Chennai Court July 1905 Judgments
Venkatachella Chetty, Minor by His Next Friend Murugappa Chetty Vs. Sr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-1905
Reported in: (1905)15MLJ442
1. The plaintiff's (appellant's) suit is based upon two mortgages executed to his father by the defendant and his three paternal cousins for a sum of Its. 475. Subsequent to the date of the said instruments, there was a suit for partition between the defendant and his cousins whereby it was decreed that the defendant was to take a fourth share of the joint estate, and to pay a fourth share of the debt due by the members of the family inclusive of the plaint mentioned mortgage debt.2. Though the plaintiff was not impleaded in the partition suit, he afterwards agreed with the mortgagors other than the defendant to release them from their liabilities under the mortgage in consideration of their having executed to him mortgages for the amounts payable by them respectively upon portions of the property which fell to their share. The defendant not having entered into any such arrangement with the plaintiff, nor discharged his share of the mortgage debt, the plaintiff sues for the same and fo...
Tag this Judgment!Orr and ors. Vs. Rakkumarathi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-1905
Reported in: (1906)ILR29Mad83
1. Admittedly the relation of landholder and tenant subsisted between the parties to the suit and even in these proceedings it is not the defendant's case that such relation has terminated. They tender a patta which implies the continuance of that relation. It is difficult to understand how they can insert in the patta words implying that any land or lauds comprised therein belong not to the tenant but to another person, viz., Pattadar No. 57. To compel the plaintiff to accept such a patta would be to compel her to accept a document denying her right to the property. No doubt where there has been a transfer of a tenant's interest to a third party and the transfer is admitted by the parties concerned, it is competent to, and may be the duty of, the landholder to treat the transferee as the tenant; but where there is a dispute as to the transfer of the rights it is not competent to the landholder to determine the question for himself and refuse to grant patta to the party who was the ten...
Tag this Judgment!Raja Simhadri Appa Rao Vs. Prattipati Ramayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-1905
Reported in: (1906)ILR29Mad29
S. Subrahmania Ayyar, Offg. C.J.1. The defendants Nos. 1 and 2 were let into possession of 23 acres of land in the plaintiff's zemindari as tenants from year to year. Subsequent to the creation of this tenancy the third defendant set up a claim to the whole land under a previous transaction between the plaintiff and that defendant's father. In a suit which ensued in consequence, there was a compromise decree, according to which, the third defendant was declared entitled to the possession and enjoyment of 9 acres 16 cents and the plaintiff to the remainder, fending the litigation, and before the compromise, notice to quit was given in respect of the whole of the lands by the plaintiff to the defendants Nos. 1 and 2. With reference to these allegations, the plaintiff prays for a decree ejecting defendants Nos. 1 and 2 from his share of the lands, viz., 13 acres 81 cents excluding 9 acres Id cents due to the third defendant, and his transferee the fourth defendant, by actually Separating ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramakrishna Raju and ors. Vs. Katta Venkataswamy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-1905
Reported in: (1905)ILR29Mad87
Boddam, J.1. On the 10th January 1901, the first defendant borrowed Rs. 20 from an undivided brother of the plaintiffs and the husband of the second defendant the first defendant gave him an on demand promissory note for the Rs. 20 and interest at Re. 1-9-0, per annum. The payee of the note died and behind the backs of the plaintiffs the second defendant got the first defendant to execute a fresh renewal note for Rs. 40, the amount of principal and interest on the 17th April 1903 in the name of the third defendant her mother and she returned the original note to the first defendant.2. On the 24th June 1904 the plaintiffs sued all the defendants for the amount of the original loan and interest stating their claim as 'for Rs. 44 being the amount due on a promissory note for Rs. 40 executed by the first defendant.' The first defendant admitted that he had to pay the plaintiffs and that he was ready to do so. the second and third defendants raised several defences e.g., limitation, misjoin...
Tag this Judgment!Muthusami Pillai Vs. Arunachallam Chettiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1905
Reported in: (1905)15MLJ361
1. The respondent is the manager of the Rameswaram Devasthanam. The appellant is the lessee of a village forming part of the endowment of the Devasthanam. The respondent proceeded under Section 39 of the Rent Recovery Act (Act VIII of 1865) in respect of arrears of rent due for fusly 1311 under the terms of the lease.2. The legality of the distraint is impeached on behalf of the appellant and in support of his contention reliance is placed on the concluding portion of the opinion of the Pull Bench in Nallayappa Fillian v. Ambalavana Pandara Sannadhi I.L.R. 27 M. 470. No doubt the cases referred to therein have been overruled by the opinion so far as they proceed on the supposition that the word tenant as defined in Section 1 of the Act is applicable to an intermediate land-holder who has to pay rent to a superior land-holder. We do not, however, understand this passage to lay down that an intermediate land-holder bound to pay rent to a superior land-holder is not a tenant within any of...
Tag this Judgment!Elumalai Chettiar Vs. Natesa Mudaliar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-25-1905
Reported in: (1906)ILR29Mad81
1. The facts upon which the decision of this case depends are practically undisputed. The place of land for which rent is claimed and a patta is tendered was unassessed poramboke land forming part of the gramanattam or village site. Prior to the purchase of the property by the defendant from the former occupant, there was a house on part of the land, the remainder being used as a backyard. The house came down, and since then the property has been in the occupation of the defendant under the purchase. It is not alleged that the defendant has raised any cultivation upon the land for which rent is ordinarily leviable. The District Judge talks of the land as being used as an orchard, this view being based upon the last that there are a few trees on it including a mango and a margosa tree. The existence of such trees is quite common in backyards of houses in this country and such a circumstance cannot be treated as any evidence whatsoever of the conversion of the land occupied as house-site...
Tag this Judgment!Manjappa Roi Vs. Krishnayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1905
Reported in: (1906)ILR29Mad113
1. We are unable to agree with the lower Courts that the fifth defendant had no locus standi if, as contended by him, he has any rights as assignee of the mortgage interests purported to be created by exhibits IV and V. No doubt the mortgages relied on by the plaintiff and the fifth defendant were executed after a decree had been obtained against the mortgagor under a previous mortgage of 1877. No doubt also that a sale took place under that decree and the mortgaged property was purchase has eventually devolved upon the mortgagor. On the principle embodied in Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act the mortgagor cannot use this subsequently-acquired interest to invalidate his own mortgages to the plaintiff or the mortgages under exhibits IV and V if they really created mortgage rights, and the fifth defendant as claiming through the mortgagor would be equally precluded from raising any question as to the validity of the plaintiff's mortgage. As the result of what has happened the sa...
Tag this Judgment!Suppa Tevan and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-1905
Reported in: (1905)ILR29Mad89
1. The first ground of appeal is that the Sub-Magistrate of Uthamapalayan when taking down statements under Section 104, Criminal Procedure Code, was not authorized to administer an oath to the persons examined by him. Following the decision in Queen-Empress v. Alagu Kone I.L.R. 16 Mad. 421, we hold that he was so entitled. The Sub-Magistrate is a Court and when he took down statements under this section he was acting in discharge of a duty imposed on him by law and was consequently under Section 4, Act X of 1873, authorized to administer an oath. The appellants were persons to whom an oath might be administered, because they were persons who could lawfully be examined by the Sub-Magistrate under Section 164, Criminal Procedure Code (vide Section 5, Oaths Act). It is further urged that the conviction of the appellants under Section 193 of the Penal Code was not legal. In the face of the provisions of the explanation attached to that section we cannot accept this contention. An investig...
Tag this Judgment!Arunachallam Chettiar Vs. Chidambaram Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-1905
Reported in: (1905)15MLJ394
ORDER1. The allegation of the petitioner was that the counter-petitioner who was for the purpose of this petition treated as being in possession of a certain plot of land, was erecting a compound wall in the place of a hedge which existed before; that his consent had not been obtained for the erection and that the object of the counter-petitioner's building a wall was to annex it to his house while it was cultivable land subject to payment of assessment to him. The contention on the other side was that it was part of the counter-petitioner's property and that he was replacing an old dilapidated wall. The dispute thus in truth is whether the property belongs to the counter-petitioner as alleged by him. If his allegation be true, it would be quite competent to him to raise the wall without any let or hindrance on the part of the petitioner. Even if it was otherwise, the fact that a tenant encloses agricultural land in his occupation with a wall instead of hedge would not prima facie inte...
Tag this Judgment!Vama Dava Desikar Vs. Murugesa Mudali
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-11-1905
Reported in: (1906)ILR29Mad75
1. District Judge is in error in holding that the attachment proceedings cannot be taken where the rent is payable in kind. The appeals however fail on other ground. We agree with the District Judge in holding that an appeal by way of a summary suit presented against an attachment under Section 40 of the Kent Recovery Act (Act VIII of 1885) is within time if presented within 30 days. No doubt in Section 40 the word used is 'month.' But that section must be read with Section 51 which lays down that summary suits under the Act must be presented within 30 days. We think that the reasonable construction is to hold that the term month in Section 40 WHS intended to he an equivalent to the period 'of 30 days as provided for in respect of all summary suits in Section 51, It was next urged for the appellant that the attachment should be upheld to the extent of the rent actually in arrear in accordance with the puttas now upheld. This contention cannot be accepted. Under the recent Full Bench ru...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›