Chennai Court November 1913 Judgments
A.R. Iswaram Pillai Vs. S. Taregan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1913
Reported in: AIR1914Mad701; (1914)26MLJ127
Tyabji, J.1. The plaintiff sues for a decree for a sum of Rs. 610 which includes the principal sum of Es. 450 and interest. This sum is claimed as due on a hypothecation bond purporting to be executed on the 27th August 1907 to which the plaintiff was not a party, but which was executed by one sahib Shaik Uduman Tharagan in favour of the 1st and 2nd defendants and of the father of the 3rd and 4th defendants, whom I shall refer for brevity as the defendants. Sheik Uduman Tharagan the executant of that bond was a debtor of the plaintiff and he asked the defendants (in terms to which I shall immediately refer) to pay off the sum of Rs. 450 which was due from Sheik Uduman Tharagan himself to the plaintiff.2. The material portions of the hypothecation bond are as follows: ' The Hypothecation bond executed on the 27th August 1907 to 'the defendants....' the sum received on the hypothecation to you of the following properties belonging to me....', then the particulars of the Rs.'2000 are give...
Tag this Judgment!Meethale Vittil Raman Vs. Puthulath Ambu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1913
Reported in: AIR1914Mad800(1); 24Ind.Cas.95
1. The plaintiff's case was that the defendants' possession was not adverse in 1900 (the suit was brought in 1910) because the defendants became lessees in 1900 under the tarwad of which the plaintiff is the karnavan.2. The defendants said that, as members of the same tarwad, they have been in possession up to date of suit of the plaint house. On the case of both parties, no question of adverse possession for more than 12 years before suit in the defendants as against the tarwad (on behalf of which the plaintiff sues) arises at all in this case.3. The nature of the possession for the purposes of acquiring a title by prescription and the character and extent of the title acquired by possession depend on the nature of the animus possidendi and whether that animus is based on a real or false or pretended title does not matter, except that the title acquired by prescription cannot be higher than what could be acquired if the pretence or falsehood was true. Here, even if the pretence of the...
Tag this Judgment!S. Srinivasa Aiyangar and ors. Vs. Radhakrishna Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-1913
Reported in: AIR1914Mad42; (1914)26MLJ47
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. This is an appeal against an Order of remand. The appellants are the defendants.2. The plaintiff sued for redemption of a mortgage created in 1884. This mortgage document (Exhibit A) begins by calling itself a usufructuary mortgage and in two or three places in the course of the deed, it is expressly called a usufructuary mortgage deed. It, however, contains a clause that if the mortgage amount was not paid on a date which is stipulated in the document at an interval of exactly nine years from the date of the document the mortgage was to work itself out as a sale for the principal ' amount due on the mortgage bond. Possession was given to the mortgagee in accordance with the nature of the document and its spirit. At the end, there is a covenant to this effect. ' I, the mortgagor, shall pay to you the costs of the construction of earth work . etc., on the date fixed for redemption as per your accounts along with the mortgage money.'3. The question is, what is the na...
Tag this Judgment!Devaguptayu Bhaskarudu Vs. Pamarthy Subbarayadu and the Secretary of S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-1913
Reported in: (1914)26MLJ60
Sankaran Nair, J.1. The suit is brought by the plaintiff against the Secretary of State for a declaration of his title to certain property and for the recovery of the penal assessment levied on him by Government under Section 5 of Madras Act III of 1905. The Government claim it as Government land. The suit was dismissed by the Lower Appellate Court on the ground that it is barred by limitation under Section 14 of Act III of 1905. In second appeal it is contended that the prayer for declaration is not barred. The claim to recover the amount levied as penal assessment is not pressed in Second appeal. Under Section 3 of Act III of 1905 the Government is entitled to levy an assessment on land which is unauthorizedly occupied by any person if such land is the property of Government. Under Section 5 in addition to the assessment under Section 3 the Government is entitled to levy a penalty. Then Section 14 confers a right to sue upon the person from whom the assessment is levied. Such suit mu...
Tag this Judgment!Budansa Rowther and anr. Vs. Fatma Bi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-1913
Reported in: AIR1914Mad192; 22Ind.Cas.697; (1914)26MLJ260
Spencer, J.1. The plaintiff, who died during the pendency of the suit, was one of the daughters of Jaila Rowther by his first wife Fatma Bi, and the 7th defendant who was the principal of those who contested the claim is a daughter by a later marriage. The suit was brought for the recovery of the plaintiff's share of her father Jaila Rowther's share in the estate of the plaintiffs grandfather, Ahamsa. It was resisted on the ground that the plaintiff's mother having been married to a Hindu husband, named Maniya Gounder, her subsequent marriage to Jaila Rowther, while the first marriage was subsisting, was not legal, and, therefore, the plaintiff and the defendants Nos. 2, 4 and 5 were illegitimate and as such debarred by the form of Mahomedan law in force among Sunnis from inheriting as sharers. The suit failed in both the Lower Courts and the plaintiff's legal representatives appeal by their next friend.2. Five contentions based on questions of law have been put forward at the hearing ...
Tag this Judgment!D. Bhaskaradu Vs. P. Subbarayudu and the Secretary of State for India ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-1913
Reported in: (1915)ILR38Mad674
Sankaran Nair, J.1. The suit is brought by the plaintiff against the Secretary of State for a declaration' of his title to certain property and for the recovery of the penal assessment levied from him by Government under Section 5 of Madras Act III of 1905. The Government claim it as Government land. The suit was dismissed by the Lower Appellate Court on the ground that it is barred by limitation under Section 14 of Act III of 1905. In Second Appeal it is contended that the prayer for declaration is not barred. The claim to recover the amount levied as penal assessment is not pressed in Second Appeal. Under Section 3 of Act III of 1905 the Government is entitled to levy an assessment on land which is unauthorised occupied by any person, if such land is the property of Government. Under Section 5 in addition to the assessment under Section 3 the Government is entitled to levy a penalty, Then Section 14 confers a right to sue upon the person from whom the assessment is levied. Such suit ...
Tag this Judgment!T. Varadiah Vs. Raja Kumara Venkata Perumal Raja Bahadur Varu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-1913
Reported in: AIR1914Mad663(2); (1914)26MLJ83
1. The learned District Judge has dismissed the execution application No. 3 of 1909, on the grounds (a) that it was barred by limitation because the prior application No. 11 of 1906, was not an application for execution in accordance with law, because this prior application wrongly prayed for attachment of non-mortgaged properties before the mortgaged properties Were brought to sale and (6) that this same prayer repeated in the present, petition, No. 3 of 1909, cannot be legally granted as the decree obliges the decree-holder to bring the mortgaged properties to sale in the first instance and allows him to proceed against the other properties only for the balance of the decree amount (if any).2. As regjards the 2nd ground the appellant's (decree-holder's) learned Vakil relied on certain Allahabad cases especially Pirbhu Narain Singh v. Amir Singh I.L.R. (1907) A. 369 for his contention that the mortgagee and decree holder was entitled to abandon his claim under the decree to bring the ...
Tag this Judgment!C. Fakeerappa Vs. M. Thippanna and Two ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-1913
Reported in: (1915)ILR38Mad664
1. We think that the learned District Judge's finding that the first respondent obtained the railway receipt as security for an advance bona fide made by the first respondent on the 7th December 1908, is fully supported by the evidence especially the accounts of the insolvent firm and of the first respondent.2. Amarchand & Co. v. Ramadas : (1913)15BOMLR890 decides that a railway receipt is a mercantile document of title to goods; and it is proved that by the custom of the trade in Bellary lawful possession as pledgees of a railway receipt entitles the holder of that receipt to get possession of the goods from the carrier and to retain the goods as security for the moneys advanced on pledge of the railway receipt. This custom really creates a charge at once on the goods themselves in the possession of the carrier and that charge ripens into a pledge of the goods themselves when the holder of the railway receipt gets possession of the goods in due course. As regards Section 16, Clause (3...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: G. China Venkadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-1913
Reported in: (1915)ILR38Mad550
1. The appellant has been convicted of the murder of his wife on the night of July 25th. The direct evidence against him is that of two of his children, prosecution witnesses Nos. 4 and 5, who say they awoke in the middle of the night and saw the appellant cutting his wife's throat. These witnesses, who are aged eight and six years, were not affirmed or sworn by the Sessions Judge; and it is argued by the appellant's vakil that their evidence is on this account inadmissible and should be excluded from consideration. In reply to this the Public Prosecutor relies on Section 13 of the Indian Oaths Act.2. The authorities on the subject are not uniform; but it appears to be the view of both the Bombay and Calcutta High Courts that the failure by a Court to administer oath or affirmation to a witness does not render the evidence of that witness inadmissible. The same view was taken by Parker, J., in the only reported case of this Court-Queen-Empress v. Viraperumal I.L.R., (1893) Mad.105 bear...
Tag this Judgment!C. Fakeerappa and ors. Vs. M. Thippanna and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-1913
Reported in: 30Ind.Cas.950
1. We think that the learned District Judge's finding, that the first respondent obtained the railway receipt as security for an advance bona fide made by the first respondent on the 7th December 1908, is fully supported by the evidence, especially the accounts of the insolvent firm and of the first respondent.2. Amarchand and Co. v. Ramdas 21 Ind. Cas. 343 : 15 Bom. L.R. 890 decides that a railway receipt is a mercantile document of title to goods; and it is proved that by the custom of the trade in Bellary lawful possession as pledgee of a railway receipt entitles the holder of that receipt to get possession of the goods from the carrier and to retain the goods as security for the moneys advanced on pledge of the railway receipt. This custom really creates a charge at once on the goods themselves in the possession of the carrier and that charge ripens into a pledge of the goods themselves when the holder of the railway receipt gets possession of the goods in due course. As regards Se...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »