Chennai Court March 1906 Judgments
Abbakke Heggadthi Vs. Kinhiamma Shetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-1906
Reported in: (1906)ILR29Mad491
1. The plaintiff sues on a mortgage of 31st August 1891 executed by one Manjanna Shetty, now deceased, the then ejaman of the defendant's family and his two brothers The first defendant is one of the brothers. The other defendants are members of the family and the second defendant is also the present ejaman of the family. The mortgage comprises certain items of property and the mortgagor's mortgage interest in some other items.2. As regards the latter the plaintiff's allegation, which apparently is not denied, is that the mortgage money has been collected by the second defendant and is now in his hands. The deed provides for payment of interest at the rate of 7 per cent, per annum, with a further provision that, on default, interest at 12 per cent, shall be payable on the arrears of interest. The deed also provides for the payment of the principal on 31st August in any year after five years from the date of the deed with a further provision that, on default, interest at 12 per cent, sh...
Tag this Judgment!V. Vythilingam Pillai and ors. Vs. Kuth Iravattath Nair Avergal and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-1906
Reported in: (1906)16MLJ358
1. This is a suit for redemption of certain land. The plaintiff is the Kuthiravattath. Nair. The second and third defendants are the present appellant and third respondent. They are in possession and they alone contest the plaintiff's right to redeem. They claim under Exhibit IV, which is an assignment obtained by them in 1896 from certain persons who had obtained an assignment in 1871 under Exhibit I, from the (Tarwad family) of the first defendant. The 1st defendant's family held the land under an instrument which is not produced but of which Exhibit A is the Kaichit or counterpart. It was executed by the 1st defendant and another member of his family in favour of the plaintiff in 1866. The defendants also relied on Exhibit II which purported to be a grant from the Zamorin in 1862. The Zamorin claimed to have an undivided half share in the land, but this claim was negatived in recent litigation between the plaintiff and the Zamorin and Exhibit II has been held by both the Courts belo...
Tag this Judgment!Vythilingam Pillai and ors. Vs. Kuthiravattah Nair and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-1906
Reported in: (1906)ILR29Mad501
1. This is a suit for redemption of certain land. The plaintiff is the Kuthiravattah Nair. The second and the third defendants are the present appellant and third respondent. They are in possession and they alone contest the plaintiff's right to redeem. They claim under exhibit IV which is an assignment obtained by them in 1896 from certain persons who had obtained an assignment in 1871 under exhibit I from the Tarward (family) of the first defendant. The first defendant's family held the land under an instrument which is not produced, but of which exhibit A is the kaichit or counterpart. It was executed by the first defendant and another member of his family in favour of the plaintiff in 1866. The defendants also relied on exhibit II which purported to be a grant from the Zamoriu in 1862. The Zamorin claimed to have au undivided half share in the land, but this claim was negatived in recent litigation between the plaintiff and the Zamorin and exhibit IL has been hell by both the Court...
Tag this Judgment!Sambanda Pandara Sannadhi Vs. T.P. Balagopalakrishna Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1906
Reported in: (1906)16MLJ415
1. The 'plaintiff in O.S. No. 56 of 01 sued the Pandara Sannadhi of Dharmapuram Athinam for the recovery of a certain sum of money due on a promissory note executed by him for articles purchased according to the plaintiff 'for the necessary use of the said Athinam' and he prayed for a decree directing payment 'by the defendant from the funds of his Athinam Mutt.' A razinamah decree was passed which provided for the recovery of the amount decreed 'from the properties of Dharmapuram Athinam Mutt, of which the defendent is trustee.'2. The defendant resigned the office of Pandara Sannadhi in favour of the appellant who has been made a party to the execution proceedings taken by the decree-holder to execute the decree by attachment and sale of the Mutt propertiRs. The appellant raised the contention that the decree cannot be enforced against the Mutt propertiRs. The Subordinate Judge following the decision in Vidyapurna Thirthaswami v. Vidyanidhi Thirthaswami I.L.R(1903) M. 435 held that th...
Tag this Judgment!Manikka Vasaka Desikar Alias Gnana Sambanda Pandara Sannadhi Vs. Balag ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1906
Reported in: (1906)ILR29Mad553
1. The plaintiff in Original Suit No. 56 of 1901 sued the Pandara Sannadhi of Dhamapuram athinam for the recovery of a certain sum of money due on a promissory note executed by him for articles purchased, according to the plaintiff, 'for the necessary use of the said athinam' and he prayed for a decree directing payment 'by the defendant and from the funds of his athinam mutt 'A razinamah decree was passed which provided for the recovery of the amount decreed ' from the properties of Dharmapuram athinam mutt, of which the defendant is trustee.' The defendant resigned the office of Pandara Sannadhi in favour of the appellant, who has been made a party to the execution proceedings taken by the decree-holder to execute the decree by attachment and sale of the mutt properties. The appellant raised the contention that the decree cannot be enforced against the mutt properties. The Subordinate Judge following the decision in Vidyapurna Tirthaswami v. Vidyanidhi Tirthaswami I.L.R. 27 Mad. 435 ...
Tag this Judgment!Kola Venkatanarayan Vs. Vuppala Ratnam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1906
Reported in: (1906)ILR29Mad531
1. In this case we are unable to adopt the view of the Courts below as to the construction of exhibit A. We are of opinion that it operates as a mortgage by conditional sale. The question is not governed by the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, but we are entitled to look to the provisions of that enactment with a view to determining the legal effect of the instrument in question. Section 58 specifies three instances of mortgages by conditional sale. One of these is where the mortgagor ostensibly sells the mortgaged property on condition that on default of payment of the mortgage money on a certain date, the sale shall become absolute. It seems to us that the instrument in question falls within the words of this definition. The document is described as 'Meddatu Krayan.' These words are defined in Wilson's Glossary as 'land mortgaged with option to the lender to consider it as his property if the mortgage is not redeemed within a stipulated period.' The use of the words is, of...
Tag this Judgment!Appasami thevan and ors. Vs. Virappa thevan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1906
Reported in: (1906)ILR29Mad362
Arnold White, C.J.1. The plaintiffs sue on a mortgage dated November 18, 1890, executed by one Appasami Thevan, the father of defendants Nos. t to 4. The mortgage was unregistered. In 1895, Appasami Thevan sold the mortgage property by a registered sale-deed to one Kasi Thevan. Kasi Thevan's widow, as the guardian of Kasi Thevan's minor son, sold the property to the fifth defendant in January 1902 by a registered sale-deed. The fifth defendant, in his written statement, alleges that the sale by Appasami Thevan to Kasi Thevan and by Kasi Thevan's widow to him were without notice of the mortgage to the plaintiffs. The mortgage to the plaintiffs contains a personal covenant to repay the mortgage money, and the plaintiffs claimed as against all the defendants payment of the mortgage money, and, in default, recovery of the amount by sale of the property. In the Court of First Instance, the defendants Nos. 1 to 4 did not appear. The plaintiff's pleader did not ask for a decree against the pr...
Tag this Judgment!Parattahath Kunhi Mayan Vs. Parattahath Muhammad
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1906
Reported in: (1906)16MLJ351
1. We think this decree cannot be supported. The plaintiff sues to recover certain land which was let by the plaintiff's late Karnavan to the first defendant and his late father. The first defendant has transferred his right to the second and third defendants. The lease having expired the plaintiff sues to recover the land. The District Judge dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff could not recover the land as it is proved that that the land belongs equally to the Tavazhi of the plaintiff and to the Tavazhi of the third defendant and he held that the plaintiff should have sued for partition.2. Possession of the land was, however, obtained by the third defendant from the tenant of the plaintiff's Karnavan, and in these circumstances he cannot oppose the plaintiff's claim See Pasupati v. Narayanan I.L.R(1889) M. 335 and the plaintiff is entitled to a decree. We, therefore, reverse the decree of the District Judge and restore that of the District Munsiff with costs in this and in t...
Tag this Judgment!Ganapathy Ayyar and ors. Vs. Sri Vedavyasa Alagasinga Bhutter and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1906
Reported in: (1906)16MLJ435
1. The question in this case is whether the appointment by the Temple Committee of defendants Nos. 1 and 3 as temporary additional trustees of the Srirangam temple is valid.2. The scheme of management which was in existence at the time of the appointment in question was one that had been sanctioned in 1842 by the Board of Revenue in pursuance of the policy then adopted under the order of the Court of Directors with a view to the withdrawal of Government interference with the executive management of temple affairs. Under the order of the Board of Revenue, dated the 6th October 1842, the management of the temple was entrusted to two trustees who were otherwise unconnected with the temple and to the body of mirasi office-holders in the Temple known as Stalathars. As there were four families of Stalathars, it was arranged that one Stalathar should act with the other trustees by yearly turns, such acting Stalathar representing the whole body and conducting his duties in consultation if nece...
Tag this Judgment!Ganapathi Ayyar and ors. Vs. Sri Vedavyasa Alasinga Bhattar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1906
Reported in: (1906)ILR29Mad534
1. The question in this case is whether the appointment by the Temple Committee of defendants Nos. I and 2 as temporary additional trustees of the Srirangam temple is valid?2. The scheme of management which was in existence at the time of the appointment in question was one that had boon sanctioned in 1842 by the Board of Revenue in pursuance of the policy thou adopted under the order of the Court of Directors with a view to the withdrawal of Government interference with the executive management of temple affairs. Under the orders of the Board of Revenue, dated the 6th October 1842, the management of the temple was entrusted to two trustees who were otherwise unconnected with the temple, and to the body of mirasi office holders in the temple, known as stalathars. As there were four families of stalathars it was arranged that one stalathar should act with the other trustees by yearly turns, such acting stalathar representing the whole body and conducting his duties in consultation, if n...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »