Chennai Court February 1913 Judgments
Ramnadhan Sivayya and ors. Vs. Udatha Atchayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.723
Bakewell, J.1. The decree is in favour of two minors, who sued by their next friend, and two majors, who are undivided members of the same family as the minors. If the obligation of the debtor had not been merged in the decree, the managing member could have given the debtor a discharge without the concurrence of the minors and time would have run against them all. I fail to see how the fact that the contract between the parties has been embodied in a decree can affect the authority of the manager of the family to deal with the decree, which is part of the family property, and I respectfully agree with the reasoning of the learned Judges in the case reported in Duraisawmi Sastrigal v. Venkatarama 21 M.L.J. 1088; (1911) 2 M.W.N. 420; 10 M.L.T. 370; 12 Ind. Cas. 503. Section 7 of the Limitation Act (IX of 1908) treats a suit by joint creditors on the same footing as an application by joint decree-holders and contemplates that one joint creditor of either description may be empowered to g...
Tag this Judgment!Kamayya and ors. Vs. Yerakota Alias Rentakrishnayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1913
Reported in: 19Ind.Cas.221; (1913)24MLJ479
1. We are of opinion that the document Exhibit A did not create a mortgage or charge over any property. It purports to be only a simple bond. After promising to discharge the amount due under the bond and interest on the date fixed the executant proceeds to say 'If I do not so pay I shall add to the amount of principal and interest profit at Rs. 0-8-0 per rupee and pay the aggregate. For this I and my heirs with all my property moveable and immoveable as thanaka (security) shall be liable.' We do not think that this can be regarded as apt language to create a mortgage or charge. In Norton v. Florence Land and Public Works Co. (1877) L.R. 7 Ch.D. 332, Sir George Jessel observed as follows : 'The mere fact that the obligor binds not only himself but also his estate, property and effects, is not sufficient to constitute a charge. Every bond does in a sense bind the property of the debtor. In legal course it binds his property generally as property is bound to pay a judgment debt.' The lan...
Tag this Judgment!M. Rajarama Aiyar Vs. Ramasami Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1913
Reported in: (1913)24MLJ476
1. The first contention raised in second appeal is that on the right construction of Exhibit B, the property out of which the trusts were to be performed was not absolutely dedicated to the trusts. The document gives the whole of the income of the property to the trusts and nothing is reserved for any other purpose. It must therefore be held to have been dedicated completely to the trusts. The next contention is that the provision in Exhibit B, that Mathura Ammal should conduct the charities 'with absolute rights' gave her the power to appoint a successor by testament. We cannot accept this argument. The expression 'with absolute rights' was intended only to provide that no one else should have any right of interference with Mathuramma's management. According to the decided cases a trustee would be acting illegally in disposing of his office by will, because he has no right to affect the succession which must be governed by the usage of the trust or by the law of the land. The plaintif...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Nattava Parankusam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1913
Reported in: (1914)ILR37Mad564
ORDER1. We do not think that this is a case in which the interests of justice call for a prosecution for perjury.2. The accused is a girl of 15 years, and the perjury alleged is in her having made contradictory statements about her mother having wordy quarrels with the man who was keeping the witness. The materiality of the statements is only remote, as suggesting a motive for the offence.3. We often have to notice that Courts exercise little discretion in giving sanction to prosecute for giving false evidence.4. They should not merely see that there is a good prospect of conviction, but should also consider whether the circumstances are such as to render a prosecution desirahle in the public interests.5. We do not think the prosecution in this case is desirable. We revoke the sanction....
Tag this Judgment!Lakshminarayana Panigrahi Vs. Pasupureddi Gopi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1913
Reported in: 25Ind.Cas.282; (1914)27MLJ177
ORDER1. This is a petition under Rule No. 20 of the Vizagapatam, Agency Rules asking us to direct the Agent to review his order refusing to admit an appeal. presented to him against an appellate judgment of a Special Assistant Agent reversing the judgment of the Agency District Munsif of Gunupur. The appeal against the Munsif's judgment was preferred under Rule No. 16. Rule No. 17 provided that the appellate decision of Divisional Assistants shall be final provided that the Agent shall be at liberty, for special reasons to be recorded, to admit a special appeal in his Court within the time prescribed for the admission of a regular appeal. Rule No. 20 gives this Court the power to direct the Agent to review his judgment in the case of decrees passed by him in appeals from the decrees of the subordinates. We do not think that the Agent's order in this case can be regarded as a decree. Mr. Ramesam contends that the Agent's order was one disposing of an appeal against the appellate decree ...
Tag this Judgment!Narahari Sahu and anr. Vs. Sira Korithan Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1913
Reported in: 19Ind.Cas.881; (1913)24MLJ462
1. The question for decision in this second appeal is whether the plaintiff who purchased the property in question from the holder of a service Inam, who was prohibited by law (Section 5 of Act VI of 1895) from alienating the property can claim a valid title to it on the ground that the Inam was subsequently enfranchised and a patta for the land was granted to the alienor. The principle of Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act has no application to such a case, where the invalidity of a transfer is due merely to the transferor not having a title or having only a defective title, the subsequent acquisition of a good title would enable the transferee to claim the benefit of the title acquired under the rule laid down in the section, but it can have no operation when the alienation is forbidden by law on grounds of public policy. C, Ramasami Naik v. Ramasami Chetti I.L.R. (1906) M. 255 where it was held that the sale of an expectancy, which is forbidden by Section 6 of the Transfer o...
Tag this Judgment!Mangalasami thevar and ors Vs. Satayappa Porandan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1913
Reported in: (1913)25MLJ351
1. It does not appear that there is any dispute between the 2nd defendant and the plaintiff as to which of them is the landholder and the second paragraph of Section 3(5) of the Estates Land Act does not apply to these cases.2. In the absence of any provision to the contrary we are of opinion that the general rule of procedure applies, viz.,-that a person entitled to sue who refuses to join as a co-plaintiff may be impleaded as a defendant; Pramada Nath Boy v. Ramani Kanta Roy ILR (1907) C. 331.3. The decrees of the District Judge are accordingly reversed, and the cases are remanded to him for decision. Costs will abide the result....
Tag this Judgment!Doraisingam Alias Gouri Vallabha thevar Vs. Vyravan Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1913
Reported in: 19Ind.Cas.219; (1913)24MLJ404
Sankaran Nair, J.1. An interpleader suit was filed by the lessees of Sivaganga against the Zamindar of Sivaganga, the 7th Defendant and Vyravan Chettiar the 2nd Defendant and certain others. The lessees paid into Court a sum of money a lac and odd rupees claimed by the defendants adversely to each other, and they were on such payment discharged from all liability to the defendants and discharged from the suit. The Zamindar, the 7th Defendant was made the plaintiff in: their stead. The Subordinate Judge has passed an order allowing the 2nd defendant to draw the amount deposited on his furnishing security for the restitution of the amount with interest at 6 per cent, in case the plaintiff gets a decree in his favor. The plaintiff contends that the order was passed without jurisdiction. Order XXXIX Rule 7 in my opinion does not apply as this is clearly not an order for the detention or preservation of any property. It is rather an investment carrying interest. I have been referred to no o...
Tag this Judgment!K. Krishnamachariar Vs. Veeravalli Krishnamachariar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1913
Reported in: (1913)24MLJ517
Charles Arnold White, C.J.1. In this case I propose to deal first with the question of law, that is, can a Hindu minor make a will2. It was practically conceded by Mr. Ramachandra Aiyar that under the Hindu common law a minor cannot make any disposition of property during his life time. There can I think be no question that this is so. It has been so laid down in various authorities. I need only refer to the passage in Colebrooke's Digest of Hindu Law to which Mr. Srinivasa Aiyangar called our attention this morning. Title II, Chapter 4, Section 23, and Narada Title I, Chapter 2, Section 39. If the law is that a Hindu minor cannot make a valid gift during his life time it is difficult to see on what principle it can be said that he can make a valid disposition of property which is only to take effect after his death. The argument of Mr. Ramachandra Aiyar at any rate the argument which he advanced yesterday as I understood him, was this. The Hindu Wills Act and the Succession Act both e...
Tag this Judgment!Venkatachala Goundan and ors. Vs. Rangaratnam Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1913
Reported in: 20Ind.Cas.374; (1913)24MLJ571
1. The plaintiff who is the pattadar of a certain village in the district of Trichinopoly which is a ryotwari tract seeks in the suits in which the second appeals have arisen to eject the defendants from the lands in their possession. The defendants alleged that they had a permanent right to the lands in dispute and this was the most important question for trial. There were two classes of land involved in the suit, garden land and dry land. The District Munsif found with respect to the lands of the former description that the defendants had a permanent right to them subject to certain yearly payments to be made by the defendants to the plaintiff and were not liable to be ejected therefrom, but he came to a different conclusion with respect to the dry lands and decreed the plaintiff's claim with respect to them. Against the judgment of the District Munsiff so far as the garden lands are concerned the plaintiff filed an appeal to the District Judge and the defendants filed a memorandum o...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »