Chennai Court December 1910 Judgments
Maradugula Venkataratnam and ors. Vs. Kotala Ramanna and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-1910
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ413
1. The appellants instituted a suit in the District Court of Godaveri to establish their right to 650 logs of teakwood and for the recovery of the logs or their value, Rs. 25,000, from the defendants. The lower court has dismissed the suit, holding that the appellants failed to establish their title to the logs and hence this appeal.* * * *[Their Lordships after discussing the evidence proceeded as follows].2. The effect of the transactions between the plaintiffs and 1st defendant seems to be this:--Timber was prepared with the help of moneys advanced by plaintiffs to the 1st defendant under an agreement that they were to be sent to the plaintiffs so that the plaintiffs would sell and appropriate the sale-proceeds towards the discharge of the debt owing by the 1st defendant to the plaintiffs and the timber having been despatched from the forest where it was cut in pursuance of this agreement was in the course of transit when it was attached by the 2nd defendant. The timber was intended...
Tag this Judgment!Ramalinga Udayan Vs. Arukkani and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-1910
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.163
1. We entertain no doubt that the document is a simple mortgage as defined in Section 58 of the Transfer of Property Act, IV of 1882. We must, therefore, set aside the decree of the District judge and remand the appeal for disposal according to law.2. Costs will abide the result....
Tag this Judgment!Mankoothil Chethukutti Nair Vs. Kalyambath Kunhunni Nair and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-1910
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.171
1. In this case the lease Under the razinama reserved a right of preemption and pre-mortgage. These reservations are, in our opinion, valid conditions tinder Section 10 of the Transfer of Property Act, as being for the benefit of the lessor and are specifically enforceable against the covenantors and persons claiming under them by a title arising subsequently except in the case of transferees in good faith without notice.2. The District Munsif found that the 5th defendant had notice and there was no appeal on this point.3. In these circumstances, the plaintiff has rightly been allowed to redeem the 5th defendant's mortgage; Ashik Ali v. Mathura Kandu 5 A. 187. The second appeal is dismissed with costs.4. As regards the memorandum of objections, the decree must be modified by adding that the plaintiff do recover possession on making the required deposit. There will be no costs....
Tag this Judgment!Salem Town Bank, Ld., by Its Secretary, K. Narasinga Row Vs. S. Venkat ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-1910
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.197
Wallis, J.1. The contract, Exhibit A, has been reduced to writing and we cannot import into it any additional terms. On the face of it, it is a contract for the re-payment of an advance of Rs. 300 by 20 instalments without interest. The interest only becomes payable on default, and I do not think this is a case of a stipulation for an enhanced rate of interest on default so as to bring the case within the explanation to Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act(IX of 1872), or that the stipulation can be said to be penal.2. It follows that the plaintiff is entitled to recover interest at the contract rate of 18 3/4 per cent, and the decree will be modified by allowing interest at this rate instead of at 6 per cent. The respondents will pay the costs of the petitioner....
Tag this Judgment!Navanna Chinna Narasanna Vs. Suresetti Peda Venkatrayadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-1910
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.606
ORDERAyling, J.1. The only ground on which Mr. Prakasam attacks the Magistrate's order is that the Magistrate acted illegally in discharging the accused without examining all the prosecution witnesses. The second Clause of Section 253, Criminal Procedure Code, authorises him to do so, on recording his reasons, which he has done in this case. The only ruling quoted by Mr. Prakasam, Queen v. Parasurama Naicker 4 M. 329 was passed before the enactment of a Criminal Procedure Code containing such a provision. There is no ground for interference. The petition is dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Sreemant Raja Yarlagadda Mallikarjuna Prasada Naidu Bahadur Zamindar G ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-1910
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ156
1. The landlord claims to charge a certain rate for dry lands on which wet crops are raised with Government water under a contract entered into in Fasli 1279 when the change was made from the Asara to the Visabadi system. The District Judge is wrong in supposing that the plaintiff's case was that the question of the rate for such cultivation was reserved for future settlement. The mistake probably arose from the fact that this case was heard along with other cases where there was such a contention. But it is, however, now conceded that there is no evidence of the contract set up. The landlord then contends that he is entitled to varam under the 3rd clause of Section 11 of the Rent Recovery Act. It is argued on his behalf that the rule as to the Collector's sanction for enhancement does not apply when the landlord merely claims to revert to varam when there is no contract. We think this contention is right. The learned Advocate-General, who appears for the respondent, does not dispute t...
Tag this Judgment!Velu Pillai Vs. Appasami Pandaram and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-1910
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ444
Wallis, J.1. The award was on the 27th September 1909 and the decree was passed on the 29th September 1909. Under Rule 16 of Schedule II of the new Civil Procedure Code the court is empowered to pass the decree after the time for making an application to set aside the award has expired. A period of ten days is allowed for this purpose by Article 158 of the Limitation Act of 1908, whereas the court allowed only two. The decree is set aside and the case remanded for disposal according to law. Costs will abide the event....
Tag this Judgment!V. Venkataramayya Pantulu Vs. V.B. Narasinga Row and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-1910
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ454
1. The plaintiff institutes the suit on what he calls a mortgage by deposit of title-deeds. The 1st defendant is the mortgagor. The only document which is deposited with the plaintiff is a sale-deed in the name of the first defendant's father, dated the 10th of May 1879. Subsequent to the sale the father executes a deed of gift, Exhibit XV, in favour of his grandsons of a deceased son. Disputes having arisen amongst the members of the family, there is a reference to arbitration and an award dated the 10th November 1896. This award is filed in court under Section 525 of the Civil Procedure Code and a decree, Exhibit I, passed in terms of the award whereby the grandsons are directed to deliver the properties, which are the subject of the present so-called mortgage by deposit of title-deeds, to the 1st defendant. His claim of title to the property is not impeached; it is not denied that the property purchased by Anantaya in 1879 was his self-acquisition. The plaintiff does not say that th...
Tag this Judgment!Lakshmana Nadan Vs. Pakhia Nadathi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-1910
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.273
Wallis, J.1. I cannot say the District Munsif has exceeded his jurisdiction in granting a review for what he considered sufficient cause. See the judgment of the Judicial Committee in Reasut Hossein v. Hajee Abdoollah 2 C. 131 : 26 W.R. 50 : 3 I.A. 221. The petition is dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Arunachala Sastry Vs. Krishna Sastry and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-1910
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.272
Wallis, J.1. According to the recent decision in Indety Nagadu v. Potu Kinchi Venkatasubbiah 1 M.W.N. 639 : 8 M.L.T. 376 : 8 Ind. Cas. 365, it is for the, defendant who raises a defence of this kind to show that the land in question forms part of an estate as defined in the Madras Estates Land Act I of 1908. The definition in Section 3 Clause 2(d) is expressly limited to villages in which the land revenue alone has been granted in inam a person not owning the Kudivaram right. There is no evidence, and no presumption, that such is the case here. The decree must be set aside, and a decree passed in favour of the plaintiffs for Rs. 6 with costs throughout....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »