defendant, a minor, for the recovery of Rs. 5,800 and odd stated to be due under a mortgage executed to Singam Aiyangar, by the first defendant. The second defendant set up that he had been adopted by the first defendant's uncle who was alleged to be entitled to a moiety of the property mortgaged, and contended that the mortgage was not binding on him to the extent of his interest in the laud. After the settlement of issues, the case was adjourned to the 25th May 1901 for trial, on which date, however, the trial did not come off as there were negotiations for a compromise, and the case was adjourned to the 15th June. The first defendant then presented a petition praying that an issue be framed as to a compromise which, he said, had been e...
Tag this Judgment!Narayana Raja Vs. Ramachandra Raja and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-1903
Reported in: (1903)13MLJ139
Moore, J.1. No evidence has been placed on record in this case, but it is admitted that the first defendant had lands in two separate villages, Alagapuri and Sammandhapuram, for which he held separate pattas. It is further admitted that no arrears of revenue were due on the lands in Alagapuri at the date of either the court sale or the sale on account of arrears of revenue of those lands. The acting Government Pleader further states that although the information at his disposal not such as to enable him to make any positive statement as to the facts he is prepared to admit for the purpose of argument that at the date of the court sale no arrears on account of land revenue were due by the first defendant in any village.2. The lands entered in the patta held by the 1st defendant in Alagapuri village were on the 25th June 1897 sold in execution of the decree in O.S. No. 140 of 1896 on the file of the District Munsif of Srivilliputtur and purchased by the plaintiff. Subsequently in Novembe...
Tag this Judgment!Subbarow and ors. Vs. Venkata Narasimhan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-06-1903
Reported in: (1904)14MLJ218
Subrahmaniya Aiyar, Offg. C.J.1. A usufructuary mortgage, dated the 16th May 1898, was executed in favour of one Subbarayudu who took possession of the mortgaged lands and subsequently died. The plaintiff, who is Subbarayudu's adopted son, sues in the present suit for the recovery of the lands in dispute which were part of the property comprised in the mortgages alleging that during his minority the first defendant took wrongful possession of the property. The principal defence was that the mortgagor having died, the equity of redemption became vested in the first defendant and another, the daughter's sons and heirs of the mortgagor and that the first defendant, who is entitled to a moiety of his grand-father'a estate, entered into an oral agreement with the adoptive mother and guardian of the plaintiff for a redemption of his share only and in pursuance of such agreement paid her Us. 600, being a moiety of the mortgage amount and redeemed the lands in question, as falling to his share...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›