Chennai Court February 1909 Judgments
Karippala Alias Veripayur Manakkal Narayanan Nambudripad and ors. Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1909
Reported in: (1912)22MLJ126
1. The father of the second plaintiff has renounced the Karnavan ship of the family of which he was the head and we are of opinion that when he ceased to be the Karnavan of his family he ceased to be the Uralan of the Devaswom of which the Karnavan was always the trustee. The Uraimaship is incident to the Karnavanship and unless the Uraimaship is expressly reserved in such cases it passes to the next Karnavan.2. The second plaintiff as the Karnavan of the family is therefore also a trustee of the Devaswom.3. The renewals of the leases are not binding on the Devaswom as they were not granted bona fide in the usual course of management.4. These second appeals are dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!imbichi Kandan Vs. Kozhikot Kizhake Kovilagath Viyathen Sree Devi Alia ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.875a
1. The plaintiffs predecessors-in-title granted the lands on Adimayavana tenure to the family of defendants Nos. 1 to 3. The 1st defendant has now divided from defendants Nos. 2 and 3 and was in possession of a portion of the property so granted. On alienating that property in 1893 to the 10th defendant under Ex. (1)) she is alleged to have stated that it is her jenm. The plaintiff's contention is that this is a denial of her jenm, and all the defendants, therefore, have forfeited their right to hold the property. The Judge has upheld this contention. The 1st defendant is not the managing member of a family of which the other defendants are members, and she does not represent, in any way, the others who hold portions of the property not included in her deed of sale. It is not alleged she is their agent. We are, therefore, of opinion that her alleged denial is not binding on the others, and the plaintiff is not entitled to recover on the ground alleged by her, i.e., the tenure has been ...
Tag this Judgment!Karippala Alias Varipayur Manakkkal Narayanan Nambudripad and ors. Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1909
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.233
1. The father of the second plaintiff has renounced the Karnavanship of the family of which he was the head, and we are of opinion that when he ceased to be Karnavan of his family he ceased to be Uralan of the Devasom of which the Karnavan was always the trustee. The Uraimaship is incident to the Karnavanship and unless the Uraimaship is expressly reserved in such cases it passes to the next Karnavan.2. The second plaintiff as the Karnavan of the family is, therefore, also a trustee of the Devasom.3. The renewals of the leases are not binding on the Devasom as they were not granted bona fide in the usual course of management.4. These second appeals are dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Matathil Pokkar Vs. Nalloor Assen Kutty Hajee
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.548
1. If there were reason to suppose that the false statement of the 1st defendant that he was not a benamidar substantially influenced the Subordinate Judge in giving the decree now sought to be set aside, then we should agree with the Lower Appellate Court and dismiss the second appeal. But reading Exhibit II, the judgment of the Subordinate Judge, we find no reference whatever is made to the above false statement. The Subordinate Judge solely on the strength of the fact that the sale certificate stood in the name of the 1st defendant, plaintiff in that case, cast the burden of proof upon the 1st defendant in that case, and as the burden was not discharged gave a decree for the plaintiff in that case. He would apparently have given the same decree even if the plaintiff in that case had not gone into the box. In Venkatappa Naick v. Subba Naick 29 M.k 179 there seems to have been no question that the perjury led to the passing of the decree. We are not prepared to hold that a decree obta...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Giddigadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.867a
1. In this case there is absolutely no evidence against this appellant (the 4th accused), except the confessions of his co-accused which implicate himself also. The Sessions Judge in his charge to the jury has instructed them: 'it is a rule of law that where a person confesses a crime and implicates himself, if he implicates the persons who have been tried along with him to the same extent as he implicates himself, then if you accept his statement as being true and voluntarily given as against himself, you can safely accept it as true as against the other persons.' He gave no caution as to the necessity in such a case for corroboration as against the person implicated. We think that there was a plain misdirection and that it materially prejudiced the accused. The rule of law is contained in Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act and it does not go at all so far as the Sessions Judge states. It merely says, When more persons than one are being tried jointly for the same offence and a con...
Tag this Judgment!Veyathen Sridevi Alias Kizhoikki Kovilakath Villa Thamburti Avergal Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.1140a
Munro, J.1. Under Section 76 of the Transfer of Property Act, the mortgagee in the absence of a contract to the contrary would be liable to pay the enhanced Government revenue. I find no such contract in Ex. A. All that can be said is that the parties probably did not anticipate any increase in the Government Revenue. The fact that the amount of Government Revenue is mentioned in Ex. A cannot make any difference. The Government Revenue would be the same whether mentioned in Ex. A or not. The plaintiff is, therefore, entitled to the amount claimed for enhanced Revenue and the lower Court's decree will be modified accordingly with costs throughout....
Tag this Judgment!N. Veerasalingam Vs. Sathapally Sathirasu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.552
1. The plaint alleges that the defendant, agreed to pay to the plaintiff, Rupees sixty, upon which the plaintiff was to transfer pattahs to the defendant, and that the defendant, asked to pay the Rs. 60 and take the transfer, failed to do so. The plaintiff, therefore, sued to recover the sum of Rs. 60 which the defendant had agreed to pay under the contract. We think there can be no doubt that the suit as thus brought is one for specific performance of the contract. Fardunji Edalji v. Jamsedji Edalji 28 B. 1 seems to us to have no bearing on a case like the present. The Small Cause Court has, therefore, no jurisdiction to try the suit. We reverse the decree of the learned Judge, and order the plaint to be returned for presentation to the proper Court. The parties will bear their own costs throughout....
Tag this Judgment!Koolayappa Rowther Vs. Balusami and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.1140
ORDER1. The District Judge clearly seems to have held that the sale to the plaintiff' was not intended to defeat creditors and, therefore, not voidable, under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act merely because there was some consideration for the sale, and that there was an intention to really transfer the property. These circumstances are sufficient to warrant the finding of the District Judge. As was pointed out in Chidambaram Chettiar v. Sami Aiyar 6 M.L.J. 427. where a transfer, though, in part for valuable consideration, is, as regards the other part only an arrangement to defeat the creditors, it is wholly void against the creditors both under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act and under 13 Elizabeth Chap. 5 and cannot be upheld to the extent to which it. is supported by consideration. If, therefore, the District Judge should find that the object of the sale to the plaintiff was to defeat creditors and that the plaintiff was aware of that object then the facts that...
Tag this Judgment!Subramanya Aiyar and ors. Vs. Meenakshi Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.810
ORDER1. In this case the District Judge seems to have started with the idea that because the plaintiff is illiterate the burden of proving that she knew what she was doing is on the defendants. This is clearly not so. The burden is in the first place on the plaintiff to show that she did not know what she was doing. We must, therefore, ask the District Judge to find, in the light of these observations, on the evidence on record whether when the plaintiff executed Exhibit III she did not know the nature of her act.2. The finding should be submitted within 6 weeks and seven days will be allowed for objections.3. In compliance with the above order the District Judge submitted the followingFINDING.1. A finding is called for in the light of the order of remand on the issue whether plaintiff executed Exhibit III without knowledge of the nature of her Act. The parties place different constructions on the: order, entailing different decisions. I deal with the case in order to completeness on b...
Tag this Judgment!Chidambara Pothan Vs. Poongavanam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.813
ORDER1. The District Judge has clearly wrongly thrown the burden of proof upon the plaintiff. The burden in the circumstances was upon the defendant, the donee, to show that at the time the gift was made, the donor was in a position to pay his debts apart from the property, the subject of the gift. This is clear from paragraph 2 of Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act. We must, therefore, ask the District Judge to find on the evidence on record in the light of these observations whether the gift to the defendant was made to defeat creditors. The finding should be submitted within 6 weeks and 7 days will be allowed for filing objections.2. In compliance with the above order the lower Court submitted the followingFINDING. 1. The order of remand imposes the burden of proof on defendant, and the question is-whether the gift to her was made to defeat creditors.2. The decree under execution was obtained in a pro-note of 1898, which renewed two prior notes in 1895 and 1896. It is urged ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »