Chennai Court March 1905 Judgments
Muthukkannu (Dead) and ors. Vs. Shanmugavelu Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-1905
Reported in: (1905)15MLJ286
1. The plaintiff sued to set aside an assignment made by him to the defendant on the 24th June 1898 of his right under a simple mortgage deed executed to him on the 24th February 1898 by one Veerappa Padayachi for the sum of Rs. 1,500 5 due to the plaintiff by Veerappa. The District Munsif and the District Judge decreed the claim, the ground for the decree being that the consideration for the assignment recited in the instrument of transfer and relied on by the defendant in her defence, viz. payment of Es. 250 to the plaintiff by the defendant, discharge by the latter of debts due by the former to the extent of Rs. 265 and the delivery of jewels of the value of Rs. 940 never passed from the defendant to the plaintiff.2. On behalf of the defendant, it was for the first time contended in this Court that according to the plaintiff's own case the transaction was entered into for an immoral purpose and the plaintiff as a person in pari delicto was not entitled to ask for the relief prayed f...
Tag this Judgment!Cherathi Amma Vs. Raman Nair
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-1905
Reported in: (1905)15MLJ243
1. In this case an application was made on the 30th July 1903 to execute a decree for money passed on the 30th July 1891 by arresting the first plaintiff, one of the judgment debtors. The other plaintiffs, judgment-debtors, are members of the same tarwad, the first plaintiff being the Karnavan.2. A petition on the 22nd December 1903 by the decree-holder to amend the application by inserting a prayer for the attachment of tarwad properties was refused by the Subordinate Judge.3. His successor, however, granted a similar application based on the same grounds in March 1904, without notice to the other judgment-debtors. The properties of the tarwad have accordingly been attached and their sale ordered.4. The eighth plaintiff, one of the judgment-debtors, contends that the amendment ought not to have been allowed, that the application of March 1901 to amend and to attach the tarwad properties must be treated as a fresh application, and as it is made more than 12 years after the date of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Raghava Chariar (Dead) and Two ors. Vs. Seshadri Iyengar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1905
Reported in: (1905)15MLJ374
1. We agree with the decision in Veerana Pillai v. Muthukumara Asari I.L.R. 27 M. 102 where the facts were the same as in this case, namely, that the present suit was not barred under Section 43 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The right claimed in the previous suit was the recovery of the mortgage money by the sale of the property which was quite different from the right claimed in the present suit, the possession of the mortgaged property. We must, therefore reverse, the decrees of the courts below and direct that the suit be restored to the file of the District Munsif and disposed of according to law. The respondents must pay the appellants' costs in this and in the Lower Appellate Court. The costs of the Munsiff's Court will be provided for in the final decree....
Tag this Judgment!Ambalavana Pandara Sannadhy Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Co ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1905
Reported in: (1905)15MLJ251
1. The channel in dispute is an artificial channel and was in existence before the grant of the three inam villages to the plaintiff.2. The first question for decision is whether, on the proper construction of the plaintiff's title deed the grant of 1614 [Exhibit J (1)] the channel in regard to which the declaration and injunction are sought, is included in the grant and is therefore the absolute property of the plaintiff as contended by him.3. The channel is one that conveys waters from the bed of the Tambrapurani river to certain Government villages on its banks, and then to the three inam villages of the plaintiff, and then to other Government and other inam lands lower down on the channel. In the grant of 1614 the boundaries of the village are specified, and then the grant says that within these boundaries the wet lands, dry lands, Swarnadayam, village site, temple, palmyra and other trees, groves, wells, immemorial waste, tanks,mine, treasure, waters, trees, stones, whatever is ob...
Tag this Judgment!Pullanapally Sankaran Nambudri Vs. Musalyam Vittil Thala Kat Mahamed ( ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1905
Reported in: (1905)15MLJ416
1. The decree of the Subordinate Judge as it stands--giving possession to plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 4 on the one hand or the 5th plaintiff on the other hand is in any view erroneous. On the case set forth in the plaint it is only the plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 4 who could claim possession, the 5th plaintiff having upon his own admission parted with his rights to possession to plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 4. In this view the period of limitation for the suit prima facie is 12 years and not 60 years. The Municipal Commissioners v. Sarangapani Mudaliar I.L.R. 19 M. at 156 and Maharajah Jagadindra Nath Bahadur v. Rani Hemanta Kumari Debi 31 I.A. at P. 207 It is, however, unnecessary to decide the point of limitation here, as in our opinion the suit fails on other grounds.2. Both courts find that the defendant has been in possession of the disputed land at least since 1868, that is for thirty years before suit. Admittedly the 1st defendant has been paying to Government certain revenue for the land since 1885 ...
Tag this Judgment!Yethirajulu Naidu Vs. Mukunthu Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1905
Reported in: (1905)15MLJ299
Arnold White, C.J.1. In these appeals four a question arise for determination. The first question is under the will of the testator, what estate do the three sons of the testator take in the property described in the will as No. 101, Acharappen Street.2. The argument on the one side was that this particular property, which may be conveniently referred to as house No. 1, devolved with the rest of the property (which may be referred to at house No. 2 and house No. 3) devised by the will. On the other side it was contended that the three sons took an ' absolute' estate in house No. 1. I feel no doubt that the testator intended that house No. 1 should not devolve in the same way as house No. 2 and house No. 3. No doubt house No. 1 is included with house No. 2 and house No. 3 under the heading ' Particulars of properties', but when the testator deals with the income of the houses pending the final division of his estate, he only provides for the income of house No. 2 and house No. 3. With r...
Tag this Judgment!Swaminatha Aiyar and anr. Vs. Vaithianatha Sastrial
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1905
Reported in: (1905)15MLJ116
Charles Arnold White, Kt. C.J.1. The conclusion at which I have arrived in this case not, I confess, without doubt is that our answer to the question which has been referred to us should be in the negative. So far as Sections 231 and 248 are concerned no difficulty arises. In Section 234, I think, the legislature intended to draw a distinction between the Court which passed the decree, which is the Court referred to in the first paragraph of the section, and the Court executing the decree, which is the Court referred to in the second paragraph of the section., which, if the decree has not been transferred for execution, would be the Court which passed, the decree, and which if the decree had been transferred for execution, would be the Court to which the decree had been transferred. The first paragraph is the governing enactment which, in general terms, requires a decree-holder who desires to execute his decree against the representatives of a deceased judgment-debtor to apply to the C...
Tag this Judgment!Kristnamrazu Vs. Marrazu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1905
Reported in: (1905)15MLJ255
1. In this case we are of opinion that clause (e) of Section 13 of the Indian Easements Act 1882, does not admit of the construction which has been placed upon it by the lower Courts. We think the word ' necessary' must be construed in its ordinary sense. If A has a means of access to his property without going over B's land, A cannot claim a right of way over B's land on the ground that it is the most convenient means of access. The Law of England as to the cases in which a person can claim an easement of necessity so as to give him a right of way over another man's land is now well settled and there is nothing to indicate that the Indian Legislature intended to adopt a different principle. In the Bombay cases of Esu Bai v. Damodar Ishwaradas I.L.R. 16 B. 569 and The Municipality of the City of Poona v. Vaman Rajaram Gholop I.L.R. 19 B. 797 a suggestion was made that the question of convenience might legitimately be considered, but there is no decision by the Courts of this country th...
Tag this Judgment!Vaidhinathasamy Iyer Vs. Somasundram Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1905
Reported in: (1905)15MLJ126
1. The decree in the case under reference contains an order for the sale of the mortgaged property and also an order for the recovery personally from the judgment-debtor and from his other property of what may remain undischarged by the sale proceeds of the mortgaged properly. In Mallikarjuna Saslri v. Narasimha Rao I.L.R. 24 M. 412 it was held by a Division Bench of this Court that Section 258 of the Civil Procedure Code was inapplicable to such a case. In a case, however, where a, similar question was raised in regard to Section 295, C.P.C., Collins, C.J. and Benson, J. had held that a person who had obtained a decree for the sale of mortgaged property and who had not proceeded against such property was entitled to claim rateable distribution under that section as if he was the holder of a decree for money, Kommachi Kather v. Pakker and Ors.. I.L.R. 20 M. p. 107 Following this decision Boddam and Sanharan Nair, J.J. in C.M.A. No. 4 of 1904 14 M.L.J. (Rec. Cas.) 31 held that Section 2...
Tag this Judgment!Gopu Kolandavelu Chetty Vs. T. Sami Royar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1905
Reported in: (1905)15MLJ466
1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was institute.! by the respondent Sami Royar as a trustee entitled to act jointly with the appellant Kolandavelu Chetty in respect of charities and trusts created by the will of Gr. Appakutti Aiyar. The main question for decision is whether under the appointment relied on by Sami Royar, he was validly appointed as a trustee.2. With reference to this question it was urged on his behalf by Sir Bhashyam Aiyangar, that his appointment was really made by the daughters and daughter's sons of Appakutty Aiyar, who were the heirs of the latter at the time. This contention is one suggested for the first time in this Court and is altogether unsupported by the record. Neither in this case, nor in the connected cases tried at the same time and to which Sami Royar is a party was any averment made that the appointment was made by these heirs. The compromise in O.S. No. 1 of 1897 (District Court Tanjore) does not amount to an appointment of Sami Royar by the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »