Chennai Court March 1906 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.
Govinda Bhatta Vs. Naraina Bhatta and 5 ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1906
Reported in: (1906)16MLJ285
1. We think that the decrees of the Courts below are nor correct. The question that is raised in this case has to be determined with reference to Section 99 of the Transfer of Property Act read with Section 67. No doubt if the attachment had been made on account of the mortgage money itself decreed in a suit which was not brought for the sale of the mortgaged property then the suit would be, and should be, one upon the mortgage under Section 67. The present suit, however, is one where the plaintiff has no right to sue upon the mortgage held by him it, being a usufructuary mortgage. The claim which he has to enforce is one which arose independently of the mortgage and in respect of which he has attached the interest of the mortgagor. As under Section 99 he cannot enforce this claim without a further suit for sale, it follows that he is entitled to maintain a suit for that purpose. Having regard to the object of Section 99 the decree to be made in such a suit should not be merely for the...
indran Ramaswami Pandia Thalavar Vs. Anthappa Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1906
Reported in: (1906)16MLJ422
Subrahmania Aiyar, J.1. Upon the finding that the promissory note sued on was executed by, the first defendant on the date it bears, viz., the 6th of July 1898, and therefore, after he had ceased to be a ward of the Court of Wards, and had attained his majority, the question for determination is whether the claim of the plaintiff is sustainable in law. With reference to the decision of this question, the only facts relied on and proved are, the advance by the plaintiff to the 1st defendant of Rs. 2,500 on the 29th September 1895, when the 1st defendant was a minor, the execution by him of the promissory note bearing that date for the amount with interest at one per cent per mensem, and the execution, as aforesaid, after the first defendant had ceased to be a minor, of the plaint note, in settlement of the earlier one.2. On behalf of the plaintiff, it was urged that the said advance being within the words of Section 2, Clause (d) of the Indian Contract Act, 'an act done at the desire of...
K. Jamal Mahamad Pulavar Vs. N. Parameswara Pattar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1906
Reported in: (1906)16MLJ418
1. It is found in this case that the defendant executed the pro-rote in favour of the plaintiff to induce him to sign the composition deed between one Shaiva Row, the maternal grand-father of the defendant and his creditors among whom the plaintiff was one. The creditors were to get 10 as. This finding is based on the evidence of the defendant. We must accept this finding. It is contended before us that there is no finding that the pro-note was executed with the knowledge of the debtor or without the knowledge of the creditors, and in the absence of such finding the plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount sued for as the transaction cannot be held to be in that case opposed to public policy. This contention cannot be upheld as the evidence relied upon by the Subordinate Judge shows clearly that the pro-note was executed at the instance of the debtor and without the knowledge of the creditors.2. It is also executed to carry out an arrangement to secure to one creditor an advantage o...
Subba Reddi (Minor) by Next Friend Lakshmammal Vs. Doraisami Bathen an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1906
Reported in: (1906)16MLJ491
Subrahmania Aiyar, J.1. There is no dispute that the all estate which Chenga Reddi left and which has been disposed of by his will, relied on by the plaintiff, was his self-acquisition. By the will he distributed the property in certain proportions among his two wives, his two daughters by the first wife, his sister, his brother's son, his brother's daughter who is the plaintiff and certain others. It was executed on the 7th March 1900 seven days before the death of Chenga Eeddi. The 7th defendant, the posthumous son of Chenga Eeddi by his second wife, the 6th defendant, was born on the 19th November 1900. The finding is to the effect that Chenga Eeddi, from the time of the execution of the will up to his death, was unaware that the 6th defendant was enciente.2. The question for determination is whether the birth of the 7th defendant had the effect of revoking the will as contended by Mr. Sundara Aiyar on hisobehalf.3. Whatever may have been the view held by Vijnaneswara, the great aut...
Veerareddi and ors. Vs. Bapireddi (Deceased) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-1906
Reported in: (1906)16MLJ395
ORDER1. The facts are as follow: - The plaintiff agreed to sell the property in suit on the 16th December 1895 to the 10th defendant and in pursuance of the agreement placed him in possession of the property, and the purchase money was paid by the 10th defendant to a creditor of the plaintiff as agreed between them.2. On the 16th December a conveyance was executed by the plaintiff, but in consequence of certain mis-statements therein it was not registered and thereupon the plaintiff promised to execute and register a proper conveyance but has not as yet done so. No time for the execution of this conveyance was fixed and there is no averment that specific performance was refused, unless such refusal is to be inferred from the plaintiff dispossessing defendants Nos. 1 to 3 in whose favour the 10th defendant had executed a registered sale deed in respect of the property. 'Such dispossession was in August 1898 and as the suit was brought on the 23rd November 1899, the claim for specific pe...
Malladi Venkatappayya Vs. Jonnalagadda Venkatasubbayya Being Minor, by ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1906
Reported in: (1906)16MLJ352
1. The Subordinate Judge is right in holding that in the absence of any proof of division it must be held that the family was undivided. It appears that the suit land was put in the possession of Jogamma for her maintenance.2. She lived to a great age and the land was consequently in her possession for a number, of years. There is, however, nothing that can be called evidence to show that it was intended that the land set apart for her maintenance was not co be resumed on her death, and in the absence of such evidence the presumption is, that it was intended that the land was to be resumed.3. We must accordingly hold that Jogamma bad no authority to deal with the land as she has done under Exhibit I and this second appeal must therefore be dismissed with costs....
Syed Abdul Rahiman Sahib Vs. Abdulla Sahib and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-1906
Reported in: (1906)16MLJ286
1. We are unable to agree with the contention that because one of the minors has ceased to be a minor, the District Judge had no power to take action under Section 45 of Act VIII of 1890 and require the guardian to deliver up any property of the ward that might be in his possession or under his control. In our opinion the provisions of Section 41, Clause (3) of the Act and Section 45, Clause 1(c) are clear as to this.2. We cannot follow the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Nabu Behari v. Sheikh Mahomed as to the effect of the termination of the guardianship on the powers of the Court under the section above quoted.3. This appeal must be dismissed with costs....
Kesaram Narasimhulu and ors. Vs. Vuddanda Rao Narasimhulu Patnayudu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-1906
Reported in: (1906)16MLJ333
Subrahmania Aiyar, J.1. The plaintiff here sues to recover possession of the land in dispute alleging that he is the holder of the office of karnam in the proprietary village of Lukulam and that the land in dispute itself is the emolument of the office.2. The defendant does not set up any right to the. office or its emoluments and his denial of the plaintiff's claim is solely on the ground that the land in dispute is not attached to the said office but was the private property of the plaintiff which passed to the defendant under a Court sale in execution of a decree against the plaintiff. The point for determination is whether. Civil Courts have any jurisdiction or not to entertain such a suit. As Mr. Krishnaswami Aiyar on behalf of the plaintiff pointed out, unless the jurisdiction of the Civil Court has been taken away, that jurisdiction must be taken to exist, and the question is whether Section 21 of the Madras Hereditary Village Offices Act (Madras Act III of 1895) read with the p...
Mammikkutti and ors. Vs. Fuzhakkal Edom and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-1906
Reported in: (1906)ILR29Mad353
1. In Original Suit No. 59 of 1897 of which Pakru, the plaintiff's predecessor in title, was a party, an injunction was granted restraining Pakru from interfering with the forest in question. The injunction was granted upon the ground that the karar (exhibit 'G') which had been granted by the present first defendant to Pakru was not binding on the Tarward. The plaintiffs now claim damages under this same agreement from the first defendant and the members of the Tarward. The finding that the karar on which the plaintiffs now sue is not binding on the parties whom it purports to bind renders the question raised in the sixth issue as to the binding effect of the karar res judicata as between the plaintiffs and the defendants other than the first defendant.2. A new point was taken by Mr. Sivaswami Ayyar on behalf of the appellants which was not raised in the pleadings and was not taken in the Court of First Instance Mr. Sivaswami Ayyar argued that the legal effect of exhibit 'G' was to ren...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›