Chennai Court May 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.
Ariyaputhira Padayachi and ors. Vs. Muthukumarasami and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-02-1912
Reported in: (1912)23MLJ339
Miller, J.1. I think the transaction alleged in this case to have taken place in 1892, may properly be held to be an exchange of property within the meaning of Section 118 of the Transfer of Property Act, if it is not a sale. By it the mortgagee gave up his right to possession in part of the land mortgaged and the mortgage money due to him and received the equity of redemption in another part of the land. Even if this transaction was made by way of a compromise of disputes, it is not suggested that it amounted merely to acknowledgment or adj ustment of existing rights and the operations amounted, I think, to transfer of ownership in immoveable property. The arrangement was, therefore, invalid for want cf a registered instrument and could not affect the title.2. It is, however, contended that it may be proved as showing the intention of the parties to discharge this mortgage at that time and so, as showing change in the nature of mortgagee's possession after the date of the arrangement,...
Maharaja Sree Maharaja Saheb Meharban Dostan Sree Maharaja Sri Honoura ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-02-1912
Reported in: (1914)ILR37Mad231
Sankaran Nair, J.1. The question is whether the plaintiff's application is barred by limitation. The plaintiff obtained a decree in Original Suit No. 11 of 1903 on the file of the District Court of Vizagapatam. The decree was transferred to the District Munsif's Court of Parvatipur for execution on the 5th October 1904. The decree-holder got certain immoveable properties attached, but the petition was dismissed on the 10th of March, 1905 and no further steps were taken in the District Munsif s Court. The decree-holder then applied to the District Court at Vizagapatam on the 13th December, 1907 for the sale of the property attached by the District Munsif. The petition was returned for amendment under Section 235 of the Code of Civil Procedure of 1882. It was represented without amendment and was then recorded without being registered. The decree-holder makes this present application on the 21st April 1910 for notice and for the realisation of the amount by sale of the properties already...
Ariyaputhira Padayachi and Two ors. Vs. Muthukomaraswami Padayachi and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-02-1912
Reported in: (1914)ILR37Mad423
Miller, J.1. I think the transaction alleged in this case ,to have taken place in 1892 may properly be held to be an exchange of property -within the meaning of Section 118 of the Transfer of Property Act, if it is hot sale. By it the mortgagee gave up his right to possession in part of the land mortgaged and the mortgage money due to him and received the equity of redemption in another part of the land. Even if this transaction was made by way of a compromise of disputes it is not suggested that it amounted merely to an acknowledgment or adjustment of existing rights and the operations amounted, I think, to transfers of ownership in immoveable property. The arrangement was therefore invalid for want of a registered instrument and could not affect the title.2. It is, however, contended that it may be proved as showing the intention of the parties to discharge this mortgage at that time and so, as showing charge in the nature of the mortgagee's possession after the date of the arrangeme...
N. Ramakrishna Ayyar Vs. V. Seetharama Ayyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-02-1912
Reported in: (1914)ILR37Mad527
Sundara Ayyar, J.1. In this case the plaintiff and defendant purchased adjacent houses. The wall between the two houses belongs to the defendant. The plaintiff has an upstair shed in his house which is supported on one side by the defendant's parapet wall CD. The suit is inter alia to restrain the defendant from interfering with his right of support. Both the lower Courts have found that the plaintiff has been in enjoyment o? the right of support for more than the period prescribed in Section 15 of the Easements Act. The plaintiff has been given a decree restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiffs right of support.2. Two points have been argued in this Second Appeal. The first is that the shed is only a temporary one and not permanently attached to plaintiff's house and that no right of support can be claimed for such a structure. But this contention was not raised in the Lower Courts. The point of contest there-was as to how long the shed had been in existence and n...
Balasubramanya Chetty Vs. Maruthamalai Gownden
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-02-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.215
1. There can be no doubt that the suit as framed is one for the recovery of damages for fraud and, viewed as such, the District Munsif was right in holding that it fell under Article 95 of Schedule I of the Limitation Act and was time-barred. The District Judge has in effect altered the frame of the suit and elected to treat it as one for the recovery of the whole or a portion of the purchase-money on account of failure of consideration, thus bringing it under Article 97 of the same Schedule. But, in so doing, he has overlooked the fact that such a suit would not lie, whereas in the present case, the failure of consideration was only partial. It has been already laid down in Sundara Gopalan v. Venkatavarada Ayyangar 3 M.L.J. 293 and Shanto Chandar Mookerjee v. Nain Sukh (1901) A.W.N. 101 that the purchaser in Court auction can only sue for recovery of purchase-money for partial failure of consideration on the ground of fraud. If fraud is alleged, the suit must, of course, be governed b...
In Re: Kintadu Dalapadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-02-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.457
Sundara Aiyar, J.1. In this case, the plaintiff obtained an agreement from the 2nd defendant, who was the owner of certain property, on the 29th April 1908 for the sale of the property to him. The 2nd defendant executed a mortgage document in favour of the 1st defendant, which was registered on the 2nd May 1908. The lower Appellate Court has found that it was not executed on the date it bears, namely, in January 1908, but subsequent to the agreement in plaintiff's favour. The plaintiff obtained a sale-deed from the 2nd defendant of the property on the 10th May 1908. The present suit is for a declaration that the mortgage executed in favour of the 1st defendant by the 2nd cannot affect the plaintiff's rights under the sale, it having been executed in order to defraud the plaintiff. The lower Appellate Court, reversing the finding of the Munsif, has found that the plaintiff's contention was made out that no consideration was paid by the 1st defendant for the mortgage and that he and 2nd ...
N. Ramakrishna Aiyar Vs. Seetharama Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-02-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.294
1. In this case the plaintiff and defendant purchased adjacent houses. The wall between the two houses belongs to the defendant. The plaintiff has an upstair shed in his house which is supported on one side by the defendant's parapet wall C. D. The suit is, inter alia, to restrain the defendant from interfering with his right of support. Both the lower Courts have found that the plaintiff has been in enjoyment of the right of support for more than the period prescribed in Section 15 of the Easements Act. The plaintiff has been given a decree restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff's right of support.2. Two points have been argued in this second appeal. The first is that the shed is only a temporary one and not permanently attached to plaintiff's house and that no right of support can be claimed for such a structure. But this contention why not raised in the lower Court. The point of contest there was as to how long the shed had been in existence and not the nature...
Govinda Reddi Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-02-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.648
ORDERSundara Aiyar, J.1. In this case the accused has been convicted of an offence under rules 8 and 15 framed under Section 26, Madras Forest Act, V of 1882. The charge runs in these terms: 'You are charged with having committed an offence under rules 8 and 15, framed under Section 26 of Act V. of 1882, in having got the accused Nos, 3 to 6 to cut without license a Neradu tree worth about Rs. 60 in the Vanka Poramboke Survey No. 162 of Noulakallu village about the month of April 1911.'2. Although the charge mentions Rule 8, it does not state clearly that the Vanka Poramboke Survery No. 162, in which the Neradu tree is said to have stood, was a reserved forest,' or 'reserved land'. And, apparently, there is no evidence on record to show that the place in question was 'reserved land,' Without such evidence, a conviction under Rule 8 could not be supported.3. The learned Public Prosecutor contends that, on the facts found, the accused would be guilty of an offence under Rule 9.4. That de...
In Re: Kaya Ramakrishnamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-02-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.432
Sundara Aiyar, J.1. The plaintiff instituted this suit for compensation for use and occupation of his land by the defendants in Fastis 1316 and 1317. Both the Courts have passed a decree in his favour. The facts found are, that the defendants originally entered into possession of the land under an oral agreement to take a lease for Faslis 1313 to 1317. A khat was to be executed subsequently. But the defendants did not execute any such instrument but continued to be in possession of the land. It is contended that the defendants must be regarded as the plaintiff's tenants, and the suit being for rent for a period prior to the enactment of the Estates Land Act, the plaintiff could not maintain the suit without having tendered a patta for each of the years. Bat the finding is that the defendants did not in fact become the tenants of plaintiff. They came into possession, no doubt, with plaintiff's permission, but what was legally required to make them tenants, namely the execution of a khat...
Sir Abhinava Purna Priya Vedaji Bhaskar Thirumal Rao Saheb. Vs. Arni R ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-01-1912
Reported in: (1912)23MLJ79
1. This appeal is by the defendant, the Jagirdar of Ami, in a suit instituted by the plaintiff to establish his right to receive maintenance from the defendant at Rs. 60 per month and for the recovery of arrears at the same rate from July 1905. The plaintiff is the adopted son of one Lakshmana Rao Sabeb who was the grandson of the plaintiff's grand-father's grand-father, Tirumal Rao, Saheb. Tirumal Rao had two sons, Srinivasa Rao and Venkata Rao. The defendant is the grand-son of Venkata Rao by adoption and the plaintiff is the great grand-son of Srinivasa Rao. The Jagir of Ami is an impartible estate descendible to a single heir according to the' rule of lineal primogeniture and is included in the schedule to the Madras Impartible Estates Act. The plaint alleges that the Jagir is a joint ancestral hereditary estate of the family of the parties and is subject to the liability under the Hindu Law of providing for the maintenance of the other members of the family. It alleges further tha...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »