Chennai Court May 1910 Judgments
Ramasawmi Aiyangar Vs. Shunmugam Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-06-1910
Reported in: (1910)20MLJ739
1. The plaintiff was a usufructuary mortgagee of the tenant's interest in a holding under the Tanjore Palace estate, of which the defendant was the Receiver. He sues for the recovery of a cow and calf distrained by the defendant for the rent of Fasli 1314 and for damages. The mortgage was redeemed by one Raghaviengar, who was the purchaser of the equity of redemption, on the 3rd September 1904. The defendant tendered a puttah to the plaintiff on the 22nd June 1905 and distrained on the 21st August 1905. The plaintiff contends that he was not the tenant tinder the Rent Recovery Act for the suit Fasli and that the distraint was in consequence illegal. The District Judge is of opinion that as the plaintiff gave no notice of the termination of his tenancy to the landlord the distraint was legal. It has been held by this Court that there is no warrant in Act VIII of 1865 for the view that a tenant, who has validly transferred his holding, continues to be liable for future rent if he has not...
Tag this Judgment!Ramasamy Ayyangar Vs. Shunmugam Pillai, Receiver and Manager, Palace E ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-06-1910
Reported in: (1911)ILR34Mad179
1. The plaintiff was a usufructuary mortgagee of the tenant's interest in a holding under the Tanjore Palace estate, of which the defendant was the receiver. Ha sues for the recovery of a cow and calf distrained by the defendant for the rent of fasli 1314 and for damages. The mortgage was redeemed by one Raghaviengar, who was the purchaser of the equity of redemption, on the 3rd September 1904. The defendant tendered a patta to the plaintiff on the 22nd June 1905, and distrained on the 21st August 1905. The plaintiff contends that he was not the tenant under the Rent Recovery Act for the suit fasli, and that the distraint was, in consequence, illegal. The District Judge is of opinion that, as the plaintiff gave no notice of the termination of his tenancy to the landlord, the distraint was legal. It has been held by this Court that there is no warrant in Act VIII of 1865 for the view that a tenant, who has validly transferred his holding, continues to be liable for future rent if he has...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Aiyar Vs. Balammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-06-1910
Reported in: (1911)ILR34Mad398
Krishnaswami Ayyar, J.1. The suit is by a husband for restitution of conjugal rights. The District Judge has dismissed it as barred by limitation. We are unable to agree with him. It is true Article 35 of the Limitation Act of 1877 bars the suit for restitution if there has been a demand and refusal more than two years before. The decisions of this Court and of the Bombay and Calcutta High Courts are clear [Saravanai Perumal Pillai v. Poovayi I.L.R. (1905) Mad. 436, Dhanjibhoy Bomanji v. Hirabai I.L.R. (1901) Bom. 644, Asirunnessa Khatun v. Buzloo Meah I.L.R. (1907) Cal. 79.]2. But in this case a suit was brought after a demand and refusal for restitution of conjugal rights (Original Suit No. 313 of 1903). And that was compromised on the 25th July 1904. By the compromise (exhibit I) the parties agreed to live together 'according to the custom of the world.' The agreement further provides 'If on any day subsequent to this and for any reason whatever you (the wife) should not like to liv...
Tag this Judgment!Ramasawmy Iyengar Vs. Shanmoogam Pillay and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-06-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.210
1. The plaintiff was a usufructuary mortgagee of the tenant's interest in a holding under the Tanjore Palace estate, of which the defendant was the receiver. He sues for the recovery of a cow and calf distrained by the defendant for the rent of Fasli 1314 and for damages. The mortgage was redeemed by one Ragaviengar, who was the purchaser of the equity of redemption on the 3rd September 1904. The defendant tendered a pattah to the plaintiff on the 22nd June 1905 and distrained on the 21st August 1905. The plaintiff contends that he was not the tenant under the Rent Recovery Act for the suit Fasli and that the distraint was in consequence illegal. The District Judge is of opinion that as the plaintiff gave no notice of the termination of his tenancy to the landlord, the distraint was legal. It has been held by this Court that there is no warrant in Act VIII of 1865 for the view that a tenant, who has validly transferred his holding, continues to be liable for future rent if he has not g...
Tag this Judgment!Deenabandu Choudari Vs. Vinayaka Doss and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-06-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.174
Abdur Rahim, J.1. The judgment of the lower appellate Court, which confirms the judgment of the District Munsif, cannot be supported. The mere attestation of a deed of sale executed by a person does not in law amount to a representation by the at testator that the vendor has a good title to the property. In this case the 2nd defendant obtained a conveyance of certain property from defendants Nos. 3 to 5 and this document was attested by the plaintiff. In 1903 the plaintiff obtained a mortgage of the same property from the 1st defendant and it is found that the 1st defendant is the owner of the property and not defendants Nos. 3 to 5. At the time of the sale by defendant Nos. 3 to 5 to the 2nd defendant, the plaintiff had no interest in the property at all. The District Munsif relies on the facts that the plaintiff after this mortgage bought a portion of the mortgaged land from 1st defendant and that for some time the plaintiff and defendants Nos. 2 to 5 have been on bad terms together,...
Tag this Judgment!Govinda Parama Guruvu, Trustee of Sri Radha Kanta Swamy's Temple at Pu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-06-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.74
1. It may be doubted whether the Judge is right in holding that the defendants were occupancy tenants. It is unnecessary to decide that question as we were already of opinion that Section 6 Clause (1) of Act I of 1908, as amended by Act IV of 1909, clearly conferred on them, a permanent right of occupancy. The suit was instituted in 1905 and the appeal decree was passed in 1906 and it is contended that the rights of parties are not affected by an enactment subsequently passed, and also that, at any rate in second appeal we are only entitled to consider the correctness or otherwise of the decree under appeal. The words of the Section are quite clear. Section 6 of Act I of 1908 enacts that 'every ryot now in possession...of ryoti land...shall have a permanent right of occupancy' and under Act IV of 1909 every ryot now in possession shall include every person who, having held land as a ryot, continues in possession of such land at the commencement of this Act.' The only question, therefor...
Tag this Judgment!Shunmuga Pallavaran and ors. Vs. Soosai Udayan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-06-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.537
1. We agree with the Judge that the plaintiffs' claim is res judicata in so far as they claim a fresh partition of the lands that were divided in execution of the decree in Original Suit No. 15 of 1904.2. Of the properties that were mortgaged to the father of the 2nd defendant by the plaintiffs' family, the plaintiffs are entitled to two-thirds and the 3rd defendant to one-third and they are liable to pay their proportionate share of the mortgage money. The plaintiffs are not entitled to recover possession of the one-third share that may have been delivered to the 3rd defendant in execution. But they are entitled to redeem the other two-thirds. If any property remains undivided then that has to be divided between the plaintiffs and the 3rd defendant. As the mortgage cannot be redeemed in part, the plaintiffs must pay the entire mortgage amount to the 2nd defendant and recover possession of their two-thirds share having a lien for the remaining third on one-third of the lands in the pos...
Tag this Judgment!Emani Subbiah and ors. Vs. K. Venkata Lakshmipathi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-06-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.530
1. The Munsif finds that the defendants' predeeessors-in-title obtained Inam title-deeds for the land in dispute in 1863 and that they continued in possession since then. The extract from the Inam Register also shows that they were in possession since 1860. In appeal, the Subordinate Judge finds that the widow's possession continued till her death in 1903. If this is so, no doubt, no inference can be drawn in favour of the defendants from the Inam title-deed and Register. But the Subordinate Judge does not refer to these two documents. If they were in possession, then, the evidence of the widow's continued possession cannot be accepted at any rate without some explanation to explain those documents. If the defendants continued in possession after 1868, the effect of the Inam title-deed has to be considered. If the land belonged to the Government at that time or if they could then confer full ownership, the defendants would acquire title thereto. In any event when the defendants prove p...
Tag this Judgment!Pandiri Bangaram and ors. Vs. Karumoory Subbaraju and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-05-1910
Reported in: (1911)ILR34Mad159
1. The plaintiff has obtained a decree against the one-third share of the first defendant. He purported to mortgage one half during 'his father's life-time when he was only entitled to a third. It is found by the District Judge in paragraph 17 of his judgment, and we entirely agree with him, that the plaintiff knew at the date of the mortgage that the first defendant was only entitled to a third share in the property. We are also clear that the plaintiff did not bargain and pay for a half share. Under these circumstances the question is raised whether the plaintiff can bring his case within the four corners of Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act. We are asked to say that, in the absence of words in Section 43 to the effect that the benefit of that section can only be claimed by a person who has believed in and acted upon the representation, the plaintiff is entitled to proceed against the added interest of the father. We are unable to accept this view. It is true Section 41 of t...
Tag this Judgment!Vidyapurna Thirthaswami Vs. Uggannu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-05-1910
Reported in: (1911)ILR34Mad231
ORDER1. The District Munsif states that the mulgar and the mulgenidar are jointly entered in the register as patttadars. The District Judge says that the mulgar is the pattadar and this seams to be supported by exhibit D. It is strongly contended before us that the mulgenidar alone is the pattadar, and the patta exhibit B as translated to us, seems to bear this interpretation. We must ask the District Judge to enquire and report who is, in fact, the registered pattadar,2. Fresh evidence may, if necessary, be taken on both sides on this question. The report should be submitted within one month and seven days will be allowed for filing objections.3. In compliance with the above order, the District Judge of South Canara submitted the following4. Report.--Plaintiff, mulgar, sued his mulgeni tenant to make the latter pay the enhanced revenue on the holding. He failed both originally and on appeal.5. On second appeal, I am asked to enquire and report who is In fact the registered pattadar of...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »