Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1904)1MLJ310
ORDER1. The plaintiff, a minor, through his next friend his natural father brought the present suit for the recovery of certain properties stated to have vested in him by virtue of his having been adopted to one Rengaswami Aiyer deceased, by his widow, the 1st defendant. The Subordinate Judge gave a decree to the plaintiff practically as prayed for. In the present appeal by the 1st defendant no question is raised as to the plaintiff's adoption. The dispute here relates only to the properties specified in schedule II to Exhibit I, dated 30th December 1893, executed by the 1st defendant on the day of the adoption in proof of it and setting forth the terms and arrangements as to the enjoyment of the property, of the adoptive father as between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant and whereby the property described in the said II schedule to the instrument was in the event of disagreement between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant, to be enjoyed by the 1st defendant for her life and subsequ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 4Ind.Cas.1056
ORDER1. The Village Magistrate was not acting as a Judge when the alleged extortion was committed. See Kandasami Chetty v. Soli Gounden 23 M. 540.2. No sanction was, therefore, necessary. The orders of the Courts below requiring sanction are the cause of the delay that has occurred since the offence was committed, and we, therefore, cannot refuse to interfere on the ground that the Judge's order was passed so long ago as February 1903. We set aside the order of the Sub-Magistrate dismissing the complaint for want of sanction, and we direct him to restore the case (C.C. No. 415 of 1902) to his file and to dispose of it according to law....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1904)14MLJ223
S. Subrahmania Aiyar, Offg. C.J.1. The petitioner in this case is the Zemindar of Ettiapuram. He left Ettiapuram, where he resides permanently and which is within the jurisdiction of the District Munsif of Satur, in the beginning of December 1902 to attend the Durbar in Delhi and returned to his station towards the end of January 1903. Before he left Ettiapuram the petitioner gave a general power of attorney to one Ettiahpandian authorising him, among other things, to institute suits on his behalf during his absence. On the 9th January 1903 Ettiapandian acting under the power of attorney, presented a plaint for rent due to the petitioner. Under Rule 23 of the Civil Rules of Practice the power of attorney should have been filed in court. But that was not done and the court returned the plaint with the order endorsed thereon, ' Rule 23 should be complied with--returned, time one month.' On the 13th February 1903 the plaint was re-presented accompanied by the power of attorney. The Distri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1905)15MLJ26
1. We are unable to agree with the District Judge that the plaintiff had been already punished for his misconduct by Government having resumed possession of the inam land and substituted a money payment. That was in no sense a punishment of the plaintiff. It was a precautionary measure to render malversation by him more difficult. Government was in fact not competent to remove him from office or punish him for misconduct. Upon the merits we entirely agree with the District Judge that the plaintiff was guilty of gross misconduct; and we hold that the committee were justified in removing him from office2. We must, therefore, allow Appeal No. 63 of 1901 and dismiss Appeal No. 150 of 1901. In modification of the District Judge's decree we dismiss the plaintiffs' suit with costs throughout-two sets-one for the 2nd and 6th defendants, and one for the 7th and 8th defendants, the latter in proportion to the claims made against them.3. The institution fee in Appeal No. 150 of 1901 and in the lo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1905)15MLJ399
1. The suit is for a declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to collect the debts set out in the plaint--debts payable to one Subbiah Chetty, deceased. The defendant is the widow of Subbiah Chetty deceased and after his death she obtained a succession certificate under Act VII of 1889 entitling her to collect the plaint debts of her deceased husband on giving security which she has done.2. The plaintiff is the paternal uncle of the deceased Subbiah Chetty. He now sues for the above declaration claiming that at the time of his death he and the deceased were members of an undivided family and therefore that he is entitled to the declaration asked for.3. The suit was dismissed by the Munsiff on the ground that the suit was not maintainable as brought for a declaration with the object of practically cancelling a certificate granted under the statute and also on the ground that even if it were maintainable in the circumstances of the case in his discretion he ought to refuse to make the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1906)ILR29Mad336
Arnold White, C.J.1. In this case I have come to the conclusion, though not without some doubt, that our answer to the question which has been referred to us should be in the affirmative.2. There is much to be said in support of the view that notwithstanding the express words of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, it is inequitable to apply the section as against a party who is in possession and who, if he had sued for specific performance of the contract to sell, would have been entitled to a decree.3. On the other hand in dealing with the question which arises in this case, I think it is legitimate to take into account the considerations of public policy on which the requirements laid down in Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act are based. In enacting Section 54, it was, I take it, the intention of the Legislature, by means of compulsory registration to minimize as far as possible the chances of litigation and to reduce the opportunities for perjury in connection with s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1904)14MLJ209
Benson, J.1. The plaintiff, who is a minor, sued, as reversioner, for a declaration that an alienation of the plaint property by the 1st defendant, who is a Hindu widow, is invalid as against him after the death of the widow. The District Munsif gave (the declaration asked for, but the District Judge dismissed the suit on the ground that it was barred by limitation as the plaintiffs' father did not bring any suit (though it was open to him to do so) and any such suit by the father would now be barred by time and a suit by the son must a fortiori be also barred.2. The District Judge refers to Ayyadorai Pillai v. Solai Ammal I.L.R. 24 M. 405 as an authority for his view. But that case refers to an adoption which introduces an heir into a family and effects a change of status and is thus very different from a, mere transfer of property and attention was specially drawn to this distinction by the learned Judges who decided Ayyadorai Pillai v. Solai Animal I.L.R. 24 M. 405. The District Jud...
Tag this Judgment!