Chennai Court August 1905 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Shiva Rao Vs. Nagappa and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1905
Reported in: (1906)ILR29Mad117
1. We are clearly of opinion that an appeal lies against the award in so far as it directs the money to be invested in the purchase of Government promissory notes, it being the appellant's case that, no order for investment should have been made, the laud being alienable. The language of Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894) is wide enough to admit of an appeal in such a case as this.2. Though the precise nature of the family charity is not slated, yet it is the case of both the parties that the land taken up by Government was the endowment of the family charity. It is not the appellant's case that the charitable trust has been put an end to and so long as the trust lasts, the land is prima facie not alienable. The order for investment was therefore rightly made. If the appellant wishes to have the investment changed and landed property acquired with the money deposited, that can of course be done on proper application.3. The appeal is dismissed with costs....
P.V. Muthar Sahib Maraikayar Vs. P.M.K. Kadir Sahib Maraikayar and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1905
Reported in: (1905)15MLJ384
S. Subramania Aiyar, C.J.1. The plaintiff's case in short is as follows. The defendants Nos. 1 to 6 traded in Ceylon under the name and style of S.M.P.M.K., and, while so trading, the firm obtained twenty-five negotiable promissory notes from different persons and indorsed the same to one Meyyappa Chotty, who again indorsed them to the Bank of Madras at Colombo. On the presentation of the notes on behalf of the bank to the makers the notes were dishonoured. The said Meyyappa Ohetty paid the bank and obtained a return of them. The defendants' firm gave the said Meyyappa Chetty three other promissory notes payable to him or to his order which were indorsed by Meyyappa Chetty in I favour of the bank and similarly returned to him on his payment to the bank after they also had been dishonoured. Subsequently, in consideration of Rs. 1,500 paid by the plaintiff to him, Meyyappa Chetty assigned in Ceylon his right to the notes by an instrument, dated the 9th April 1901. The defendants on deman...
Rajamma Vs. Ramakrishnayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1905
Reported in: (1906)ILR29Mad121
1. No evidence was taken in the case. It was disposed of upon the petitions of the parties. The decision in Mahadeva Pandia v. Rama Narayana Pandia 13 M.L.J. 75 is strongly in favour of the view that the money connected with insurance the premia for which were paid out of the salary of the deceased is prima facie his separate property. In a summary inquiry like the present, the proper course is to follow this view leaving the party, the brother, who sets up that it is joint property to establish it by suit having regard specially to the fact that the brother's claim is based solely upon the assumption that the education of the deceased was at the expense of the family. We set aside the orders of the District Judge and direct that the certificate be issued to the appellant on her giving security to the satisfaction of the District Judge of South Canara. Each party will bear his own costs in these appeals....
Kannambath Imbichi Nair and anr. Vs. Manathanath Ramar Nair and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1905
Reported in: (1906)ILR29Mad122
1. For reasons stated in the order dated the 31st, July 1905, Mr. Barton's application to revoke the order of the District Judge was treated as an appeal.2. We have now heard Mr. Barton and are unable to agree with his contention that we have only to deal with the objection against the order sanctioning prosecution under Section 192, Indian Penal Code. Under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, Section 105, the Appellate Court has power to revoke any sanction granted by the Court against whoso order the appeal is made, as also to grant sanction refused by it. The District Judge apparently came to the conclusion that the signature to the receipt at well as the thumb marks therein were really fixed by the first defendant and probably this is correct. There can, however, be no doubt that the payment of Rs. 150 and odd recited in the receipt is untrue. The question as to this payment was the crucial one, and as the petitioners stated on affirmation, positively, that they saw the ...
Muthoo Raman Chetty Vs. Krishna Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1905
Reported in: (1905)15MLJ478
1. The plaintiff appellant sues for the recovery of the price alleged to have been paid by him to the first defendant on account of the sale of land (Exhibit A) executed by that defendant to the plaintiff on the ground that he has been deprived of the land in consequence of the Judgment in Original Suit No. 496 of 1901 on the file of the Court of the District Munsiff of Chidambaram brought by one Shunmagam Pillai, That suit was on the ground that the property belonged to Shunmugam Pillai, having been orally sold to his father by the then admitted owner one Pbnnusamy Pillai, the sale being followed by possession and further subsequently supported by an unregistered instrument of sale. The present plaintiff who was a party to that suit set up an alleged title under Exhibit A, a registered document. The then plaintiff Shunmugam Pillai's answer to the defence thus set up was that Exhibit A was brought about by the fraud, the present plaintiff being the prime mover, in it. Shanmugam alleged...
Ammacannu Ammal Vs. Ranganatha Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1905
Reported in: (1905)15MLJ392
S. Subramania Aiyar, C.J.1. This suit was dismissed with reference to the finding of the learned Judge on the issue as to whether the deceased Thiruvangada Chetty, the father of the plaintiff and uncle of the 1st defendant and husband of the 3rd defendant was at his death divided or undivided from the 1st defendant. The finding was that they were undivided and the learned Judge held that the suit was unsustainable as with reference to such a finding the plaintiff as the daughter of an undivided member could not rely on any reversionary right in respect of property of the undivided family. Such disposal of the suit would of course be perfectly right if as was apparently assumed by the learned Judge, the plaintiff's case was based on an alleged reversionary right tinder the Hindu Law. Though the plaint is not artistically framed, there can be no doubt that the plaintiff's claim was based entirely upon whatever rights she might have under the instrument of family arrangement of the 30th M...
Muthuvaiyan Vs. Sinna Samavaiyan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1905
Reported in: (1905)15MLJ419
S. Subrahmania Aiyar, C.J.1. The plaintiff sues to recover from the second defendant possession of certain lands, alleging that the same belong to him, having been purchased by him at a revenue sale in which they were sold on account of arrears of land revenue due to Government in respect thereof, that they were subsequently let to and put into the possession of the second defendant by the plaintiff but that the latter refuses to surrender them setting up a title in himself under a collusive purchase from the 1st defendant, a mere benamidar, in whose name certificate at the revenue sale was taken.2. The finding of both the lower courts with reference to these allegations is in favour of the plaintiff. The suit was, however, dismissed by the District Judge who reversed the decree of the District Munsif, on the ground that the plaintiff was disentitled to rely on his being the real purchaser, with reference to the provisions of Sections 38 (clause 5) and 89 of the Madras Revenue Recovery...
Arunachellam Chettiar and anr. Vs. Kadir Rowthen
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1905
Reported in: (1906)ILR29Mad556
1. In this case the plaintiffs, the landlords, sued the defendant, their tenant for Rs. 25-8-8, the value of the share of produce (melvaram) alleged to be due from the tenant for fasli 1310, i.e., the year ending 30th June 1901. The harvest was reaped in February 1901. The patta was tendered on the 28th June 1901. The suit was filed on the 8th April 1904. It was found by the District Munsif that the melvaram was by custom due immediately after the harvest was gathered when the share of the landlord is divided from the tenant's share, that is, in the present case, in February 1901. He therefore dismissed the suit as barred by limitation, having been brought mote than three years after the date when the rent was due.2. We are asked to revise this decision on the ground that the rent cannot be held to be in arrear until the landlord can sue for it, and that Section 7 of the Rent Recovery Act VIII of 1865 prohibits the landlord from recovering the rent until after patta has been exchanged ...
Meyappa Chetty and anr. Vs. Perianan Chetti and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-1905
Reported in: (1906)16MLJ39
1. The claim here was for the recovery of money stated to have been lent to the first defendant (the father of the second and third defendants) by the fourth defendant who was the plaintiff's agent at Singapore. As the first defendant had prior to the suit denied that any loan had been made to him by the fourth defendant, and as the 4th defendant maintained that the loan was, in truth, made, the latter was impleaded and relief against him prayed for in the alternative in respect of the sum stated to have been lent. We agree with the contention on behalf of the appellant that Section 28, C. P. C, warrants such alternative claims being made, the matter in respect of which the claim is made being the same within the meaning of the section. Muthappa Chetty v. Muthu Palani Chetty I.L.R.(1903) M. 80 is distinguishable. In that case, the matter of dissolution of partnership with which the 3rd defendant was concerned was distinct from and unconnected with the claim for. damages in regard to wh...
Ratnachalam Ayyar Vs. Venkatrama Ayyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-1905
Reported in: (1906)ILR29Mad46
1. The question is whether the execution of the decree in this case, so far as it relates to the sale of the mortgaged property, is barred by limitation; and this depends upon whether the application made on the 24th February 1899 on behalf of the appellant by the appellant's guardian was in time. No doubt judgment was delivered in this case on the 13th August 1894 and it is clear from it that the terms of the decree as to the sale of the land were left to be determined later on. The decree drawn up with reference to the judgment was not a final, or immediately executable, and effective decree so far as the land was concerned. Though the father of the appellant applied for execution, ignoring the fact that what had to be ascertained had not been ascertained before execution in the matter of the sale could issue, objections were taken by some of the defendants in possession of parts of the mortgaged property. Upon these objections a Commissioner was appointed to ascertain the values dir...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›