Chennai Court February 1906 Judgments
Chiruvolu Punnamma Vs. Chiruvolu Perrazu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1906
Reported in: (1906)16MLJ307
1. The, question, in this case is wether the third defendant, the mother of one Krishna Brahmam, deceased, and his presumptive reversioner, in suing for and obtaining a decree declaring the adoption of the first defendant as son to Krishna Brahmam made by his widow the 2nd defendant, acted in a representative capacity with reference to the plaintiff the next reversioner and the other ulterior reversioners, assuming that the decree was obtained without fraud or collusion and after a fair trial.2. The question was argued by Mr. Krisbnaswami Aiyar on behalf of the 1st defendant and Mr. Bangachariar on behalf of the plaintiff very fully and ably, and our attention was drawn to a number of decisions more or less bearing on the matter. It will be convenient first to collate such of these cases as are really pertinent, even if but to a limited extent, and then to examine the question with reference-to the principle involved. The cases relied on, speaking generally, fall under two main heads, ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramaswamy Chetty Vs. the Municipal Council
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1906
Reported in: (1906)ILR29Mad360
1. Exhibit B is the contract that it was proposed should be entered into between the Municipal Council and the contractor. It was signed by the contractor and was then forwarded to the Chairman by the Assistant Sanitary Engineer so that it might be signed by the Chairman or Vice-Chairman and one Councilor as required by Section 45, Act IV of 1884 (Madras). The document was however not so signed. The contract being of the value of above Rs. 200 is not binding on the Council Radha Krishna Das v. The Municipal Board of Benares I.L.R. All. 592. Our attention has been drawn to the decision in Abaji Sitaram v. Trimbak Municipality L.R. 8 A.C. 517, which however does not refer to or consider the authorities on which the Allahabad case proceeded. Under the decision in Young & Co. v. The Mayor and Corporation of Royal Leamington Spa I.L.R. Bom. 66 it is clear that the Municipality cannot be rendered liable on the ground of executed consideration. The decision in Lawford v. The Billericay Rural ...
Tag this Judgment!Sreeman Raju Pathayam Veerasurappa Nayamvaru Vs. Errappa Naidu and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1906
Reported in: (1906)16MLJ499
1. In this suit the plaintiff appellant seeks to establish his right to the Sagalur Palayam in the Salem District, and to recover possession of it with mesne profits. The plaintiff ' is the eldest son of the late Poligar who died in 1885. The palayam was sold in execution of a mortgage decree obtained against the late Poligar in 0. St No. 15 of 1875; and was purchased in February 1882 by the mortgagee, the late Kotha Nanjappa. The defendants Nos. 2 to 14 are the representatives of this Nanjappa. The 1st defendant (who is a younger son of the late Poligar by a junior wife) purchased the Palayam in 1893 from the heirs of Kotah Nanjappa. Thus the title of all the defendants depends on the validity and effect of the execution sale in 1883, and it is this which the plaintift attacks. His case is that the Palayam was impartible and inalienable by custom and by reason of its character as a military tenure. That the late Poligar, therefore, had only a life interest in it, only this interest co...
Tag this Judgment!Veera Soorappa Nayani Vs. Errappa Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1906
Reported in: (1906)ILR29Mad484
1. In this suit the plaintiff-appellant seeks to establish his right to the Bagalur Poliem in the Salerh district, and to recover possession of it with mesne profits. The plaintiff is the eldest son of the late Poligar, who died in 1885. The Poliem was sold in execution of a mortgage decree obtained against the late Poligar in Original Suit No. 15 of 1875, and was purchased in February 1881 by the mortgagee, the late Kotha Nunjappa. The defendants Nos. 2 to 14 are the representatives of this Nunjappa. The first defendant (who is a younger son of the late Poligar by a junior wife) purchased the Poliem in 1893 from the heirs of Kotha Nunjappa. Thus, the title of all the defendants depends on the validity and effect of the execution sale in 1881, and it is this which the plaintiff attacks. His case is that the Poliem was impartibly and inalienable by custom and by reason of its character as a military tenure, that the late Poligar, therefore, had only a life interest in it, that only this...
Tag this Judgment!Annamalai Chettiar Vs. Malayandi Appaya Naick and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1906
Reported in: (1906)16MLJ372
Charles Arnold White, Kt., C.J.1. In this reference the question for determination is whether the doctrine of lis pendens, as embodied in Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, applies when the suit during the pendency of which the transfer takes place is subsequently compromised and a decree is given in pursuance of the compromise; or, in other words, was the case of Vythinadayyan v. Subramanya I.L.R(1889) Mad. 439 rightly decided?2. Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act is in these terms:During the active prosecution in any Court having authority in British India Chief Justice, or established beyond the limits of British India by the Governor-General in Council of a contentious suit or proceeding in which any right to immoveable property is directly and specifically in question, the property cannot be transferred or otherwise dealt with by any party to the suit or proceeding so as to affect the rights of any other party thereto under any decree or order which may be made th...
Tag this Judgment!Chinnasamy Reddiar and anr. Vs. Krishna Reddy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1906
Reported in: (1906)16MLJ146
1. We cannot uphold the finding of the lower courts that the sale deed Exhibit A was what they call, 'a sham transaction' by which it is supposed, is meant a deed under which it was not really intended to transfer the property. No such case was set up expressly by the second defendant and the contention urged before the District Munsiff was that the object of first defendant in executing the document was to deprive his daughter, the present fourth defendant of the property. If that were to be the motive which actuated the first defendant, it would follow that he had an intention of transferring the property to the plaintiff. In this view of the case, the question as to whether all the items of consideration set out in Exhibit A were actually paid or not is immaterial. We consequently must hold that. Exhibit A was not anything that can be termed a sham transaction, that the effect of that document was to transfer the property to the plaintiff and that they are consequently entitled to b...
Tag this Judgment!Kasaram Rangiah Vs. Malla Chengama Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1906
Reported in: (1917)33MLJ603
1. The document is a bond and not a promissory note. Venku v. Sitaram I.L.R(1904) B. 82 It consequently can be admitted in evidence on payment of penalty and stamp duty under Section 35(a) of the Stamp Act. of some kind whether skilled or unskilled....
Tag this Judgment!Peria Muthirian and ors. Vs. Karappanna Muthirian and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1906
Reported in: (1906)ILR29Mad370
1. The order of the District Munsif was that costs were to be paid on or before the 24th June 1904. It was not however till the 11th July that the amount of the costs was ascertained and even then the amount was incorrect and it was not till the 29th July that the correct figures were given. Application for extension of time in which to pay was made on the 30th July. We must hold that the District Munsif exercised a sound discretion in extending the time for payment inasmuch as it was absolutely impossible for the plaintiffs to pay the amount of costs into Court on or before the date originally fixed, i.e., the 24th June We allow this appeal, set aside the order of the learned Judge and restore that of the District Munsif with costs before Mr. Justice Boddam and in this Court....
Tag this Judgment!Raju Gramany Vs. Ammani Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1906
Reported in: (1906)ILR29Mad358
1. The property in dispute, a house, was admittedly the acquisition of the deceased owner Thayammal, a woman of the Sudra class. In the absence of any evidence on the point, the Judge rightly took the property to have been Thayammal's absolute estate descendible ns her stridhanam in the general and non-technical sense of the term according to the Mitakshara. The Judge in our opinion also rightly held that as between the only relatives of hers surviving her, the plaintiff the, sister of Thayammal was entitled to succeed in preference to the defendant who is the plaintiff's son, in the view adopted by the Judge and not seriously controverted in the argument before us, that Thayammal had not been married in any of the approved forms. The paramount authority on a question such as this is of course in this Presidency the Mitakshara, and, according to it, the plaintiff as the daughter of Thayammal's father takes precedence over the defendant, his daughter's son, though the estate which the p...
Tag this Judgment!Kararam Rangiah Vs. Malla Chengama Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1906
Reported in: 43Ind.Cas.55
1. The document is a bond and not a promissory note. Venku v. Sitaram 29 B. 82 : 6 Bom. L.R. 841. It consequently can be admitted in evidence on payment of penalty and stamp duty under Section 35 (a) of the Stamp Act....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »