Chennai Court December 1907 Judgments
Gouri Vs. Tirumaya Bhatta and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-1907
Reported in: (1908)18MLJ17
1. The plaintiff sues for a declaration that a sale-deed executed by the 2nd defendant in respect of immoveable property belonging to her late father is invalid to bind her share of the property after her mother's death on the ground that the consideration mentioned in it was false and fictitious.2. The plaintiff and the 3rd defendant are the only daughters of one Narayana Bhatta, deceased. The 2nd defendant is his widow, and the first defendant is the husband of the 3rd defendant. The sale was by the 2nd defendant to the 1st defendant, her son-in-law.3. It is found by both the lower Courts that the consideration mentioned in the deed is not false or fictitious.4. The consideration was Rs. 2,500. This consisted, according to the finding of the District Judge, partly of a debt incurred by the deceased, partly by various proper items for necessary ceremonies and funeral expenses, partly Rs. 70 paid to plaintiff and the 3rd defendant (making Rs. 140) and a sum of Rs. 1,000 to be kept with...
Tag this Judgment!Narayanaswami Naick and ors. Vs. Seshama Raju
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-1907
Reported in: (1908)18MLJ36
1. We think the law is correctly stated in the opinion expressed by Sir Bahshyam Aiyangar in his judgment in the Full Bench case of Periasami Mudaliar v. Seetharama Chettiar I.L.R. (1903) M. 243. The sons of the deceased having been brought on the record in their character of personal representatives of the deceased, the decree should be against them as personal representatives, the amount of the decree to be realised from the estate of the deceased in their hands. It has been contended that the form of the decree adopted by the lower appellate Court may be upheld on the ground that, the debt incurred by the deceased defendant is a family debt. There are two answers to the contention. The question cannot be gone into in this suit since the defendants Nos. 2, 3 and 4 were brought on the record in their representative capacity. Further, the 2nd defendant was relieved from the liability by the decree of the lower appellate Court and there has been no appeal against this.2. We allow the ap...
Tag this Judgment!Lakshminarasappa and anr. Vs. Mekala Venkatappah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1907
Reported in: (1908)18MLJ57
ORDERSankaran Nair, J.1. This is an application to reverse the order of the District Magistrate of Cuddapah setting aside an order of discharge passed by the 2nd Class Magistrate of Kadiri, and directing a further inquiry by the 1st Class Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Cuddapah on the sole ground that the Sub-Magistrate has misappreciated the evidence and arrived at a wrong conclusion on the facts.2. The complaint was one of theft of a document, punishable under Section 380, Indian Penal Code. The 2nd Class Magistrate examined 8 witnesses and filed 6 exhibits for the prosecution and 9 exhibits on behalf of the defence, and discharged the accused as, in his own words, 'the very existence of a document of the kind said to have been lost is doubtful and the case bears distinct marks of having been trumped up, as the witnesses are all untrustworthy.' The District Magistrate, on the other hand, has 'no doubt that the document existed,' and he also saw no reason to consider that the witnesses ...
Tag this Judgment!L. Angannayya and ors. Vs. Daroor Narasanna and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1907
Reported in: (1908)18MLJ247
1. There is no doubt that the Courts were entitled to hold, as they have held, that the land sold under the decree, was land in Survey No. 695-C and not in Survey No. 695-B. In so holding they have not gone behind the decree, which was ambiguous. Nor have we been shown that they have gone behind the sale proclamation.2. The next question is whether the 1st defendant had any interest in the land which he could mortgage to the plaintiff. The land was classed as Village Service Inam and was sold in 1889 by the 2nd defendant : the Inam was enfranchised or resumed in 1891, and the land was mortgaged to the plaintiff in 1892. Whether we regard the Inam as a grant of the land or as a remission of the assessment payable on the land, it is clear that if the land is transferred the Inam is transferred, unless in the transfer the Inam is reserved ; and it is not suggested that there was any such reservation in this case. Any transfer of Inam forming the emoluments of Village officers and servants...
Tag this Judgment!Togaram Appadu Patnaidu Vs. Togaram Venkata Ranga Rau and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1907
Reported in: (1908)18MLJ23
1. We agree with the District Judge that the plaintiff has failed to prove the reunion after partition, on which the suit is based. The decree in the former suit included land not paying revenue to Government and there has been no partition by metes and bounds effected under Section. 396, Civil Procedure Code, so that the final decree contemplated by that section has not yet been passed.2. Under these circumstances no question as to the execution of the decree has yet arisen and the District Judge is still bound to pass the final decree under Section 396 which he may do even without the application of the parties - Mallikarjunadu Setti v. Lingamurti Pantulu and others I.L.R. (1902) M. 277 Dwarka Nath Misser v. Barinda Nath I.L.R (1895) C. 425 and Latchmanan Chetty v. Ramanathan Chetty I.L.R. (1904) M. 129. As it is still open to the plaintiff to obtain his share in the joint family property in the former suit, we are clearly of opinion that it is not open to him to bring a fresh suit f...
Tag this Judgment!Chalavadi Kotiah and ors. Vs. Paloori Alamelammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1907
Reported in: (1908)18MLJ46
1. On the 3rd of October 1899, an application was made to execute the decree in O.S. No. 260 of 1893, by attachment and sale of certain immoveable property mentioned in the application. An order was obtained on the 7th October 1899. The judgment-debtor objected that the decree had been satisfied, but that objection was disallowed on the 31st October. The judgment-debtor appealed to the District Judge and obtained an order for stay of execution pending the hearing of the appeal. Upon this the District Munsif, on the 15th December 1899, passed the following order on the execution petition: 'Execution ordered to be stayed. Petition dismissed.' On the same day, as a diary entry shews, the immoveable property was attached. The District Judge disposed of the appeal of the 20th July 1900, remanding the matter for further enquiry, and on the 25th January 1901, the District Munsif decided that the decree had been satisfied before the attachment. On nth December 1901, the District Judge reversed...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Pleader
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1907
Reported in: (1908)18MLJ184
1. In this case two charges have been preferred against a Pleader under Section 14 of the Legal Practitioners Act. The first charge alleged professional misconduct against him in connection with the alteration of the date in a certain petition which was presented to the Sub-Magistrate of Tiruvadi and which I came before Mr. Jackson on appeal when he was the Joint Magisitrate of the Tanjore Division. Before the date named in the charge as the day on which the charge would be taken into consideration, Mr. Jackson ceased to be the Joint Magistrate of the Tanjore Division and became the Joint Magistrate of the Kumbaconam Division.2. The District Magistrate made an order transferring the charge to the Joint Magistrate of the Kumbaconam Division on the ground that he had dealt with the matter in the first instance.3. Section 14 of the Legal Practitioners Act provides that, if any Pleader practising in any Subordinate Court is charged in such Court with professional misconduct, the presiding ...
Tag this Judgment!Vedammal Vs. Vedanayaga Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1907
Reported in: (1908)18MLJ70
Wallis, J.1. It has been decided by this Court that, if the defendant was a party to the murder of her son, she must be excluded from the inheritance and that the plaintiff, as next reversioner, is entitled to succeed. It is also clear that the fact that the defendant has been acquitted of the charge of murder is no answer to the present suit. But in order to entitle the plaintiff to succeed, it is, of course, necessary that he should establish the complicity of the defendant by clear and satisfactory evidence, and it is not enough to raise a case of suspicion against her. In the present case there can be no doubt that the connection formed by the defendant with the Mahomedan, Sheik Abdul Khader, who has been convicted of the murder of her minor son, was the original cause of trouble; and it may be that the attitude of the minor in regard to his mother's conduct was such as to give her as well as the Mahomedan a motive for desiring to get rid of him. But in order to enable the plaintif...
Tag this Judgment!Subramanya Tevan and ors. Vs. Arunachala Tevan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1907
Reported in: (1908)18MLJ186
1. In Ramanuja Ayyangar v. Sadagopa Ayyangar I.L.R. (1904) M. 205 it was held that under the Negotiable Instruments Act the only person entitled to sue on a promissory note was the payee or the holder. The decision in this case was expressly approved by the Full Bench in Subba Narayana Vathiyar v. Ramaswami Aiyar I.L.R. (1906) M. 88. The attention of the lower appellate Court was not called to Ramanuja Ayyangar v. Sadagopa Ayyangar I.L.R. (1904) M. 205. On the authority of this case, we must hold that the plaintiff, not being the payee named in the note, was not entitled to sue.2. The note sued on in the present case is not a negotiable instrument under the definition contained in Section 13 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, whereas it would appear that the note sued on in Ramanuja Aiyyangar v. Sadagopa Ayyangar I.L.R. (1904) M. 205 was a negotiable instrument. But the fact that the instrument is not negotiable, in our view, makes no difference as regards the question before us. Secti...
Tag this Judgment!Munisami Mudaliar Vs. Subbarayar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-1907
Reported in: (1908)18MLJ151
Wallis, J.1. I agree with the conclusion arrived at on the evidence, by the Subordinate Judge, that the deed, Exhibit G executed by the 2nd defendant in favour of his 'son 1st defendant, and of his other son, the deceased husband of the 3rd defendant, was a benami transaction entered into with a view to defraud the creditors of the 2nd defendant, but it does not appear that any of the creditors was in fact defrauded, and under these circumstances the question before me is whether a suit for specific performance of a contract by the 1st defendant to sell the lands included in Ex. G to the plaintiff can be successfully resisted by the 2nd defendant so far as regards his share in the lands is concerned on the ground that Ex. G was a mere benami transaction? If any creditor had been defrauded be would, it is well settled, have been debarred from going behind Ex. G. Rangammal v. Venkatachari I.L.R. (1895) M. 378 and Yaramati Krishnayya v. Chandru Bapayya I.L.R. (1897) M. 326 - but where the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »