Chennai Court February 1913 Judgments
B. Tirapayya Minor by Guardian T. Ganjayya Vs. Mallidi Ramaswami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-1913
Reported in: 19Ind.Cas.362; (1913)24MLJ428
Bakewell, J.1. The District Munsif has found that the action of the natural mother of the minor, in making the payment in question, was for the benefit of the minor and that she was in charge of His person and property at the time.2. The guardians appointed by the with of the minor's adoptive father, and all his relations appear to have been unwilling to act as guardians, and in their default, the natural mother of the minor was, I think, the proper person, to be entrusted with his interests. The cases cited show that a person who is lawfully acting as guardian, though not legally appointed for the purpose, can bind his estate for necessary purposes, and I think that such a person is a ' lawful guardian within the meaning of Section 21 of the Limitation Act 1908 when acting for the benefit of the minor. The payments made by Suramma therefore save the bar of limitation. The petition is dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Rungarazu Sathrurazu and ors. Vs. Maddura Basappa
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1913
Reported in: (1913)24MLJ363
1. The question for decision in this appeal is whether the promissory note Ex. A executed in the plaintiff's favour when he was a minor is void so as to disentitle him to institute a suit on it. The note was executed in consideration of cost paid by the plaintiff. Mr. Sarma on behalf of the appellant relies on the decision of the Privy Council in Mohori Beebee v. Dharmadas Ghose I.L.R. (1903) C. 539 where their Lordships held that a mortgage executed by a minor was absolutely void and not merely voidable. This decision has been the subject of consideration in several subsequent cases in India. In Navakoti Narayana Chetty v. Logalinga Chetti I.L.R. (1909) M. 312 it was held by this Court that a transfer of property in favor of a minor for an executed consideration would be valid when the transaction does not involve any promise on the part of the minor or any contractual obligation incurred by him in consequence of the transfer. In Muniya Konan v. Perumal : (1913)24MLJ352 also the court...
Tag this Judgment!A. Balasubramania Chetti and ors. Vs. Swarnammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1913
Reported in: (1913)25MLJ367
1. This appeal relates to proceedings in execution of a decree. The decree which was passed in a suit for possession of immoveable property and mesne profits awarded mesne profits till the date of plaint i.e. till the 23rd March 1904 and subsequent profits 'till the date of delivery or for three years whichever is the shorter period.' It is clear that there is here an inadvertent omission of the words ' from the date of the decree' after the words ' three years '. We agree with the Subordinate Judge in holding that the sentence must be construed as entitling the plaintiff to mesne profits for three years from the date of the decree. But it is contended that the plaintiff is barred from making this claim on account of certain prior proceedings. One bar pleaded is that the decree in O. Section 1185 of 09 on the file of the District Munsif's Court of Tirupathur which was instituted by the plaintiffs for mesne profits for three years from the date of the plaint, precludes this application....
Tag this Judgment!Sabapathi Pillai and ors. Vs. Chockalinga Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1913
Reported in: (1913)25MLJ552
1. This is an appeal against the order of the Subordinate Judge of Mayavaram in execution of a' decree for sale in a mortgage suit. The appellant in this court was the 2nd defendant in the suit. He was a co-parcener of the 1st defendant, the mortgagor, and was consequently impleaded as a party. The decree directed the 1st defendant to pay a sum of Rs. 39291-15-0 with interest from the date of plaint and Rs. 1844-6-0 for the plaintiff's costs, and it directed the 1st defendant's half share in the mortgaged property to be sold in case of default in payment. It also provided that if the net proceeds of the sale were found insufficient to pay the amount due to the plaintiff the balance should be recovered from him personally. So far as the 2nd defendant was concerned the decree stated ' It is further ordered that the 2nd defendant also be liable for the plaintiff's costs of the suit (1844-6-0).' The respondent got the 1st defendant's share of the property sold in execution. The sale procee...
Tag this Judgment!Natesa Aiyar and anr. Vs. Appavu Padayachi (Died) and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1913
Reported in: (1913)24MLJ488
Charles Arnold White, C.J.1. The contract we have to consider no doubt differs in some respects from the ordinary vendor and purchaser contract which was before the Courts in most of the cases which were discussed in the course of the argument in this appeal. The consideration for the contract in question was a sum of Rs. 41,000, of which Rs. 4,000 is stated to have been received by the vendor on the date of the agreement, Rs. 20,000 was to remain on mortgage, and the balance was to be paid on a specified date. If the purchaser failed to carry out the contract, he was to forfeit the Rs. 4,000 advance. If the vendor failed to carry out the contract he was to refund the advance and pay Rs. 4,000. There was a further provision that the vendor should execute the sale-deed before the agreed date either in favour of the purchaser or in favour of the purchaser's nominees. In pursuance of this the vendor, before the agreed date, sold some of the lands to a nominee of the purchaser.2. I do not ...
Tag this Judgment!Natesa Aiyar and anr. Vs. Appavu Padayachi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1913
Reported in: (1915)ILR38Mad178
Charles Arnold White, C.J.1. The contract; we have to consider no doubt differs in some respects from the ordinary vendor and purchaser contract which was before the Courts in most of the cases which were discussed in the course of the argument in this appeal. The consideration for the contract in question was a sum of Rs. 41,000, of which Rs. 4,000 is stated to have been received by the vendor on the date of the agreement, Rs. 20,000 was to remain on mortgage, and the balance was to be paid on a specified date. If the purchaser failed to carry out the contract, he was to forfeit the Rs. 4,000 advance. If the vendor failed to carry out the contract he was to refund the advance and pay Rs. 4,000. There was a further provision that the vendor should execute the sale-deed before the agreed date either in favour of the purchaser or in favour of the purchaser's nominees. In pursuance of this, the vendor, before the agreed date, sold some of the lands to a nominee of the purchaser.2. I do no...
Tag this Judgment!Venkatachella Chetti and ors. Vs. C.K. Narayana Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-1913
Reported in: 19Ind.Cas.672; (1913)24MLJ455
Sankaran Nair, J.1. The plaint in the suit for a declaratory decree was admitted on the 1st March. On the 9th August the District Judge passed an order returning the plaint for amendment within 10 days, as he was of opinion that when the suit was instituted the plaintiffs were able to seek further relief than a mere declaration.2. I am asked to set aside that order in revision. It is urged before me that the plaintiffs were not entitled to possession and the dispossession was subsequent to the 18th March. If this is so, the District Judge is wrong in holding that the suit for declaration will not lie. But I have not heard the Respondents' pleader on this question, as I propose to set aside the order on another point. The plaintiffs' pleader represented to the District Judge that he was unwilling to amend the plaint and therefore did not want the plaint to be returned for that purpose. In these circumstances the District Judge has no jurisdiction under the Code to direct the plaint to b...
Tag this Judgment!Tadikonda Buchi Virabhadrayya Iyyavaru and ors. Vs. Sonti Venkanna Ali ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-1913
Reported in: 20Ind.Cas.769; (1913)24MLJ659
1. These second appeals were presented against decrees of the District Court of Kistna reversing the decrees of the District Munsif of Gudivada and dismissing the suits which were instituted by the plaintiffs, some of the Agraharamdars of Paidi Mukkala in the Nuzvid Zamindary, for the ejectment of the defendants, some of the ryots in occupation of lands in the Agraharam. The plaintiffs' case is that the defendants are mere temporary tenants having no permanent occupancy rights in the land and that they refused to quit their holdings on notice given to them terminating their tenancy. The defendant's contention is that they are entitled to permanent occupancy rights and that the plaintiffs have no power to eject. They also allege that the Agraharam is an 'estate' as defined in Section 3 of ths Madras Estates Land Act and that a suit to eject them would not therefore lie in the Civil Court but was cognizable solely by a Revenue Court according to the provisions of the Act.2. The District ...
Tag this Judgment!A. Krishnasami Aiyar Vs. Chandravadana
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-1913
Reported in: (1913)25MLJ349
ORDERSankaran Nair, J.1. An order was passed under Section 488 Criminal Procedure Code directing the petitioner to pay to each of his illegitimate daughters maintenance at the rate of Rs. 7 (seven) a month. He now applies for an alteration of such allowance on account of a change in his and their circumstances.2. The Petitioner is a pleader and he alleges that his income has been considerably reduced of late. The Magistrate finds that his income might be fluctuating but that there has not been such a change as would justify a reduction in the rate of maintenance awarded. In revision I cannot interfere with that finding.3. The eldest daughter is now said to be 17 years old, and it is urged that she is no longer a ' child unable to maintain itself' under Section 488. The word 'child' has not been denned in the Criminal Procedure Code. In England it has got apparently various statutory definitions. But in the absence of any definition or anything to the contrary in the Act I am of opinion...
Tag this Judgment!A. Krishnaswami Ayyar Vs. Chandravadana
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-1913
Reported in: (1914)ILR37Mad565
ORDERSankaran Nair, J.1. An order was passed under Section 488, Criminal Procedure Code, directing the petitioner to pay to each of his illegitimate daughters maintenance at the rate of Rs. 7 (seven) a month. He now applies for an alteration of such allowance on account of a change in his and their circumstances.2. The petitioner is a pleader and he alleges that his income has been considerably reduced of late. The Magistrate finds that his income might be fluctuating but there has not been such a change as would justify a reduction in the rate of maintenance awarded. In revision I cannot interfere with that finding.3. The eldest daughter is now said to be 17 years old, and it is urged that she is no longer a 'child unable to maintain itself' under Section 488. The word 'child' has not been defined in the Criminal Procedure Code. In England it has got apparently various statutory definitions. But in the absence of any definition or anything to the contrary in an Act, I am of opinion th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »