Chennai Court December 1913 Judgments
M. Meenatchi Ammal Alias Chinnamml Vs. M. Manioka Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1913
Reported in: 24Ind.Cas.918
Charles Arnold White, C.J.1. The first contention raised by Mr. Ramosam on behalf of the appellant (the defendant) in this appeal is that Ammayi Ammal, the wife of Kalappa Chetty, acquired a title to the property in question by virtue of a sale-deed executed in 1351 by Ponnammal in favour of Kalappa Chetty. Ponnammal was the grandmother of Ammayi Ammal, who was the wife of Kalappa Chetty. So far as the deed of sale goes, there is nothing to indicate that the transaction was not what it purported to be, namely, a sale to the husband. Mr. Ramesam very properly does not rely on the oral evidence with regard to this suggestion of a benami transaction. He has called our attention to two Wills, executed by Ponnammal before the sale-deed, devising the property in question to Kalappa Chetty, in which he is described as the husband of the granddaughter of Ponnammal. That to my mind does not show that the transaction of 185 i was a transaction under which Kalappi Chetty took the property benami ...
Tag this Judgment!BanuddIn Sahib Vs. Arunachala Mudali
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1913
Reported in: (1914)26MLJ215
1. We agree with the Lower Courts that the attachment before Judgment did not cease to exist because the decree-holder (among his numerous Execution Petitions) applied once for arrest of the judgment-debtor and that application was dismissed for default2. We think that Order 21 Rule 57 of the Civil Procedure Code makes an attachment cease on the dismissal of an execution application only if that attachment had been made '' in execution of ' the decree and not when it had been made before judgment in view to a possible execution of a decree which might probably be passed thereafter.3. The other contention of the appellant namely that by the petitioner's having applied in another execution petition to be allowed to share rate ably in the proceeds of the sale of these properties if they were brought to sale by another decree-holder who had also attached them in execution of his decree, the present decree-holder converted the attachment before judgment into an attachment in execution is al...
Tag this Judgment!The Mercantile Bank of India Limited and anr. Vs. the Official Assigne ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1913
Reported in: (1916)ILR39Mad250
Arnold White, C.J. 1. I think in this case we may apply the observation made by Lord Justice Williams in one of the cases cited in the course of the argument: it is a difficult case both on the facts and on the law.2. The first question we have to consider is, did the property in these skins pass from Messrs. Rosham M.A. Mannulla Hussain Saib Company to the insolvents before the commencement of the insolvency[After stating that the insolvents filed their petition for insolvency on the 20th December 1911 His Lordship, on a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence on this point, held, as follows:]On the whole, as regards this question of fact, I am not prepared to differ from the conclusion at which Mr. Justice Wallis arrived, that the property in these goods did pass to the insolvents before the commencement of the insolvency. If the property passed to the insolvents it is not necessary to consider whether Messrs. Rosham and Company were the true owners of the goods and whethe...
Tag this Judgment!A Subbarayudu and Two ors. Vs. T. Lakshminarasamma (Died) and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1913
Reported in: (1915)ILR38Mad775
Sadasiva Ayyar, J.1. This is a petition by the judgment-debtor under Order XXI, Rule 89 of the Civil Procedure Code (corresponding to but differing substantially in its wording from the old Section 310-A) to have the Court auction sale of a property (which belonged to him on the date of such auction sale) set aside.2. After the Court auction sale, however, he sold away all his rights to a stranger and on the date of this application made by him under Order XXI, Rule 89, he had no title in the property. Could such a person to allowed to make an application under the new Code to set aside the sale?3. Now, an elementary principle of the law is that unless a statute clearly allowed it, a man who has no right in a property on the date of filing a suit or making an application in respect of that property cannot be allowed to file that suit or make that application. The natural meaning, therefore, of the words in Order XXI, Rule 89, 'any person either' owning such property or holding an inter...
Tag this Judgment!The Mercantile Bank of India Ltd. and ors. Vs. the Official Assignee o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1913
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.942
Arnold White, C.J.1. I think in this case we may apply the observation made by Lord Justice Williams in one of the cases cited in the course of the argument: it is a difficult case both on the facts and on the law.2. The first question we have to consider is, did the property in these skins pas3 from Messrs. Rosham M.A. Mannulla Hussain Saib and Company to the insolvents before the commencement of the insolvency?* * * * *4. On the whole, as regards this question of fact, I am not prepared to differ from the conclusion at which Mr. Justice Wallis arrived, that the property in these goods did pass to the insolvents before the commencement of the insolvency. If the property passed to the insolvents, it is not necessary to consider whether Messrs. Rosham and Company were the true owners of the goods and whether the goods Were in the possession of the insolvents with their consent within the meaning of Section 52 of the Indian Insolvency Act. It is also unnecessary for us to consider whethe...
Tag this Judgment!Koil Kandadai Amman Ramanujachariar and ors. Vs. the Conjeevaram Hogse ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1913
Reported in: 24Ind.Cas.44
Oldfield, J.1. The question raised by this civil revision petition can be stated shortly. It is whether in proceedings under Order XXI, Rule 91 of the Civil Procedure Code, the person alleged by the auction-purchaser to be the real owner of the property sold is a necessary party. The lower Courts have hold that, .such person, the petitioner here,.- must be impleaded, disallowing the Objection which he made before them.2. Their decisions are supported only by the argument ab inconvenienti : and it is, no doubt, true that the petitioner could not have obtained in a regular suit a fuller enquiry .than has been held. They have, however, overlooked the fact that he has been prejudiced in respect of his right of appeal. For against an order under Order XXI, Rule 92 'of the Civil Procedure Code, there is one appeal only, whilst, if petitioner had proceeded by suit (whether or not after claim or objection proceedings), second appeal would have been open to him. There is no reason for supposing...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Rahiman Nachiyal Vs. Mirathayar Ammal and ors. and Muhammad Nurd ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1913
Reported in: AIR1914Mad264; 24Ind.Cas.10
Miller, J.1. I have read my learned brother's judgment and I entirely agree with the view taken by him of the evidence in regard to the different items of property. While the burden of proving that the house's and land in dispute belonged to Mahomed Ghouse Maracayer and not to the persons in whose names the title-deeds stand is upon the plaintiff, I agree that the plaintiff has discharged the burden in this ease. There seems to be no doubt that the bulk of the papers and accounts . left behind him by Mahomed Ghouse had come into the hands of the defendants and it is safe to presume that if they contained anything favourable to the defendant's case, they would have been produced. In the letters we have, there is nothing to suggest that Mahomed Ghouse was making gifts of houses or land to his wife or to his daughters. Exhibit B9 in which reference is made to the acquisition in the names of the children' suggests strongly that that was not so the letter is a private communication between ...
Tag this Judgment!Peria Aiya Ambalam and anr. Vs. Shunmugasundaram and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1913
Reported in: AIR1914Mad334(2); 22Ind.Cas.615; (1914)26MLJ140
Sankaran Nair, J.1. The first question that is referred to us is 'where a trespasser dispossesses a mortgagor in possession (the mortgage being simple) or a mortgagee in possession (where the mortgage is usufructuary), is such possession of the trespasser adverse against the simple mortgagee in the one case or against the mortgagor who is not entitled to possession in the other case?'. 2. The facts which gave rise to this reference are these: the plaintiff mortgaged his house with possession for a term which would expire in 1917. The mortgagee was dispossessed by the defendants in 1898. In 1908 they made certain additions to the building, and when the plaintiff remonstrated with them they denied the plaintiff's title to the equity of redemption. The plaintiff brings this suit for a declaration of his title within six years from 1908. The defendants' plea is that limitation for the suit must be calculated from 1898, when they took possession of the property from the mortgagee.3. On beha...
Tag this Judgment!R.M.P.S. Muthiah Chettiar and ors. Vs. Authinamulagi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1913
Reported in: AIR1914Mad305; 22Ind.Cas.799; (1914)26MLJ225
1. The Subordinate Judge as a Small Cause Court has returned the plaints under Section 23 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act because the 'relief claimed' by the plaintiffs cannot be granted by the Small Cause Court without determining the question whether plaintiffs have the kudivaram right in the plaint lands. The determination of that question is necessary owing to the defendant's questioning the jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court (which is a Civil Court) defendants contending that the Revenue Courts alone have jurisdiction.2. Ultimately, therefore, as the ' relief claimed' by the plaintiffs cannot be granted by the Small Cause Court without deciding the question of plaintiffs' title to the kudivaram it is not inappropriate to say that the decision as to the grant of that relief ' depends upon the proof or disproof of a title to immoveable property' within the words of Section 24 of Act IX of 1887. Mr. Varadachariar for the petitioners in revision contends that the relief it...
Tag this Judgment!M. Sambanda Mudaliar Vs. A. Chinnasawmi Sah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1913
Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.860
Arnold White, C.J.1. As regards the question of fact in dispute, namely, what were the terms of the compromise entered into between the Vakils of the parties in Civil Suit No. 155 of 1908, I think it is clear on the evidence that one of the terms of that compromise was that the present defendants were to deliver to the present plaintiff the house, the possession of which is asked for in the present suit. The two Vakils, who appeared for the parties in Suit No. 155 of 1908, gave evidence in this suit and their evidence is in substantial agreement that one of the terms of the compromise in the suit of 1908 was that delivery of the house in question should be given by the present defendants to the present plaintiff.2. The point was taken on behalf of the appellant that inasmuch as the compromise in the suit of 1908 was reduced into writing, under the provisions of Section 92 of the Evidence Act oral evidence for the purpose of adding terms to the compromise which are not to be found in th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »