Chennai Court August 1909 Judgments
Katankandi Koma Alias Koyammotti Vs. Thamburam Kandi Siva Sankaran and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1909
Reported in: (1910)20MLJ134
1. We cannot accept the evidence as establishing the position for which the plaintiff contends, that Chirattha the purchaser named in Exhibit II had no interest in the paramba purchased. Exhibit K is most untrustworthy as a statement of title because it was made in a suit in which it was the object of the present 2nd defendant to defeat the claims of a mortgagee from her mother and to do this she alleged, if indeed she did allege, that her mother had no interest. The document is not entirely clear. We are not sure that the 2nd defendant did not intend to admit her mother's interest, and merely to allege that she had no right to alienate without her (the 2nd defendant's) consent.2. The witness K. Kannan no doubt says that the purchase of the paramba was made at his mother's suggestion for the 1st and 2nd defendants, but there is no explanation why, if Kanaran intended his wife to have no interest, he made the purchase in her name. It is quite possible that he did not, when it came to th...
Tag this Judgment!Arunachellam Chettiar Vs. Manicka Varaher Desikar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.437
1. The appellant has been restrained by injunction from selling the mortgaged property in execution of his decree. Now, he wants a Receiver appointed, to be in charge of the mortgaged property and to place the income therefrom in charge of the Court, as long as the order stopping the sale of the mortgaged property continues. Now, should it be eventually found that the appellant is not entitled to sell the property, it may well be that he is entitled, in execution of his decree, to proceed against, the income of the property receivable by the judgment-debtor, and the only way in which the income can be preserved would be by the appointment of a Receiver. There is nothing in the appointment of a Receiver for this purpose inconsistent with the injunction which has been granted, and in the circumstances of this case we think it just that a Receiver should be appointed. The fact that the decree is a decree in a mortgage suit is no bar to the appointment of a Receiver vide Ghanashyam Misser ...
Tag this Judgment!Periathambi Udayan Vs. Angammal Alias Amminiammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.725
Munro, J.1. The execution of the bond was admitted, and the burden of proving want of consideration was upon the defendants and they adduced no evidence. Even otherwise, the evidence of the plaintiff's witnesses proved payment. of the entire consideration and stands unrebutted by any evidence on record. As to the interest at 75 per cent. from the date of default, I do not think it is a penalty within the meaning of Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act IX of 1872. The defendants were given the use of the money on the understanding that if they repaid it in certain instalments they would be charged no interest, but if they failed to repay as agreed they would be liable to pay it with interest. The defendants are not in a worse position than if at the time they had borrowed the money they had agreed to pay the interest now demanded. The rate of 75 per cent. is, no doubt, high, but there is nothing to show that the defendants did not enter into the contract with their eyes wide open or th...
Tag this Judgment!P.S.K. Hajee Sheik Meera Rowther Vs. the President of the Corporation ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.744
1. In this case the question is whether the appellant exercises his trade in the town of Madras within the meaning of Section 120 of the Madras City Municipal Act, III of 1904. Under that section a man is not liable to pay any profession tax if he carries on a trade elsewhere, but only does some act in Madras incidental to the exercise of such trade. On the other hand it is not necessary that all the acts incident to the carrying on of his trade should be done in Madras to make him liable under Section 120. The question, therefore, is whether the appellant who is a trader in piece goods and has a shop in Tinnevelly where he sells the goods and earns his profit, can be said to carry on the trade here because he buys his goods at Madras through a servant who forwards them to Tinnevelly. He has no office here, and the servant who buys the goods, so far as it appears merely carries out his orders. ~No doubt in certain kinds of business the buying of the goods may be the most important and ...
Tag this Judgment!Bhimarazu Varadayya Vs. Manchukonda Nammalwar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-1909
Reported in: (1910)20MLJ88
1. The question is whether an unenfranchised inam can be attached and sold in execution of a decree of a Civil Court. We think it can. The question must be settled by reference to Act XXIII of 1871 which consolidates the law relating to pensions and grants by Government of money or land revenue. Now while Section 4 of the Act prevents a Civil Court from entertaining a suit relating to a pension or grant of money or land revenue it has been thought necessary in Section 11 to state that certain pensions are not liable to attachment by the Civil Courts. The omission of grants of money or land revenue is significant and shews clearly that under Act XXIII of 1871 such grants are not exempt from attachment.2. This appeal is dismissed wich costs....
Tag this Judgment!Sundara Bai Sahiba Vs. Tirumala Rao Sahib and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-1909
Reported in: (1910)20MLJ103
1. The plaintiff, a widow, sues the defendants, her sons, for maintenance.2. She prays that her maintenance may be charged on certain immovable property situated within the local limits of the Original Jurisdiction of the High Court.3. Her suit is dismissed on the ground that the High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.4. The question is whether the suit is 'for land within Clause 12 of the Letters Patent.'' It is contended that suits for the recovery of possession alone fall within the clause. The High Court of Calcutta has held that suits to establish title to land, suits for foreclosure, sale, redemption, and suits for specific performance of contract for sale of land, are suits for land, and in a judgment in which the question was fully considered, Moore J. held that a suit for sale is a ' suit for land', following certain Calcutta decisions'- see Nalum Lahshmikantum v. Krishnaswami Mudaliar I.L.R. (1903) M. 157 and the Calcutta cases referred to therein; also The Delh...
Tag this Judgment!Carlapatti Chinna Cunniah and ors. Vs. Cota Wammalivariah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.475
1. It is first argued before is that the defendants are not entitled to claim under the will as they have not taken out probate or Letters of Administration. Section 87 of the Indian Succession Act is relied upon. But it has been decided that a defendant not precluded by that section from relying upon a will, as he is not seeking to establish a right as executor or legatee Janaki v. Dhanu Lall 14 M.k 454 and Original Suit Appeal No. 7 of 1905.2. The next question is, whether, under the will left, by Cota Thevaperumaliah who died in 1874, his widow took an absolute state or only a widow's estate. After making certain bequests the testator made the gift in question in the following terms. I give all the remaining properties of every sort which fell to my share to my wife, Andalu. Therefore, my aforesaid wife Andalu herself should enjoy all the remaining property.' Under Section 82 of the Succession Act, when property is bequeathed to any person, he is entitled to the whole interest of th...
Tag this Judgment!Sundara Bai Saheb Vs. A. Thirumal Rao Saheb and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.930
1. In Appeal No. 82 of 1906.2. The plaintiff, a widow, sues the defendants, her sons, for maintenance. She prays that her maintenance may be charged on certain immovable property situated within the local limits of the original jurisdiction of the High Court.3. Her suit is dismissed on the ground that the High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.4. The question is whether the suit is for land within Clause 12 of the Letters Patent. It is contended that suits for the recovery of possession alone fall within the clause.5. The High Court of Calcutta has held that suits to establish title to land, suits for foreclosure, sale, redemption and suits for specific performance of contract for sale for land, are suits for land, and in a judgment in which the question was fully considered, Mitra, J. held that a suit for sale is a suit for land, following certain Calcutta decisions. See Nalam Lakshimikan tham v. Krishnaswami Mudaliar 27 M. k157 and the Calcutta cases referred to therein...
Tag this Judgment!Kaliappan Servai Karan Vs. Vardarajulu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.737
1. The appellant sued in Original Suit No. 47 of 1906 to recover the amount due on a pro-note executed by one Muthuchella, the deceased. He made the widow of Muthuchella defendant in the suit and on the '23rd March 1906, got an ex parte decree empowering him to recover the amount due under the note ' from the estate of the defendant's deceased husband in her hand'. The decree also directed the defendant to pay the appellant a_ certain sum for his costs. The deceased Muthuchella left daughters but no son. Prior to institution of Original Suit No. 47 of 1906, above referred, to, Varadarajulu, son of one of the daughters,' brought a suit, Original Suit No. 14 of 1904, against the widow of the deceased and others to establish a will executed by the deceased in his favour and to recover the property bequeathed to him thereunder. The suit was dismissed on the 27th September 1905, and it was while an appeal was pending in the District Court that the decree in Original Suit, No. 47 of 1906, wa...
Tag this Judgment!B.P. Narayan Sastrulu Vs. Kanakamuna
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.723
1. Having gone through the papers carefully since the matter was argued at the Bar, we are of opinion that the sanction granted by the lower appellate Court to prosecute the appellant before us under Section 191, Indian Penal Code, ought to be set aside. As we understand the order of the District Judge he founds the sanction, on paragraph 6 of the written statement filed by the present appellant in a suit instituted against him. by the respondent who is his daughter-in-law for the recovery of certain jewels.2. Paragraph 6 of the written statement is in these words that the defendant denies all the allegations in the plaint except those contained in paragraph 2. Having regard to the allegation in the plaint and the answer given thereto in the rest of the written statement we are clearly of opinion that this paragraph only means that the defendant does not admit the allegations of the plaint except those made in its second paragraph he having in the 3rd, 4th and 5th paragraphs of the wri...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »