Chennai Court December 1905 Judgments
Ramakrishna Ayyar and anr. Vs. Subrahmania Ayyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-1905
Reported in: (1906)ILR29Mad305
1. On the authority of the judgment of the Privy Council in Webb v. Macpherson I.L.R.31 Cale 57 which is since the decision of the lower Appellate Court in this case, we must hold that the District Judge was wrong in his view that the case was governed by Article 111 of the schedule to the Limitation Act. It is pointed out in the judgment of the Privy Council that the charge which a vendor obtains under Section 55 of the Transfer of Property Act is different in its origin and nature from the vendor's lien given by English Courts of Equity to an unpaid vendor. The charge in the present case is not the vendor's lien contemplated by Article 111, but the statutory charge which arises by virtue of the provisions of Section 55 of the Transfer of Property Act. The article applicable is Article 132 and not Article 111 and the suit is not barred by limitation. It was argued by the respondents that if this be the right view, no case could arise to which Article 111 would be applicable. This may ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Court Fees Act
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1905
Reported in: (1906)16MLJ287
ORDERCharles Arnold White, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiffs sued for redemption. They valued their suit at Rs. 231-11-7 the amount they stated to be still due on the bond, but court fees amounting to Rs. 580 were levied from them with reference to Section 7, Clause IX, of the Court Fees Act, which makes fees leviable in suits against a mortgagee for the recovery of the property mortgaged upon the principal money expressed to be secured by the mortgage, in this case Rs. 13,500.2. The plaintiffs got a decree for redemption upon payment of Rs. 231-11-7.3. The defendant appealed and the original decree was modified by directing that the plaintiffs should pay Rs. 1,162-6-5, in addition to the amount fixed by the lower Court, Court fees were only paid on Rs. 1,162-6-5.4. The plaintiffs and the defendant now prefer separate second appeals, the plaintiffs (mortgagors) valuing their second appeal at Rs. 1,162-6-5, while the defendant (mortgagee) values his second appeal at Rs. 10,000.5. The mortgagee...
Tag this Judgment!Venkatachallam Chetty Vs. Veerappa Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1905
Reported in: (1906)ILR29Mad314
1. The District Judge's order cannot be supported. When a perpetual injunction has been granted, on each successive breach the decree may be enforced under Section 260, Civil Procedure Code, by the imprisonment of the person against whom the decree has been made, and by the attachment of his property and we think that an application to enforce it must be made under Article 178 of Schedule II of the Limitation Act within three years of the date of the particular breach of it which is the occasion for e application. But it cannot be that the decree-holder is obliged to take action in regard to every petty infringement of the injunction on pain of allowing the injunction to become altogether inoperative after three years from the date of the first petty breach. It might not be at all worth the while of the decree-holder to enforce his rights by legal proceedings on each petty breach, as for instance in this case, if a few leaves had been removed from the forest, but there is no reason why...
Tag this Judgment!Chakka Subbiah Vs. Maddali Lakshminarayana and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1905
Reported in: (1906)ILR29Mad298
1. The plaintiff (the mortgagor) sued for the cancellation of a mortgage deed on the ground of fraud.2. The Court of First Instance held that there was no fraud and dismissed the suit. The lower Appellate Court also hold that there was no fraud but in effect made a declaration in the plaintiff's favour that the mortgage-deed was not a security for Rs. 300 but only for Rs. 130. As the lower Appellate Court found no fraud it ought to have affirmed the decree of the Court of First Instance dismissing the suit.3. The lower Appellate Court appears to have thought it open to treat the suit as one for a declaration; but as at the date of the suit, according to the view taken by the lower Appellate Court, the plaintiff was entitled to consequential relief and failed to claim this' relief, the declaration cannot be upheld. We set aside the decree of the lower Appellate Court and restore that of the District Munsif. We make no order as to costs....
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Reference Under Court Fees Act, 1870
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1905
Reported in: (1906)ILR29Mad367
ORDERArnold White, C.J.1. The plaintiffs sued for redemption. They valued their suit at Rs. 231-11-7, the amount they Stated to be still due on the bond, but Court-fees amounting to Rs. 510 were levied from them with reference to Section 7, Clause IX, of the Court Fees Act, which makes fees leviable in suits against a mortgagee for the recovery of the property mortgaged, upon the principal money expressed to be secured by the mortgage in this case Rs. 13,500.2. The plaintiffs got a decree for redemption upon payment of Rs. 831-11-7.3. The defendants appealed and the original decree was modified by directing that the plaintiffs should pay Rs. 1,162-6-5 in addition to the amount fixed by the lower Court, Court-fees were only paid on Rs. 1,162-6-5.4. The plaintiffs and the defendant now prefer separate second appeals. The plaintiffs (mortgagors) valuing their second appeal at Rs. 1,162-6-5, while the defendant (mortgagee) values his second appeal at Rs. 10,000.5. The mortgagee says he is ...
Tag this Judgment!The Municipal Council Vs. S. Subrahmanya Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1905
Reported in: (1906)16MLJ101
Subrahmanya Aiyar, J.1. The question in this case is whether Mr. Subrahmanya Aiyar, the Deputy Collector in charge of the Chidambaram Division, South Arcot District, was liable to be assessed for professional tax for the half year ending the 30th September 1903 by the Municipality of Cuddalore, which is his Head-quarters station. Tnat during such time as Mr. Subrahmanya Aiyar stayed in Cuddalore during the half year, he was holding the office of Deputy Collector is indisputable. The only question is whether he so held office for the prescribed length of time. If he held the office within the limits of the said Municipality for 60 (sixty) days reckoned consecutively or from time to time within the half year, he was under Section 55 of the District Municipalities Act liable to pay the tax. Now the term 'day' is no doubt in one sense understood to cover the time from sunrise to sunset. The more general meaning of the word is, however, from sunrise to sunrise (a natural day) and the word, ...
Tag this Judgment!The Municipal Council of Cuddalore Vs. Subrahmania Ayyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1905
Reported in: (1906)ILR29Mad326
Subrahmania Ayyar, J.1. The question in this case is whether Mr. Subrahmania Ayyar, the Deputy Collector in charge of the Chidambaram Division, South Arcot district, was liable to be assessed for professional tax for the half year ending the 30th September 1903 by the Municipality of Cuddalore which is his head quarter station. That during such time as Mr. Subrahmania Ayyar stayed in Cuddalore during the half year, he was holding the office of Deputy Collector, is indisputable. The only question is whether he so held office for the prescribed length of time. If he 'held the office within limits of the said municipality for 60 (sixty) days reckoned consecutively or from time to time' within the half year he was under Section 55 of the District Municipalities Act liable to pay the tax. Now the term 'day' is no doubt in on a sense understood to over the time from sunrise to sunset. The more general meaning of the word is, however, from sunrise to sunrise (a natural day) or from midnight t...
Tag this Judgment!Uthandi Mudali Vs. Raghavachari and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1905
Reported in: (1906)16MLJ106
1. We think this decree cannot be supported. The defendants Nos. 2 to 4 sold certain property to the 1st defendant under Exhibit IX in November 1895.2. In January 1896, the first defendant executed to the second defendant alone Exhibit B which is called a yethiridai deed, whereby after reciting that the second defendant and his younger brothers had on the 27th November 1895 conveyed to him the lands in question for Rs. 350, he agreed to resell them to the second defendant if on the 29th January 1901 - 'without obtaining from others and by your own earnings' - he paid the sum of Rs. 350.3. The second defendant on the 29th June 1898 conveyed under Exhibit A his rights to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff now sues to recover the land by paying off the amount payable and Exhibit B to the first defendant.4. The District Munsif dismissed the suit; but on appeal the District Judge held that Exhibit IX and B together constituted a mortgage and that the plaintiff was entitled to redeem.5. We are...
Tag this Judgment!Uthandi Mudali Vs. Ragavachari and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1905
Reported in: (1906)ILR29Mad307
1. We think this decree cannot be supported. The defendants Nos. 2 to 4 sold certain property to the first defendant under exhibit IX in November 1895.2. In January 1896 the first defendant executed to the second defendant alone exhibit B, which is called a yethiridai deed whereby after reciting that the second defendant and his younger brothers had, on the 27th November 1895, conveyed to him the lands in question for Rs. 350, he agreed to resell them to the second defendant if on the 29th January 1901 - without obtaining from others and by your own earnings' - he paid the sum of Rs. 350.3. The second defendant on the 29th June 1898 conveyed under exhibit A his rights to the plaintiff and the plaintiff now sues to recover the land by paying off the amount payable under exhibit B to the first defendant.4. The District Munsif, dismissed the suit : but on appeal the District Judge held that exhibits IX and B together constituted a mortgage and that the plaintiff was entitled to redeem.5. ...
Tag this Judgment!Chowaharen Keloth Makhi Keyi and Vs. Pudia Maligayammal Chowakaren Kel ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1905
Reported in: (1906)16MLJ275
1. We are of opinion that this suit as brought was not maintainable. The plaintiff lives in a Tavazhi house and sues for separate maintenance. There are no grounds for awarding him separate maintenance. He is said to be sickly and unable to do any work. He lives, and all along, he has lived in the Tavazhi house along with his mother and her other children. If the amount set apart for the maintenance of the member of this Tavazhi is not sufficient for his support, considering the income of the Tarwad, a suit can be brought by the members for an increased allotment of lands on the property or for a money allowance. On the ground that the plaintiff is not entitled on the admitted facts of the case to an award of separate maintenance, we allow this second appeal and set aside the decrees of the lower Courts and dismiss the plaintiff's suit with costs throughout....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »