Chennai Court November 1911 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Yimani Sitarama Sastrulu Vs. Gora Ramudu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.190
1. Madras Act III of 1895 has no application to a Gadala service inam. See Sreeranudhu Yarranna v. Donhira Kannamma (1911) 2 M.W.N. 354 : 21 M.L.J. 962 : 10 M.L.T. 561 : 12 Ind. Cas. 457. The service is that of a palanquin bearer to the zemindar. The sale of such an inam is not contrary to public policy. We reverse the decree of the lower Appellate Court and restore that of the District Munsif with costs both here and in the lower Appellate Court....
Peediangadi Cheriyapurayil Cheeria Imbichi Beebi and ors. Vs. Puthiyan ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.791
1. The parties to this suit are Muhammadans of Calicut. The plaintiffs' claim is to recover a half share of certain claim is to recover a half shar of certain properties together with past profits for a period of 10 years prior to the suit and future profit till delivery. By a karar between the members of the family. Exhibit I, dated the 3rd September, 1893, it was declared that all the propetties comprised in it were dedicated as wakf by a deceased ancestor and managed as wakf property by the senior male member for the time being, the surplus income after defraying the expenses of the members of the wakf's family. The manner in which the administration of the property was carried on and the surplus and dissensions in the family and the object of the karar is stated to be to frame a scheme which would put an end to quarrels amount the members in the future, The karar is stated to be to frame a scheme which would put an end to quarrels amount the members in the future, The karar recites...
Nataraja Iyer Vs. the South India Bank, thro' their Agent Subbiah Iyer ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.91; (1912)22MLJ105
1. The question in this appeal is whether the sale, in execution of a decree, of a debt due to the judgment-debtor under a hypothecation bond is liable to be set aside on the ground of irregularity. It cannot be so set aside, if it is to be regarded, as held by the lower court, as moveable property within the meaning of Order XXI, Rule 46, corresponding to Section 268 of the old Code. The language of Rule 46, which treats as moveable property a ' debt not secured by a negotiable instrument,' is undoubtedly wide enough to cover a debt secured by a hypothecation bond or a simple mortgage.2. But it is contended that such a debt is immoveable property within the definition of such property as given in the General Clauses Act as including a benefit arising out of land. It may be that a security of this character is a benefit arising out of land but supposing that this definition would show that a simple mortgage debt would generally speaking be regarded as immovable property, still we have ...
Polima Achanna (Died) and ors. Vs. Maddipati Venkataramanna
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1911
Reported in: (1912)22MLJ127
1. The suit in this case was instituted under Section 12 of Act VIII of 1865 for recovery of possession of the laud from which the plaintiff, a ryot, was ejected by the landholder in pursuance of an order obtained under Section 10 of Act VIII of 1865 in consequence of the plaintiff's failure to accept a patta which he was directed to accept by the Revenue court. The plaintiff claimed also damages sustained by him' in consequence of the unlawful eviction. The order of eviction was passed by the court on the 20 January 1906 and was carried out on the 22nd contrary to the provisions of Section 70 of the Act which enacts that the tenant shall not be evicted before the expiration of thirty days from the date of the order. The District Court held that the suit was not maintainable under Section 12 of the Act and in so holding it was right, as that section only provides that no tenant shall be ejected without an order under Section 10 or Section 41, but the learned vakil for the appellants co...
Subbiah Pillai and ors. Vs. Vellappa Naicker and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1911
Reported in: (1912)22MLJ124
1. The suit is for specific performance of an agreement to sell certain land entered into between the plaintiff and the first defendant. 'The latter subsequently sold the land to the second to fourth defendants. The plaintiff asked for a declaration that the sale in favour of defendants 2 to 4 was void as against him and for a direction that the first defendant do execute a conveyance of the land in the plaintiff's favour, and this is the decree that has been passed by the District Court. We accept the finding of the Judge that the plaintiff is entitled to specific performance. The sale to defendants 2 to 4 is good in law subject to the plaintiff's right. Section 91 of the Trusts Act enacts that in such a case the subsequent purchaser is a trustee of the property in law for the person who has a prior agreement for sale. The proper course in such a case would be to direct a reconveyance to be executed by the subsequent purchaser. We believe that the practice generally in the mofussil co...
T. Venkatagiri Aiyar and ors. Vs. P. Sadagopachariar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1911
Reported in: (1912)22MLJ129
1. The lands in suit were hypothecated to Lakshmana Goundan in 1877. He brought a suit (O.S. No. 8 of 1881) to enforce that mortgage, obtained a final decree in 1890 and purchased it in 1895. The plaintiff is his assignee: he obtained possession in 1897. He now sues the defendant for confirmation of, and injunction against, any disturbance of his possession.2. The defendant obtained a simple mortgage of the same lands in 1880. He sued in O.S. No. 12 of 1886 to enforce his claim, obtained a decree for the sale of the hypothecated property subject to the lien of Lakshmana Goundan, the prior mortgagee, who was the 8th defendant in the suit, and brought the equity of redemption to sale in 1905. He says he got possession in 1906.3. The defendant was not a party to the prior mortgagee's O.S. No. 8 of 1881. In the District Court the question was raised whether lands in suit were included in the mortgage of 1877. It was disallowed by that court and we see no reason to allow it.4. On these fact...
Nataraja Iyer Vs. the South Indian Bank of Tinnevelly Through their Ag ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1911
Reported in: (1914)ILR37Mad51
1. The question in this appeal is whether the sale in execution of a decree of a debt due to the judgment-debtor under a hypothecation bond is liable to be set aside on the ground of irregularity. It cannot be so set aside, if it is to be regarded as field by the lower Court as movable property within the meaning of Order XXI, Rule 46, corresponding to Section 268 of the old Code. The language of Rule 46, which treats as moveable property, a debt not secured by a negotiable instrument, is undoubtedly wide enough to cover a debt secured by a hypothecation bond or a simple mortgage.2. But it is contended that such a debt is immovable property within the definition of such property as given in the General Clauses Act as including a benefit arising out of land. It may be that a security of this character is a benefit arising out of land; but, supposing that this definition would show that a simple mortgage debt would, generally speaking, be regarded as immovable, property, still we have go...
Nataraja Iyer Vs. the South India Bank and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.91
1. The question in this appeal is, whether the sale in execution of a decree of a debt due to the judgment-debtor under a hypothecation bond is liable to be set aside on the ground of irregularity. It cannot be so set aside if it is to be regarded, as held by the lower Court, as moveable property within the meaning of Order XXI, Rule 46, corresponding to Section 268 of the old Code. The language of Rule 46 which treats as moveable property a 'debt not secured by a negotiable instrument,' is undoubtedly wide enough to cover a debt secured by a hypothecation bond on a simple mortgage.2. But, it is contended, that such a debt is immoveable property within the definition of such property as given in the General Clauses Act, as including a benefit arising out of land. It may be that a security of this character is a benefit arising out of land, but supposing that this definition would show that a simple mortgage-debt would, generally speaking, be regarded as immoveable property, still we ha...
Polina Achanna and ors. Vs. Madipati Venkataramana
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.175
1. The suit in this case was instituted under Section 12 of Act VTQ of 1865 for recovery of possession of the land from which the plaintiff, a ryot, was ejected by the land-holder in pursuance of an order obtained under Section 10 of Act VIII of 1865, in consequence of the plaintiff's failure to accept a patta which he was directed to accept by the Revenue Court. The plaintiff claimed also damages sustained by him in consequence of the unlawful eviction. The order of eviction was passed by the Revenue Court on the 20th January 1906 and was carried out on the 22nd contrary to the provisions of Section 70 of the Act, which enacts that the tenant shall not be evicted before the expiration of thirty days from the date of the order. The District Court held that the suit was not maintainable under Section 12 of the Act and in so holding it was right, as that Section only provides that no tenant shall be ejected without an order under Section 10 or Section 41. But the learned Vakil for the ap...
Subiha Pillay and ors. Vs. Velappa Naicken and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.176
1. The suit is for specific performance of an agreement to sell certain land, entered into between the plaintiff and the first defendant. The latter subsequently sold the land to the second and fourth defendant?. The plaintiff asked for a declaration that the sale in favour of defendants Nos. 2 to 4 was void as against him, and for a direction that the first defendant to execute a conveyance of the land in the plaintiff's favour and this is the decree that has been passed by the District Court We accept the finding of the Judge that the plaintiff is entitled to specific performance. The sale to the defendants Nos. 2 to 4 is good in law subject to the plaintiff's rights. Section 91 of the Trusts Act enacts that in such a case the subsequent purchaser is a trustee of the property in law for the person who has a prior agreement for sale. The proper course in such a case would be to direct a conveyance to be executed by the subsequent purchaser. We believe that the practice generally in th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »