Chennai Court August 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.
Vuppuluri Atchayya and ors. Vs. Sri Kanchumarti Venkata Seetaramachand ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1912
Reported in: (1913)24MLJ112
ORDERSadasiva Aiyar, J.1. These three petitions have arisen out of suits in ejectment brought by the same plaintiff (who comes under the definition of a landlord under the Estates Land Act) against his tenants. The Court of first instance (the District Munsif's Court of Tanuku) was of opinion that a Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suits, and that under the Estates Land Act the plaintiff ought to have brought the suits in a Revenue Court. The learned Munsif therefore ordered the plaints to be returned to the plintiff for presenation to the proper Court.2. On appeal, the Subordinate Judge of Ellore held that under the saving clause to' Section 153 of the Estates Land Act, the suite were cognisable by a Civil Court. He set aside the District Munsif's orders and directed the District Munsif to take back the plaints, to restore the suit to his file and dispose of them according to law.3. These Civil Revision Petitions have been filed, praying for the reversal of the learned Subor...
P. Mangamma Vs. P. Ramamma and Two ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1912
Reported in: (1914)ILR37Mad480
1. The decision of the point argued in Second Appeal is not free from difficulty. That point is whether Exhibit A in this case is inadmissible in evidence on the ground that it was not registered. The suit is for specific performance. The document purports to be an agreement for sale and it says, 'I shall execute a sale-deed on proper stamp paper.' The difficulty arises from other clauses in the instrument which, it is contended, show that Exhibit A itself was intended to pass the property. After setting out the receipt of the consideration for the sale (viz.), the discharge of part of the debt due to the intended vendee on a mortgage it says, 'I have sold to you and pat you now alone in the possession of the jeroity land.' Before the clause agreeing to execute the conveyance we have this clause, 'Therefore I have executed this agreement in your favour having agreed to your enjoying the same freely, hereditarily from son to grandson with power to alienate the same by sale or gift.' Thi...
T.P. Kanthimathinatha Pillai Vs. Muthusamia Pillai and Four ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1912
Reported in: (1914)ILR37Mad540
1. With respect to the rent for fasli 1315 we agree with the lower Court that the claim is barred by limitation. Time runs, not from the end of the fasli but from the time that the rent became due according to the terms of the tenancy. Reliance was placed on the decision, or the Privy Council in Rangayya Appa Rao v. Bobba Sriramulu (1904) 27 Mad. 143 by the learned vakil for the appellant but that case does not help him. In Arunachellam Chettiar v. Kadir Rowthen (1906) 29 Mad. 556 which was decided after the Privy Council case, the rule laid down in Chinnipakam Rajagopalachari v. Lakshmidoss (1904) 27 Mad. 241 was reaffirmed. The Second Appeal must therefore bedismissed so far as the claim for fasli 1315 is concerned.2. With regard to faslis 1316 and 1317 the lower Appellate Court has found that patta was not properly tendered. This finding is binding on us in Second Appeal as we are-unable to seo any legal objection to it. But it is contended that as the suit was instituted after the ...
Manikkavachaka Desika Gnana Sambanda Pandara Sannadhi Vs. Sabapatiya P ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1912
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.221
Wallis, J.1. The first of these cases, Appeal No. 159 of 1904, was remanded to the subordinate Court for further evidence as to the circumstances under which the loans in question were contracted. The record of the evidence runs to very great length, but much of it consists of minute and wearisome cross-examination about unimportant matters which has not been referred to in argument and has only served to waste the time of the Court below and saddle the parties with unnecessary expense. Unfortunately, there has been great delay in the hearing of this appeal but that has had this advantage that we have been enabled to deal with two other appeals against another decree of the Subordinate Court, in which the evidence taken on remand in this case has been treated as the evidence in the case, because both suits really have raised practically the same questions and one judgment will suffice for the decision of both and in giving our own conclusions on the evidence taken on remand we now have...
Komandur Kamalammal Vs. Komandur Narasimhacharlu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.244
1. We do not think that the order of the Court below can be supported. The present appellant, who was the successful party in the mortgage suit, which was defended at every stage by the present respondents, was entitled to have a personal decree against the defendants for his costs in that suit. He sought to have the decree amended so as to give him such personal decree, but this Court decided see report of the case in Kamalammal v. Komandur Narasimhacharlu 30 M.K 464 : 2 M.L.T. 359 that the application was premature and that such a decree could only be given if the sale proceeds should prove insufficient to satisfy the amount due under the mortgage including costs. The property has now been sold and has proved insufficient.2. The appellant is, we think, entitled, under Order XXXIV, Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to now have a personal decree against the respondents for the amount of costs not covered by the sale-proceeds, viz., Rs. 223-0-11, with costs throughout....
Chillamuthu Vs. Muthudayar Servai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.740
1. The judgment of the District Judge in this case is unsatisfactory. The plaintiff claimed the property as her own and alleged that the 1st defendant took possession under a mortgage executed by the 2nd defendant, plaintiff's father, to the 1st defendant and that the 2nd defendant was not the owner and had no title to execute any mortgage. (The 1st defendant, in his defence, did not claim any title to the property under the mortgage executed by the 2nd defendant and contended that he had thrown up the mortgage and never took possession and was not, therefore, liable to the plaintiff for any damages. The District Munsif found that the 1st defendant took possession and awarded mesne profits for three years prior to the suit and one year afterwards.2. On appeal, the District Judge has decided the case apparently on the question of title. HE does not find that the 1st defendant was not in possession of the land. He says that according to Bai Motivahoo v. Purushotam Dayal 6 Bom. L.R. 975 t...
Kadungoth Purakkal Ammalu and ors. Vs. Kadungoth Purakkal Meenakshi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.433
Sundara Aiyar, J.1. The plaintiffs are two out of three daughters of a deceased Thiyya. They instituted the suit against the 3rd daughter, the defendant, for partition of the property they inherited from their father. It was alleged in the plaint that a partition deed was executed about 9th January 1909, that this document was in the possession of the defendant, who undertook to present it for registration, that defendant, subsequently, substituted a forged deed for that document and succeeded in getting the forged instrument registered. The plaintiffs say that they are, therefore, entitled to a decree for partition and a declaration that the instrument of partition registered on the 9th January 1909 was a forgery and not binding on the plaintiffs. The suit has been dismissed on two grounds. The first ground is that the plaintiff's proper remedy was to seek for recovery of possession of the properties which, according to their case, were allotted to them under the terms of the genuine ...
Pichikala Mangamma Vs. Pami Ramamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.587
1. The decision of the point (sic) in second appeal is not free from difficulty. The point is whether Exhibit A in this case is inadmissible in evidence on the ground that it was not registered. The suit is for specific performance. The document purports to be an agreement for sale and it says: 'I shall execute a sale-deed on proper stamp paper.' The difficulty arises from other clauses in the instrument which, it is contended, show that Exhibit A itself was intended to pass the property. After setting out the receipt of the consideration for the sale, viz., the discharge of part of the debt due to the intended vendee on a mortgage, it says: 'I have sold to you and put you now alone in the possession of the jeroyity land.' Before the clause agreeing, to execute the conveyance, we have this clause: 'Therefore I have executed this agreement in your favour, having agreed to your enjoying the same freely hereditarily from son to grandson with power to alienate the same by sale or gift.' Th...
Mamambath Pettiyeth Vs. M.M. Cheria Uthalamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.560
1. The murupat, Ehxibit B was a distinct transaction from the kanom document, Exhibit A. The latter document does not make provision for the payment of interest on the mortgage-money at any fixed rate. Under Exhibit B, the defendant is bound to pay rent. The rent was not charged on the property. The rent cannot be treated as interest due on the mortgage amount and plaintiff cannot have decree on the footing that it can be so treated. The murupat was for two years. After the expiration of that period, the defendant held over the land with the consent of the plaintiff. The terms of the tenancy would no doubt be the same as those contained in Exhibit B. But the defendant's obligation to pay rent after the lapse of the two years was not under a registered instrument and Article 116 of the Limitation Act would not, therefore, apply; See Kutti Umma v. Madhava Menon 11 M.L.J. 186. The right to the rent would, therefore, be barred after three years. The amount offered as rent by the defendant ...
T.P. Kanthimathinatha Pillay Vs. Muthusami Pillay and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.934
1. With respect to the rent for Fasli 1315, we agree with the lower Court that the claim is barred by limitation; time runs, not from the end of the Fasli but from the time that the rent became due according to the terms of the tenancy. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Privy Council in Rangayya Appa Rao v. Bobba Sriramulu 27 M.p 143 : 6 Bom. L.R. 241 : 14 M.L.J. 1 8 C.W.N. 162 : 31 I.A. 17 by the learned Vakil for the appellant, but that case does not help him. In Arunachallam Chettiar v. Radir Rowthen 29 M.k 556 : 1 M.L.T. 315 : 16 M.L.J. 486 which was decided after the Privy Council case, the rule laid down in Chinnipakam Rajagopalachari v. Lakshmidoss 27 M.k 241 : 14 M.L.J. 67 was re-affirmed. The second appeal must, therefore, be dismissed so far as the claim for Fasli 1315 is concerned.2. With regard to Faslis 1316 and 1317, the lower Appellate Court has found that patti was not properly tendered. This finding is binding on us in second appeal as we are unable to see any...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »