Chennai Court January 1912 Judgments
Rayi Krishnayya Vs. Ganga Bai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.357
1. We are unable to agree with the learned Judge that the question whether the documents by which the plaintiff's deceased husband transferred his rights in the plaint properties to the defendant were nominal transactions not intended to have any legal operation, is res judicata by reason of the decision in Original Suit No. 151 of 1901. In that suit it was decided that the transfers in question would not affect the plaintiff's right to maintenance out of her husband's properties. The issue framed in that suit was whether the alienations were binding on the plaintiff. There was no issue whether they were nominal transactions. No doubt they were characterised as bogus transactions in one portion of the judgment, but in another portion they were treated as collusive transfers brought about by the alienee and by the plaintiff's husband to defeat the plaintiff's right to maintenance. In the latter case, they would be binding on the plaintiff's husband, and on the plaintiff seeking to recov...
Tag this Judgment!Chalasamy Ramiah Vs. Chalasammy Ramaswami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1912
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.903
1. This is an application to revise the order of the District Munsif's Court of Ellore holding that the suit for partition instituted by the plaintiff in that Court was within the jurisdiction of his Court. The question raised for decision before him was whether a plaintiff, claiming partition but alleging that he is in possession jointly with the defendant of the properties belonging to both in common, is entitled to value the relief claimed by him for purposes of jurisdiction according to his own discretion, or whether the rules contained in Section 7, Clause 5 of the Court Fees Act, apply to such a suit. The Munsif held that the plaintiff was entitled to put his own value on the relief claimed by him. This petition asks us to set aside that order. A preliminary objection is raised by the respondent that we should not intefere as the order in question is an interlocutory one. It is not contended that we have no jurisdiction to set aside an interlocutory order, and the decisions of th...
Tag this Judgment!Valliammai Achi by Her Agent Dorasawmy Pillay Vs. Nataraja Pillay and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1912
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.906
ORDERMiller, J.1. The first defendant is the appellant.2. The respondent, who has filed his memorandum of objections (the plaintiff in the suit) has by mistake, he says, omitted to make the 2nd and 3rd defendants parties to the memorandum and applies now to add their names to the record.3. It has been contended that I have no power to add parties to an appeal except under Order XLI, Rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but I am clear that there is no ground for that contention. But it is also contended that inasmuch as the 2nd and 3rd defendants are not interested in the appeal preferred by the appellant, they ought not to be made parties; not only does the appellant claim no relief against them, but if the plaintiff succeeds against them, the appellant will be in no way directly affected, but, if affected at all, will be indirectly benefited, for it is said the plaintiff will recover property not only for himself but for the appellant. The appellant, however, does not seek any reli...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Rangachariar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-26-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.190
Sundara Aiyar, J.1. It is urged that Exhibit III has been misconstrued, and that it shows that the plaintiff was really entitled only to one-quarter of half a pangu and not a half pangu. The appellant has been unable to show that this construction of Exhibit III was urged before the lower Courts and the document has not been placed before me. Both Courts find that the plaintiff proved his possession of half the pangu within 12 years prior to the suit.2. It is urged that the form of the issue relating to possession is incorrect inasmuch as it ran in these terms: '(iii) Whether the defendants have acquired any title by adverse possession?' No doubt in a suit for possession falling within Article 142 of the Limitation Act, the issue should properly be: Whether the plaintiff was in possession within 12 years prior to the suit?' Possibly, the form of the issue was due to the fact that another issue was framed, viz., the 2nd : 'Whether the plaintiff has acquired any title by adverse possessi...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Veerappa Chettyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-26-1912
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.660
ORDERSundara Aiyar, J.1. I am unable to say that there is any legal objection to the finding that the temple is not proved to be the owner of the plot in question. The case for the appellant has been put in this way. The documents show that the defendant was holding the land on Kosuaryam tenure. The defendant was doing gurrukkal service in the temple. It is not proved or alleged that the defendant was holding the land under any particular mirasidar, and, therefore, it must be taken that he was holding under the temple, being the only person whom the defendant was serving. The inference may be a proper one for a Court of fact to draw. But I cannot say that the lower Courts were mistaken in holding that the temple was bound to prove its title to the land before it could presume, on account of the incidence of Kasavaryam tenure, that the defendant, a Kesavaryamdar, was holding under the owner of the temple.2. The argument practically amounts to this, that the defendant was holding under s...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Prattipati Seshayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-26-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.403
Sundara Aiyar, J.1. I see no reason to doubt that the decision of the lower Appellate Court is right. It has been found that the 1st defendant's husband was adopted by Venkatalakshamma to her husband, Pedda Kamayya.* * *2. The next point raised is that, as it is found that Venkatalakshamma was in possession, the 1st defendant's husband's right to the property was extinguished and that the 1st defendant has, therefore, no right to retain possession now. An issue was raised in the Court of first instance with respect to the possession of the 1st defendant. The issue is in these terms: 'Whether the suit lands were in the possession and enjoyment of the 1st defendant for over 12 years before the institution of the suit?' The wording of the issue is rather curious. If the object were to raise the question now argued before me, one could have expected it to be framed somewhat in these words: 'Whether the possession of Venkatalakshamma was adverse to the 1st defendant, and whether the 1st def...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Velappa Gownden
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1912
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.640
Sundara Aiyar, J.1. The defendant took a sale-deed from the plaintiff's 2nd witness, who is the plaintiff's brother's widow. The plaintiff alleges in his plaint that he and his deceased brother were undivided, and that, after the latter's death, he became the sole owner of the plaint property and was in possession, and that his brother's widow executed a sale-deed in favour of the defendant, purporting to treat the property as hers by right of inheritance from her husband. The plaintiff asked for a declaration that the sale in favour of the defendant would not affect his rights in the property. Both the Courts have found against the plaintiff both on the question of his right as survivor to succeed to the property on his brother's death and on the question of possession. They have held that the plaintiff and his brother were divided. On the question of the validity of the alienation, the Munsif found that Rs. 1,000 was borrowed by the widow for defraying the expenses of her daughter's ...
Tag this Judgment!Ulagappa Chettiar Vs. Peria Karuppan Chetty Alias Vellachamy Chetty an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.195
1. In the present case, the onus of proof is on the 1st defendant, not on the plaintiff; and this distinguishes the present case from that relied on by the Subordinate Judge, Umayammai v. Muttiah Nadar 17 M.L.J. 99 . The oath has not in fact been taken by the defendant, and consequently the defendant's contention as to interest which was to have been proved conclusively by the defendant's oath has not been proved. Neither the Oaths Act nor any of the decisions referred to in the argument, Thoyi Ammal v. Subbaroya Mudali, 22 M.L 234; Majan v. Patbukutti 31 M.O 1 : 17 M.L.J. 545 : 3 M.L.T. 98 are authority for holding that in such circumstances that fact which was to have been proved by the oath must be taken to have been duly proved. No doubt a party ought not without good reason to be allowed to resile from his agreement, but if he does resile, the law does not provide that a decree may forthwith be given against him. Apparently, the only course open to the Court in the present case wa...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Krishnasawmi Doss
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1912
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.648
Sundara Aiyar, J.1. I am of opinion that there is no ground for interference in second appeal. The plaintiffs purchased certain lands from the 2nd defendant, one of the two members of an undivided family consisting of the 2nd defendant and his father, the 1st defendant. Before the sale to the plaintiff, the father had sold the lands to the 3rd defendant. The plaintiffs sued to enforce his sale of the son's half share and contended that the sale to the 3rd defendant by the lather was not binding on the son. The son did not appear. The question decided by both Courts was, whether the previous sale by the father to the 3rd defendant was binding on the son, in which case the sale in favour of plaintiff could not be given effect to.2. Both Courts have held that the sale is not binding on the son. The allegation of. the 1st defendant, the father, in his written statement, was that, being old, he found it difficult to cultivate the lands and sustained loss in consequence, and that he sold the...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Atyam Venktah and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.186a
Sundara Aiyar, J.1. I am of opinion that the decision of the lower Courts on the 4th issue, namely, whether the claim is res judicata, is right. The defendant instituted Original Suit No. 160 of 1907 for two years' payments due to her according to Exhibit I and obtained a decree. The plaintiff was bound to put forward in that suit all pleas which would entitle him to get the Court to hold that the agreement was not enforceable against him; any plea not then urged could not be gone into now.2. The only question, therefore, is whether there are any allegations in the plaint of events subsequent to that suit which would entitle the plaintiff to avoid the document. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant made a false complaint of the loss of some of the properties which are included in the Will, made by her, that the Police who investigated the case found that her allegations were false, and that the defendant, with a view to defeat the bequests made by her, concealed some of the property...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »