Chennai Court December 1912 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.
Kolathu Aiyar Vs. Ranga Vadhyar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1912
Reported in: (1913)24MLJ84
1. The only question of law which it is necessary to decide in this case is whether a contract of pre-emption can be forced against the heirs of the person who entered into the contract and, if so, whether the rule against perpetuities may be relied on as rendering the contract invalid as against the heirs. The argument in this case was that 'the covenantor Ammaippen Ammal in the event of selling the property in question, should sell it to Abbu Vathiar Vagaira on receiving the value stated and if any building should be erected thereon the cost thereof; but in case they do not desire it she could sell it away to others according to her pleasure.' The suit for the enforcement of the agreement was instituted against the heirs of the covenantor. Both the Lower Courts decided that the agreement was enforceable against the defendants.2. The first question is whether the agreement is enforceable against the heirs of the covenantor. Nobin Chandra Soot v. Nabob Ali Sirkar (1900) 5 C.W.N. 343, i...
T.B.K. Visvanathaswamy Naicker Vs. Kamu Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1912
Reported in: (1913)24MLJ271
Miller, J.1. The appellant is the son of the late Zamindar of Bodinayakanur who died on the 15th of December 1888. The principal question which we have to decide is whether his mother Karuppayee the 4th defendant in the suit, was married to the Zamindar or not. The Subordinate Judge has found that she was not married, and I concur in that conclusion. It is conceded that there were no marriage ceremonies performed; it is conceded that there are ceremonies ordinarily in use in Kumbala caste to which the Zamindar belonged. The lady was a lady of a different caste, of the Marava caste--the daughter--so far as we know--of an agriculturist who lived in the town of Bodinayakanur. It is conceded that there is a secondary form of marriage which in Ramasami Kamaya Naik v. Sundaralingasami Kamaya Naik I.L.R. (1893) M. 422, was found to be a legal marriage in this caste in the Saptur Zamindary and it is conceded that that form of marriage was not made use of on the occasion of the union of the Zam...
Kolathu Ayyar Vs. Ranga Vadhyar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1912
Reported in: (1915)ILR38Mad114
Sundara Ayyar, J.1. The only question of law which it is necessary to decide in this case is whether a contract of pre eruption can be enforced against the heirs of the person who entered into the contract and, if so, whether the rule against perpetuities may be relied on as rendering the contract invalid as against the heirs. The agreement in this case was that the covenantor Ammaippen Ammal in the event of selling the property in question 'should sell it to Appa Vathiar wagaira on receiving the value stated and if any building should be erected thereon, the cost thereof; but in case they do not desire it she could sell it away to others according to her pleasure.' The suit for the enforcement of the agreement was instituted against the heirs of the covenantor. Both the lower courts decided that the agreement was enforceable against the defendants.2. The first question is whether the agreement is enforceable against the heirs of the covenantor. Nobin Chandra Soot v. Nabab Ali Sarkar 5...
Ramasawmy Iyengar Vs. Chinnathambi Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1912
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.10
Sundara Aiyar, J.1. The decree in this case was passed on the 23th March 1907. The order absolute was passed on the 14th October 1907. It has been held by this Court in at least two cases, following a decision of the Privy Council, that limitation in the case of an application for the execution of a decree for sale in a mortgage suit runs only from the date when the decree absolute is passed. It is not shown that the decree was made absolute more than three years before the date when the present application was put in. According to the statement in the order of the lower Appellate Court, it was passed within that time.2. I dismiss the appeal....
Kolathu Aiyer Vs. Rangavadhyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1912
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.202
1. The only question or law which it is necessary to decide in this case is, whether a contract of pre-emption can be forced against the heirs of the person who entered into the contract and, if so, whether the rule against perpetuities may be relied on as rendering the contract invalid as against the heirs. The agreement in this case was that the covenantor, Ammaippen Ammal, in the event of selling the property in question should sell it to Abba Vathiar vagaira, on receiving the value stated and, if any building should be erected thereon, the costs thereof; but in case they do not desire it, she could sell it away to others according to her pleasure. The suit for the enforcement of the agreement was instituted against the heirs of the covenantor. Both the lower Courts decided that the agreement was enforceable against the defendants.2. The first question is whether the agreement is enforceable against the heirs of the covenantor. Nobin Chandra Soot v. Nawab Ali Sarkar 5 C.W.N. 343 is ...
Kurucha Gangu Naidu Vs. Kovvuri Basava Reddy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1912
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.691
1. These are appeals against a decree permitting the plaintiffs to redeem a half share of a village, Sirijam, in Vizagapatam District, on payment to the 1st defendant of Rs. 12,500. In Appeal Suit No. 233 of 1909, the 1st defendant contends that the suit should have been dismissed, because he not only holds the mortgage, but has also acquired the equity of redemption of the whole village by purchase from its real owner, the members of another branch of the plaintiff's family. In Appeal No. 193 of 1909, the 3rd defendant in the alternative attacks the plaintiffs' title, as having originated in a sale effected in fraud of creditors, and relies on his own purchase of the equity of redemption at a Court-sale, as entitling him not the plaintiffs to redeem.2. We can deal with Appeal No. 233 of 1909 shortly, because we concur in the lower Court's treatment of the evidence relating to this part of the case. It is argued that the village belonged originally to two brothers, Venkatakristna Raju ...
Raja Ram Vs. Ram Boy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1912
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.77; (1913)24MLJ75
1. The plaintiffs instituted the suit out of which this second appeal arose for ejecting the defendants from certain lands belonging to the Kama Boi Chatram at Villupuram in the South Arcot District. The facts found by the lower Courts are as follows: The founder of the Chatram Kama Boi had two brothers, Lal Singh and Banu Singh. Lalu had six sons, Thula Ram, Subba Ram, Tikka Ram, Thotha Ram and two others. Tikka Ram was adopted to Banu Singh, his uncle. The two brothers, Lalu Ram and Banu, apparently succeeded to the trusteeship after the founder's death. Thula Sam and Tikka Ram (the latter apparently as the representative of Banu Singh) managed the Chatram affairs till the death of Tikka Ram. Tikka Ram left a minor son (the 2nd plaintiff) surviving him. During his minority, the Chatram was managed by Thula Ram till he died. In 1902 his adopted son, Balaji, executed an agreement, Exhibit A, in favour of the plaintiffs. By this agreement the plaintiffs were to be in possession and enjo...
Sundara Reddiar Vs. Subbiah Koundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1912
Reported in: (1913)24MLJ28
1. When the plaintiff instituted O.S. No. 412 of 08 he had not discharged Subba Reddi's mortgage, He had then a valid and enforceable mortgage only to the extent of the consideration paid by him for his mortgage bond. When he subsequently paid off Subba Reddi's mortgage he became entitled under 74 of the Transfer of Property Act to the rights of Subba Reddi under his mortgage. His cause of action to enforce that right was distinct from his right on his mortgage bond. We agree with the learned District Judge in holding that the present suit is not barred by Section 11 or Order 2 Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code. We also agree in holding that the plaintiff's proper remedy was not to proceed in execution on the mortgage decree in favour of Subba Reddi but to institute a fresh suit on the right acquired by him by paying off Subba Reddi. See Gopi Narain Khanvi v. Bansidhar I.L.R. (1905) A. 325. We fail to see how the plaintiff could be estopped from ,doing so either against the 1st...
Savala Cunniah Chetty Vs. Thiruvengada Ramanujachariar and 3 ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1912
Reported in: (1913)24MLJ48
1. This suit which relates to a charity was instituted when the repealed Civil Procedure Code Act XIV of 1882 was in force. According to the construction placed on Section 539 of the Code by this Court it was not applicable to a suit instituted by a person having a special right such as one next entitled to be the trustee of the charity.2. The plaintiff as the person entitled under the Hindu Law to be the trustee after 2nd defendant was clearly entitled to institute the suit. Neither Exhibit A nor Exhibit D made any special provision for the succession to the office of trustee. We reverse the decree of the lower appellate Court and remand the appeal for disposal on the merits according to law. The respondents will pay the costs of this second appeal.3. The costs in the lower appellate Court will abide the result....
The Secretary of State for India in Council Represented by the Collect ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1912
Reported in: (1913)24MLJ31
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The appellant is the Secretary of State for India in Council. The suit as amended was for possession of Padugai land on the banks of the Cauvery from the defendant (Appellant). The District Munsif found that the whole village of Kadiakurichi in the Trichniopoly Taluk belonged to the plaintiff as Inamdar, that the grant to the Plaintiff included Poramboke land and the plaint land bounded on the north by the Cauvery stream bed was included in the Poramboke granted to the Plaintiff and that ^he Plaintiff's title was therefore established. Rut he dismissed the suit on the ground that the Government by j occasionally cutting branches from the trees standing on the ground, had been in adverse possession as against the plaintiff for twelve years before suit, and the plaintiff's suit was therefore barred. On appeal the learned District Judge confirmed the Munsif's finding as to title but differed on the question of adverse possession and holding that the plaintiff was exer...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »