Chennai Court October 1913 Judgments
Ayyakutti Mankondan Vs. Periasawmi Koundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-1913
Reported in: AIR1914Mad121(2); 24Ind.Cas.771; (1916)30MLJ404
1. We think that Ex. VIII is a formal declaration of division of status attested by witnesses and that as such it affects the immovable properties mentioned therein, and is inadmissible in evidence. We accordingly direct Ex. VIII and the evidence relating thereto to be excluded from the record, and have decided to call on the District Judge to submit revised findings on issues 1 and 4 on the evidence on record. The findings should be submitted in six weeks. Seven days will be allowed for filing objections. The other questions are reserved.2. In compliance with the' order contained in the above Judgment, the District Judge of Madura submitted findings.3. We accept the findings and set aside the decree of the Lower Appellate Court and restore that of the District Munsif with costs in this and the Lower Appellate Court....
Tag this Judgment!Karuppan Ambalagaram (Died) and ors. Vs. Mahammad Sakuth Levvai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-1913
Reported in: (1914)26MLJ74
Ayling, J.1. The vakil for the appellants has not attempted to support the sale deed, Exhibit A, before us; but has confined himself to arguing that the Subordinate Judge was wrong in refusing to allow his client a charge on the property to the extent of the money paid by him in satisfaction of the decree in O.S. No. 56 of 1906 which was brought on a mortgage executed by the owner of land, (the appellant's brother) in favour of one Raman Ambalagaram prior to Exhibit A. 2. The Subordinate Judge rejected this claim on two grounds:(1) that the prayer for a charge is not maintainable in this suit brought primarily to enforce the sale under Exhibit A;(2) that the plaintiff being a mere 'volunteer' cannot claim to be subrogated.3. As regards the first, the Subordinate Judge depends on Kuttichettiar v. Subramania Chettiar I.L.R. (1909) M. 485. In the present case the plaintiff has in his plaint sued in the alternative for a declaration of his charge, and has taken an issue on it in the origin...
Tag this Judgment!Ottapurakkal Thayath Suppi and ors. Vs. Sayid Alabi Masaber Koya Alias ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-1913
Reported in: (1914)26MLJ37
1. I have no doubt that in this case an appeal lay to the District Judge. The decision in Venkatasami v. Stridavamma I.L.R. (1886) M. 179 is an authority which is binding upon me. It was decided under the old Code in a case in which the Court below had refused to appoint a receiver under Section 503. Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the present Code provides that an appeal lies from orders ' under' Order 39 Rule 2 and if I follow the Full Bench case I must hold that an order refusing or declining to attach the property of a person who has disobeyed an injunction or to commit him to prison is an order 'under' that rule. I am bound to follow that case, and I must hold that an appeal lay.2. Apart from that case, the language of Order 43 suggests the same conclusion. Some of the sub-rules provide for appeals from orders refusing to make the order Which is expressly provided for in the rules referred to in those sub-rules and such orders are described as made under the rules to which they refer though...
Tag this Judgment!Ramalinga Naryana Rama Pundia Chinna Thambiar, Zemindar of Sivagiri Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-1913
Reported in: (1913)25MLJ608
Miller, J.1. I cannot accede to the contention that Section 54 permits the landlord to select a method of tender which is not one of those prescribed by the section itself and to treat the provisions of Section 78(2) as merely affording him a way of proving that he has made a tender. That might have been possible under Section 7 of the Act of 1865, which enacted what should be deemed sufficient proof of tender, but is not possible under the present act which enacts how tender may be effected. The word ' may' indicates that the landlord can choose between the methods provided but not that he is at liberty to select some other method. It would require clearer language to warrant the construction, contended for by the appellant.2. Reading Sections 54 and 78(2) of the Act together, tender of patta may be made by delivery to the ryot. The Civil Procedure Code Order V 16 seems to draw a distinction between tender and delivery but no doubt the legislature is entitled to prescribe delivery if ...
Tag this Judgment!Mahaboob Sarafarajawant Sri Raja Parthasarathy Appa Rao Bahadur Zamind ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-1913
Reported in: (1914)26MLJ39
Sankaran Nair, J.1. The question for decision is whether the reversionary right in inams granted prior to the permanent settlement for services to be rendered by the inamdars to the Zamindar, in addition to the payment of quit-rent is vested in the Government or in the Zamindar. The suit is brought by the plaintiff, a Zamindar holding a permanent sanad. His case is that the lands in suit were granted in inam to the ancestors of the present holders on condition of rendering personal service to the Zamindar, such as following him with arms in the journeys, watching his treasury etc. He alleges the inam forms part of the Zamindari estate and the Government has no right to the same. According to him, the full rental value of the inams and not merely the rent which was paid thereon was included in the Zamindari at the time of the permanent settlement and his contention is that no additional assessment can be imposed by the Government. The Government have resumed these inams in 1907 and gran...
Tag this Judgment!Batchu Ramayya Vs. Dhara Satchi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-1913
Reported in: (1913)25MLJ635
1. We think we should follow the decisions in the cases reported in Ramaswami Naick v. Ramaswami Chetti I.L.R. (1906) M. 255 and Narahari Sahu v. Korithan Naidu (1913) M. W. N. 416 S.C. 24 M.L.J. 462. In the latter case the decision in Angannayya v. Droor Narasinna (1907) 18 M. L J. 247 has been dissented from and we also with all respect dissent from the ruling in Angannayya v. Narasanna (1907) 18 M. L J. 247. It follows that the alienation of the service Inam land by the Ist defendant's husband to the plaintiff was wholly void and Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act could not be invoked by the plaintiff in his favor.2. As regards two other contentions urged by the Appellant's learned Vakil, namely (1) that the emoluments of the office consisted only of the assessment, and (2) that it does not appear that the lands had not been enfranchised even before the sale deed to the plaintiff, not only were these points not taken up in the Lower Court or even in the second appeal memoran...
Tag this Judgment!Mahaboob Sarafarajawant Sri Raja Partha Sarathy Appa Rao Bahadur Zamin ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-1913
Reported in: (1915)ILR38Mad620
Sankakan Nair, J.1. The question for decision is whether i the reversionary right in inams granted prior to the permanent settlement for services to be rendered by the inamdars to the Zamindar, in addition to the payment of quit-rent is vested in the Government or in the Zamindar. The suit is brought by the plaintiff, a Zamindar holding a permanent sanad. His case is that the lands in suit were granted in inam to the ancestors of the present holders on condition of rendering personal service to the Zamindar, such as following him with arms in the journeys, watching his treasury, etc. He alleges the inam forms part of the zamindari estate and the Government has no right to the same. According to him, the full rental value of the inams and not merely the rent which was paid thereon was included in the zamindari at the time of the permanent settlement and his contention is that no additional assessment can be imposed by the Government. The Government have resumed these inams in 1907 and g...
Tag this Judgment!Adusumilli Suryanarayana and anr. Vs. Atchuta Potanna and ors.,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-09-1913
Reported in: (1914)26MLJ99
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. My learned brother has fully dealt with the facts and the points of law involved in these Second Appeals. I add a few words in my own language out of respect to the strenuous arguments advanced by the appellants' learned Vakil.2. Having regard to the observations in the case reported in Bhadrayya v. Bapayya (1909) 21 M.L.J. 803 and Lakshmi Narasimha Row v. Seetaramaswami : (1913)24MLJ288 Venkata Narasimha Appa Row v. Subba Reddi (1912) 24 M.L.J.655 Narasimhacharyalu v. Ramabrahmam (1912) 24 M.L.J 656, Veerabadra v. Sonti Venkanna : (1913)24MLJ659 and to the Judgment in Appeal No. 437 of 1908 and S.A. No. 168 of 1912, I think that no distinction should be made between an Inamdar and a Zemindar as to the presumption to be raised in respect of the kudivaram right in lands of which the Inamdar or the Zemindar is the proprietor. In other words the presumption ought to be that the Inamdar or the Zemindar is not the owner of the kudivaram. There are, no doubt, some observ...
Tag this Judgment!A. Suryanarayana Vs. A. Patanna and Eight ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-09-1913
Reported in: (1915)ILR38Mad608
Sadasiva Ayyar, J.1. My learned brother has fully dealt with the facts and the points of law involved in these Second Appeals. I add a few words in my own language out of respect to the strenuous arguments advanced by the appellants' learned vakil.2. Having regard to the observations in Bhadrayya v. Bapayya : (1911)21MLJ803 and Lakshmi Narasimha Rao v. Seetaramaswami : (1913)24MLJ288 Venkata Narasimha Appa Rao v. Subba Reddi : (1913)24MLJ655 Narasimhacharyalu v. Ramabrahmam : (1913)24MLJ656 Virabhadrayya v. Sonti Venkanna : (1913)24MLJ659 and to the judgment in Venkataraghavayya v. Ramakrishnayya Appeal No. 137 of 1908 and Nukanna v. Sanyasi Naidu Second Appeal No. 168 of 1912, I think that no distinction should be made between an inamdar and a zamindar as to the presumption to be raised in respect of the kudivaram right in lands of which the inamdar or the zamindar is the proprietor. In other words, the presumption ought to be that the inamdar or the zamindar is not the owner of the k...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnappa Chetty Vs. Abdul Khader Saheb and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-1913
Reported in: 25Ind.Cas.11
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The third defendant is the appellant before us. When the plaintiff attached plaint properties in execution of the decree which he had obtained in Original Suit No. 20 of 1897 on the file of the District Court of Salem as the properties of his judgment-debtor (the present 2nd defendant), the present 1st defendant put in a claim as the owner of the properties. His claim was allowed and the properties were released on the 18th December 1902. The present suit was brought on the 21st October 1903 (within the one year allowed by law) by the plaintiff to establish his right to attach the plaint properties as the property of his judgment-debtor, the present 2nd defendant. The 3rd defendant, the appellant before us, purchased the plaint properties from the claimant (namely, the 1st defendant) on the 29th December 1902, that is 11 days after the order on the claim petition in the 1st defendant's favour. He, however, never took actual possession of the lands and merely got a ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›