Chennai Court July 1909 Judgments
A. Subramania Aiyer Vs. P. Nagarathna Naicker and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-14-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.901
1. The suit is filed by the plaintiffs under Section 30, Civil Procedure Code of 1882, for a declaration that the land in suit is the property of the temple of Bala Vinayagar and that the alienation of that land by the defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3, the trustees, to the 4th defendant, is invalid, and for possession to be delivered to the trustees on behalf of the temple. It was contended by the defendants that the temple and the land alleged to belong to it was the private property of the defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3. The Judge has found, and his finding is not impeached in appeal, that the temple in question is a public temple and the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 are the trustees thereof. The Judge has also held that the alienation in favour of the 4th defendant is invalid. But being of opinion that defendants Nos. 1 and 2 have been guilty of mismanagement he has directed possession to be delivered to the plaintiffs.2. It is contended before us that the plaintiffs, who are only worshippers, are...
Tag this Judgment!P. Velayuda Naicker and ors. Vs. Haider HussaIn Khan Saheb and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.729
1. The Judge has found, and his finding is not disputed before us, that there was a genuine and unconditional offer by the agent of the mortgagor to pay the mortgagee the amount due to him. The agent had the money with him. The mortgagee refused to receive the amount that was so tendered. Under Section 84 of the-Indian Transfer of Property Act interest on the principal money shall cease to run from the date of the tender, and the Judge has disallowed interest from such date. It is contended before us that it is proved in this case that the money tendered to the Mortgagee was received from a, person who had agreed to purchase the property from the mortgagor after redemption and as he received back his money after the mortgagee refused ' to accept the tender, it cannot be, said that the plaintiff, mortgagor, from the date always kept the money ready for payment and that, therefore, the interest must run on and the cases of Gyles v. Hall 2 P.W. 378; Satyabadi Behara v. Musammat Harabati 5...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Botcha Ramudu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.1051
Ralph Benson, Offg., C.J.1. I think that the appellants, Botcha Ramudu and Durgasi Ramudu, have been rightly convicted of the murder of the little girl, Killari Mallamma, aged 8 or 9 years, for the sake of her jewels on the 26th December last at Alaparthi. That the child was murdered for the sake of her jewels admits of no doubt. Her body was found on the morning of the 27th in a nulla a little distance from the village, with several punctured wounds, covered with blood, the neck twisted and stripped off the jewels she was wearing (except two rings which could not easily be removed). The lobes of the nose were torn, evidently in removing the nose rings.2. The accused are wandering basket-makers who had come to the village some ten days before the offence. The direct evidence against the accused is that of another little girl Pagi Mallamma, aged about ten years, who says that she and the deceased were taken by the two accused to gather tamarinds at a little distance from the village, th...
Tag this Judgment!Veera Pannadi Vs. Karuppa Pannadi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.980
1. The appellant (plaintiff) obtained a money-decree dated the 3rd December 1901 in Suit No, 83 of 1901, against respondents (defendants Nos. 1 to 4) and attached certain land as the property of the judgment-debtors. A claim of the 5th respondent (5th defendant) having been allowed, the appellant brought this suit stating the cause of action to be the order made in favour of the 8th respondent, and praying that the order might be declared void and his attachment of the land confirmed. The plaint also refers to a mortgage for Rs. 1,033, as well as to various other litigations and transactions between the patties, and suggests, rather than actually prays, that he might in the alternative be declared to have a charge upon the land for that sum, and the District Munsif settled an issue No. 7, on this point.2. In his judgment the District Munsif. entered into an elaborate consideration of the equities of the case, and declared the 5th respondent and the appellant to be entitled to certain l...
Tag this Judgment!Thiagaraja Mudeliar and anr. Vs. Kandasawmi Mudaly and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-09-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.977
1. The appellants (defendants Nos. 1 and 2) contend that they are the representatives of Pamayan, who was a descendant of Veersawmy, and, in the even of his surviving Thangal, would have been one of Veerasami's reversioners and entitled as such to the property in question jointly with the defendants Nos. 3 and 4.2. The appellants admit that Pamayan went abroad 15 years before suit and he must be presumed to be dead, but argue that the burden of proving the date of his death is upon the plaintiff.3. The appellants' title, however, rests upon the proof of the fact that Pamayan survived Thangal, the last surviving female upon whose death all the defendants became entitled to the property, and it is clear from the case of In Re: Phene's Trusts L.R. 5 Ch. App. 139 22 L.T. 111, cited in Rango Balaji v. Mudiyeppa 23 B.K 296 that the burden of proving this fact lies upon the appellants See also Fani Bhushan Banerjee v. Surja Kant Roy Chowdhury 11 C.W.N. 883.4. They have apparently made no atte...
Tag this Judgment!Joseph Armugam Pillai Vs. Muruga Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-05-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.283
1. We follow Venganna Aiyar v. Ramaswami Aiyar 19 M.k 422; Gauri Shankar v. Karima Bibi 15 A.n 413 and Tika Ram v. Shama Charan 20 A.k 42 and hold that we are bound to accept the District Judge's findings of fact. There is no question of law. The appeals are dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Suppiah thevan Vs. M. Krishna Row and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-05-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.435
1. The order of the Subordinate Judge, though purporting to be made on a petition presented under Section 437 of the Code of 1882, is in fact an order disallowing objections to the continuance of the suit by a new Trustee, and so is appealable.2. On the merits, we are of opinion that the Subordinate Judge is right and that the instrument does not require registration.3. It is contended that it operates to create rights over immovable property in the Trustee appointed by it, but it is not by its operation, that the rights of the Trustee are created.4. There is nothing in the instrument which, expressly or by implication, creates any rights in the person appointed by it. The rights are, as the Subordinate Judge points out, created by the operation of Section 75 of the Trusts Act and not by the instrument of appointment.5. We have no doubt that the office of Trustee in this case is not immovable property within the meaning of the Registration Act.6. We dismiss the appeal with costs, and d...
Tag this Judgment!Yelamanchili Bapayya and ors. Vs. Yelamanchili Rukhamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-05-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.1069
1. The ground on which the District Judge reversed the decree of the District Munsif is not a ground which was taken by the defendant before the District Munsif. The general rule is that marriage expenses are to be borne by the family property just in the same way as the cost of maintenance Vaikuntam Ammarigar v. Kallapiram Ayyangar 33 M.k 512and we have been referred to no authority that this rule does not apply to the class to which the parties belong.2. It only remains to fix the amount to which the plaintiffs are entitled. It is not shown that Rs. 250 is too much for marriage expenses. Even the defendant's 4th witness concedes that Rs. 400 is not too much to allow for katnam, and we decree that the plaintiffs are entitled to recover the actual katnam paid, subject to a maximum of Rs. 500 which is the figure allowed by the District Munsif and which no reason has been shown for reducing. As to serai the amount depends upon the pleasure of the given, and we think it is sufficient to a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›