Chennai Court July 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.
Polireddi Chinnamma and ors. Vs. Maganti Venkatramaya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.60
1. The plaintiffs are reversioners and seek to recover property belonging to the husband of one Seshamma. While Seshamma was in possession of her husband's properties as a widow, she made certain alienations. The question in the second appeal relates to those alienations evidenced by Exhibits VIII and X respectively. Exhibit VIII is a deed of gift made to the widow's brother's daughter. The gift is made for pasupukunhuma. The document states:As I am growing old and have no sons or daughters, and as you are my niece and have been taking are of me up to date and have agreed to take care of me during the whole of my life-time from this date, therefore, I or my heirs and others shall never raise any objection if you take possession of the said land and enjoy it from generation to generation.2. It is contended by the learned Pleader for the appellant that, allthough Seshamma purports to make a gift, the document is, in effect, an alienation for consideration, the consideration being, partly...
thekkian Rangacharlu Chettyar Vs. Muthukarnapan Kothan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.420
1. The plaintiff in this suit obtained a decree against 1st defendant for redemption of certain properties and, according to the allegations in the plaint, he obtained possession in execution, and, subsequently, he was dispossessed in the year 1897, but it is found he was really dispossessed in 1895. He instituted the present suit for recovery of possession on the ground that, subsequent to his obtaining possession, he was dispossessed by the defendant in 1895. The suit was instituted in August 1804. The 1st defendant pleaded that he had executed a usufructuary mortgage of them in favour of the 2nd defendant in the year 1900, and that the 2nd defendant was in possession. The 2nd defendant pleaded that he had assigned his right in 1904 to another person who was subsequently made 3rd defendant. The 3rd defendant was made a party only in 1909, that is, more than 12 years after the actual date (1895) of dispossession of the plaintiff by the 1st defendant. The 3rd defendant pleaded limitati...
Karani Manika Mudaliar Vs. T. Chinnappa Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.1002
1. We find ourselves unable to differ from the conclusion of the District Judge on the facts. We think the plaintiff is bound by the lease evidenced by Exhibit C. By that document, the lessees are to hold for such time as they require or wish, and it is argued that the condition as thus expressed, is a tenancy at the will of the lessee and so by implication of law a tenancy at the will of the lessor also. This contention is supported by reference to Coke on Littleton, page 55 (a) and is in accordance with the Law of England as laid down in 18 Halsbury, page 434.2. We agree that the lease is expressed as creating a tenancy at the will of the lessees and we have not been shown sufficient reason for refusing to adopt the English Law on the point.3. We think, therefore, that the plaintiff was entitled to terminate the tenancy, and he has done so.4. The District Judge's decision must be modified and the plaintiff must have a decree for recovery of possession of the market in addition to the...
Maliya Kalakath Bava Vs. W.C. Pathuma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.689
1. The suit in this case is by a Muhammadan lady for a share in the properties alleged to have belonged to her mother. The parties are Muhaminadans. The properties might, for the purpose of this second appeal, be taken to have originally belonged to one Aliyathamma. She had two sons, Assanar and Parukuthi and a daughter, Ayissa. Assanar married Ummachumma. Ummachumma had a husband prior to her marriage with Assanar and the 1st plaintiff is her daughter by the first marriage. Defendants Nos. 5 to 9 are the children of Ayissa. The 1st plaintiff claims a share of items Nos. 1 and 2 in the plaint schedule on the ground that they belonged to Assanar and that Ummachumma was entitled to a share of those properties as Assanar's widow and that she herself was entitled to a share of Ummachumma's share. Her claim to the other items was traced from Aliyathumma in whom their ownership was originally vested. The District Munsif at first dismissed the suit on the ground that Ummachamma had alienated ...
Kumaraswami Chettty Vs. Kamakshi Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-1912
Reported in: (1912)23MLJ187
Sundara Aiyar, J.1. This is a suit for redemption. The plaintiff had instituted a previous suit for the same relief. It was found in that suit that the defendants had obtained a complete title to the property by a sale subsequent to the mortgage sought to be redeem, ed in the present suit. The plaintiff alleges that the previous decree was obtained by fraud because the decision proceeded on perjured testimony adduced by the defendants. The suit has, admittedly, been instituted more than three years after the plaintiff became aware of the fraud.2. The District Judge has held that this suit is governed by Article 95 of the Limitation Act and that it must be held to be barred by limitation. Article 95 provides a period of three years for a suit to set aside a decree obtained by fraud and the starting point is the date from which the plaintiff has knowledge of the fraud.3. Two arguments have been urged in support of this Second Appeal. It is contended that the suit is substantially one for...
Kumarasawmy Chetty Vs. Kamakshi Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.843
Sundara Aiyar, J.1. This is a suit for redemption. The plaintiff had instituted a previous suit for the same relief. It was found in that suit that the defendants had obtained a complete title to the property by a sale subsequent to the mortgage sought to be redeemed in the present suit. The plaintiff alleges that the previous decree was obtained by fraud because the decision proceeded on perjured testimony adduced by the defendants. The suit has admittedly been instituted more than three years after the plaintiff became aware of fraud.2. The District Judge has held that this suit is governed by Article 95 of the Limitation Act and that it must be held to be barred by limitation. Article 95 provides a period of three years for a suit to set aside a decree obtained by fraud and the starting point is the date from which the plaintiff has knowledge of the fraud.3. Two arguments have been urged in support of this second appeal. It is contended that the suit is substantially one for redempt...
Karayar Condy Puthupurayil Cheria Chirikandan and ors. Vs. Aylliath Ku ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-1912
Reported in: (1914)27MLJ690
1. The plaintiffs in this case sue to recover certain lands held by defendants Nos. 1 and 2 with arrears of rent. They are the holders of a melcharath from the Moppillah tarwad governed by the Marumakkathayam law. At the time of the melcharath the land was in the possession of 1st and 2nd defendants on a lease for 5 years granted by the 3rd defendant under a power of attorney from the karnavan. Only 3 years of the lease . had expired, but the karnavan cancelling the power of attorney granted to the 3rd defendant executed a melcharath in plaintiffs favour for a period of 5 years commencing after the expiration of the previous lease. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 contended that they are now holding under a new lease granted by the 3rd defendant after he became the Karnavan and that the melcharath in plaintiff's favour is invalid. The 3rd defendant supports their contention. The District Munsif held that the previous Karnavan had no right to grant the melcharath, but, on appeal, the District Ju...
Ponnambala Chetti Vs. Muthusami Pillal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-1912
Reported in: (1912)23MLJ284
1. The facts of this case so far as they are necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as follows:2. The 1st and 2nd defendants mortgaged the suit properties first to the 3rd defendant and then to the assignor of the present plaintiff. The 3rd defendant brought a suit O.S. No. 4 of 1887 against the mortgagors without making the puisne mortgagee a party; in execution of that decree he brought the property to sale and brought it. The plaintiff then brought a suit against the 3rd defendant claiming to redeem.3. The 5th and 6th issues in the suit were as to the amount that the plaintiff should pay to the 3rd defendant in redemption. The District Judge on appeal called for findings on those issues as the parties conceded that they were necessary and the Subordinate Judge, on the authority of the case in Kannappa Chettiar v. Marimuthu Nadan I.L.R. (1908) M. 258 decided that the account should be taken on the footing that the prior mortgage of the 3rd defendant was still in existence and ...
Ponnambala Chetti Vs. Muthusami Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.291
1. The facts of this case, so far as they are necessary for the disposal of this appeal, are as follows:2. The 1st and 2nd defendants mortgaged the suit properties first to the 3rd defendant and then to the assignor of the present plaintiff. The 3rd defendant brought a suit in Original Suit: No. 41 of 1887 against the mortgagors without making the puisne mortgagee a party; in execution of that decree, he brought the property to sale and bought it. The plaintiff then brought a suit against the 3rd defendant claiming to redeem.3. The 5th and 6th issues in the suit were as to the amount that the plaintiff should pay to the 3rd defendant in redemption. The District Judge on appeal called for findings on those issues as the parties conceded that they were necessary and the Subordinate Judge, on the authority of the case in Thennappa Chettiar v. Marimuthu Nadan 18 M.L.J. 344 decided that the account should be taken on the footing that the prior mortgage of the 3rd defendant was still in exis...
Thirumathur Alias Kuruvayur Manakal Kandan Paramesvaran Nambudripad an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.184
1. This is a suit for redemption. There is no question as to the plaintiff's right to redeem. The second appeal relates to two points. The first point raises the question whether the plaintiff, the jenmi, or the 1st defendant, the kanomdar, should bear the burden of the increase in the Government revenue imposed on the land subsequent to the date of the kanom. The District Judge has held that the jenmi should bear it. He says: 'It is clear that the parties did not contemplate any enhancement of the Government revenue when they entered into the contract. Under the terms of Exhibit A, the mortgagee was allowed to appropriate the income as interest on the Kanom amount less the revenue, and to pay a fixed amount of 100 paras of paddy annually as rent. There was, subsequent to the date of Exhibit A, an increase in the assessment payable to Government. It is not shown that the mortgagee consented to receive a smaller amount for his interest in the event of subsequent increase in revenue. I t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »