Chennai Court October 1907 Judgments
Singan Setti Sanjivi Kondayya and ors. Vs. Draupadi Bayamma Alias Venk ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-30-1907
Reported in: (1908)18MLJ11
1. The plaintiffs as the reversionary heirs of their father brought this suit against the 1st defendant, his widow, and other defendants who were alienees claiming under her, to set aside the sale in their favour by the 1st defendant on the grounds that there was no necessity for such sale and that these lands of the value of Rs. 1,500 were sold for Rs. 540.2. Out of this sum of Rs. 540, the 2nd defendant who had attached the properties in execution of his decree for Rs. 340 which he had obtained against the 1st defendant as representative of her husband, was paid his decree debt. The 1st defendant also discharged a debt of Rs. 180 incurred for the funeral ceremonies of her husband and the remaining portion of the purchase money was paid in discharge of another debt also found to be binding on the reversioners. It is thus proved that the sale was effected for the purpose of discharging debts binding on the reversion, and the purchase money has been applied in payment of those debts. It...
Tag this Judgment!N.R. Audipuranam Pillai Vs. N. Appusundram Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-30-1907
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.311
Wallis, J.1. This is a suit by the plaintiff as heir of his father Ramalinga to establish his right to a one-third share of two houses which were bequeathed under the will, Exhibit A of one Sooboo Pillai, probate of which was granted on 21st June 1875. Under this will the two houses which were the self-acquired property of the testator were devised to Ramalinga and Veerasawmi brothers of the testator's wife and Cundasami the testator's son in terms the effect of which will have to be considered later. The defendant succeeded to Cundasami's share on the death of his widow in 1880. Ramalinga died in 1895 leaving the plaintiff as his heir, and Veerasawmi died in 1896 leaving his share to his son Dorasawmi, which share was subsequently acquired by the defendant by purchase at Court auction. On the part of the defendant, it is contended that the plaintiff's suit is barred by limitation, as there is no satisfactory evidence that his father Ramalinga ever got possession of his share and, if n...
Tag this Judgment!N.P.N.M. Chidambaram Chettiar Vs. the Tinnevelly Sarangapani Sugar Mil ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-1907
Reported in: (1908)18MLJ251
1. We do not think that there is anything in the agreement between the petitioner and the Company to exclude the operation of Section 221 of the Indian Contract Act. In so far as the expenditure incurred before the winding up order comes within that section the appellant is entitled to alien. The District Judge was therefore wrong in refusing to recognise this lien which operated on the properties and goods in his possession at the date of the winding-up order. Section 149 of the Indian Companies Act does not authorise a Court to deprive a secured creditor of possession of his security; but we understand that in this case possession was given up under the order of the Court dated the 5th December, 1905, without prejudice to the petitioner's right. If the petitioner was entitled to remain in possession by virtue of a lien under Section 221 of the Indian Contract Act, the making of the winding-up order would not affect his right to remain in possession and continue to make the necessary ...
Tag this Judgment!Kilambi Chudikudutamma and anr. Vs. Srimat Tirumala Vencata Narasimha ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-1907
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.1094
Miller, J.1. The 1st defendant is the half-brother of the plaintiffs and the father of the 2nd defendant. On the 24th of January 1895, after the death of his father and after the birth of the 2nd defendant, he for himself and as guardian of the 2nd defendant, executed a deed of gift to the plaintiffs jointly of certain portions of the joint family property. The plaintiffs sue to obtain possession of the land, and both the donor and his son resist the claim. The question which we have to decide is whether the gift can be enforced.2. The District Judge has dismissed the suit and in appeal the case for the plaintiffs is presented upon two grounds: it is contended that the gift is good (1) as provision for the maintenance of the donees whose husbands are unable to support them, and (2) as marriage portions allotted after marriage instead of at the time of the ceremony.3. The first contention necessarily fails in this case because we have no materials on which we can find that the families ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›