Chennai Court May 1908 Judgments
Subramanian Chetty, Minor by Minatchi Vs. Veerabhadran Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-07-1908
Reported in: (1908)18MLJ452
1. In this case the plaintiff sues to recover possession of certain property usufructurily mortgaged by the 1st defendant to the 6th defendant's grandfather whose interest was-subsequently purchased by the plaintiff in execution of a money decree against the 6th defendant's grandfather. In the alternative, the plaintiff seeks to recover the amount of the mortgage debt due on the mortgage by the 1st defendant to the 6th defendant's grandfather. Prior to the purchase in execution by the plaintiff of the 6th defendant's grandfather's interst, the plaint alleges that the 6th defendant's grandfather, for the purpose of defeating the plaintiff's claim against him, got the 1st defendant to execute a collusive mortgage of the same property in favour of the 2nd defendant's father who sued on this mortgage and brought the suit-property to sale when it was purchased by defendants Nos. 3 to 5. The lower appellate Court held that the 2nd mortgage was collusive, but that defendants Nos. 3 to 5 were ...
Tag this Judgment!Srinivasa Raghava Dikshidar and ors. Vs. Rangasawmi Iyengar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-07-1908
Reported in: (1908)18MLJ477
1. In this case there had been an exchange of lands between the parties and the exchange deed, Exhibit A, which is a registered document, contains the following provisions: 'There is no dispute in respect of the said lands. If disputes should so arise, the respective party shall be answerable to the extent of his private property.' The plaintiff was subsequently-deprived of some of the laud acquired by exchange and brings this suit upon the above covenant more than three but less than six years after the date of deprivation. The lower Courts have dismissed the suit with costs on the fact that it is barred by Article 113 of the Limitation Act as a suit for specific performance of a contract. It is no doubt true that Article 1x6 of the Limitation Act regarding contracts in writing registered does not apply to suits for specific performance of such contracts, but only to suits for compensation for the breach of them. It is, however, well settled that suits such as this for failure to pay ...
Tag this Judgment!Subbiah Iyer Vs. Subramania Iyer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-07-1908
Reported in: (1908)18MLJ485
1. This appeal raises an interesting question as to which there is apparently no precise authority. The question is, whether after the Court has remitted an award to the arbitrators under Section 520, Civil Procedure Code, and the arbitrators have submitted a revised award and the Court has given judgment under Section 522, Civil Procedure Code, according to the revised award, and a decree has followed thereon, an appeal wirlie from such decree on the ground that the order of remittal under Section 520, Civil Procedure Code, was wrong and that the original award ought to have been accepted and acted on. Section 522, Civil Procedure Code, says that no appeal shall lie from the decree so passed except in so far as the decree is in excess of, or not in accordance with, the award, and this, in our opinion, means the award according to which judgment was given, which is, of course, the revised award. The present decree is in accordance with the revised award, and, in our opinion, Section 52...
Tag this Judgment!Srinivasa Raghava Dikshadar and ors. Vs. Rangasawmi Aiyengar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-07-1908
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.1121
1. In this case there had been an exchange of lands between the parties and the exchange deed (Ex. A) which is a registered document, contains the following provisions: 'There is no dispute in respect of the said lands. If disputes should so arise, the respective party should be, answerable to the extent of his private property.' The plaintiff was subsequently deprived of some of the lands acquired by the exchange and brings this suit upon the above covenant more than three but less than six years, after the date of deprivation. The lower Courts have dismissed the suit with costs on the fact that it is barred by Article 113 of the Limitation Act as a suit for specific performance of a contract. It is no doubt true that Article 110 of the Limitation Act regarding contracts in writing registered does not apply to suits for specific performance of such contracts but only to suits for compensation for the breach of them. It is, however, well settled that suits such as this for failure to p...
Tag this Judgment!Bollapragada Garu Narayana Rao, Minor by His Mother Rama Lakshmanna Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-07-1908
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.1130
Miller, J.1.The District Munsif had, in my opinion, jurisdiction to revise his order, and though the second order which he made purports to be under Chap. VII of the Civil Procedure Code, I ought not to interfere, under Section 622, if the result has been reached and that which was irregularly done has been set right. Vide Narayanasami v. Natesa 16 M. 424.2. It seems to me in the first instance the District Munsif might perhaps have proceeded under Section 158, but he did not, as a matter of fact, decide the suit on the evidence before him, but expressly and wrongly proceeded under Section 177. He had jurisdiction to review this wrong order for sufficient reason. 3. The petition is dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!The Regulation Collector of Uthumalai Estate Vs. R. Subbier
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-06-1908
Reported in: (1908)18MLJ581
1. This appeal relates to a claim duly preferred to the Regulation Collector of the Uthumalai estate for a sum due to the claimant by the estate. The claim was made within six months of the publication of a notification under Section 30 of Regulation V of 1804 as amended by Madras Act IV of 1899, and at the time when it was made in December of ICOI its recovery by suit in a Civil Court was not barred by the Limitation Act.2. A Collector, for the purpose of executing decrees which were in force against the estate, generally called a Decree Collector, as opposed to a Regulation Collector, was appointed on the 20th September 1901.3. A new Regulation Collector was appointed on the 30th October 1901, and, as already stated, the present claim was made to the Regulation Collector on the 1st December 1901. On the 17th September 1902 the Decree Collector called on the Regulation Collector under Rule 3 of the rules framed under the Act ' to furnish him with full particulars of all claims notifie...
Tag this Judgment!Mahomed Mahomed Khan Bahadur Vs. Mahomed Munawar Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-05-1908
Reported in: (1908)18MLJ542
1. In this case the 1st defendant, in answer to an application by the transferee decree-holder for execution against him, sets up an agreement entered into between himself, the original decree-holder and the transferee decree-holder, by virtue of which the claims of the original decree-holder were satisfied and the decree was transferred to the transferee for execution against the 2nd defendant only who was no party to the agreement. The Judge of the City Civil Court held that this agreement was an adjustment of the decree within the meaning of Section 258, Civil Procedure Code, and that, as it had not been, certified, it could not be set up in bar of execution.2. We agree with this decision. Under the section, if a decree is adjusted in whole or in part, the adjustment must be certified, and, unless certified, cannot be recognized. Where there is a money decree against two defendants, an agreement discharging one of them is, in our opinion, an adjustment, in part, of the decree, and s...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›