Chennai Court March 1913 Judgments
Muthusami Iyer (Died) and ors. and Annasami Iyer and ors. Vs. Sree Sre ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-1913
Reported in: 19Ind.Cas.694; (1913)25MLJ393
Miller, J.1. In 1872 the Matadhipathi Sukgnana Nidhi Swamiar made an alienation of the inam in dispute by way of a lease in perpetuity to a Brahmin, Mudgala Chariar, who enjoyed it till 1884 and then sub-leased or assigned his interests to the first and second defendants and to predecessors of the 12th and 13th defendants.2. The lessor died in 1890 and was succeeded by Sri Suthi Nidhi Swamiar, a parson who had been managing the affairs of the Mutt on behalf of his predecessor during the later years of his life. In 1889, before his predecessor's death, he, on behalf of the Matadhipathi, leased the inam to the 6th defendant, cancelling the lease of 1872. The 6th defendant was however never able to obtain possession and from 1893 onwards at any rate, the Swamiar was collecting the rent reserved by the old lease of 1872, from the persons then occupying as transferees of the lessee and in 1903 litigation about the 6th defendant's lease having come to an end, he treated the occupants under t...
Tag this Judgment!Parasurama Pattar Vs. Venkatachalam Pattar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-1913
Reported in: AIR1914Mad661; (1913)25MLJ561
1. We accept the finding of the Lower Appellate Court that Exhibit II is not binding on the plaintiffs, nor do we see any reason for differing from its conclusion that the defendants have not proved any circumstances which could be held to estop the plaintiffs from setting up the invalidity of Exhibit III as against them. One further contention remains to be dealt with, namely, that the plaintiffs are not entitled to purapad or rent for more than six years before the date of the suit. The facts which lead to this contention are that the Karipanayam deed Exhibit I dated 1867) as modified by the documents of further charge (Exhibit II dated the 1st May 1876 and Exhibit III dated the 14th July 1881) provides that the mortgagee should deliver the 200 paras of paddy a year to the plaintiffs, that no paddy was delivered subsequent to the Karar (Exhibit XII dated the 4th March 1889), and that the plaintiffs, in consequence, claim to be entitled to have credit for all the rent due under the mo...
Tag this Judgment!Muthusamier and Three ors. Vs. Sree Sreemethanithi Swamiyar Avergal an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-1913
Reported in: (1915)ILR38Mad356
Miller, J.1. In 1872 the matathipathi Sukgnana Nidhi Swamiar made an alienation of the inam in dispute by way of a lease in perpetuity to a Brahman, Mudgala Charier, who enjoyed it till 1834 and then sub-leased or assigned his interests to the first and second defendants and to predecessors of the twelfth and thirteenth defendants.2. The lessor died in 1890 and was succeeded by Sri Sudhi Nidhi Swamiar, a person who had been managing the affairs of the mutt on behalf of his predecessor during the latter years of his life. In 1889, before his predecessor's death, he, on behalf of the matathipatihi, leased the inam to the sixth defendant, cancelling the lease of 1872. The sixth defendant was, however, never able to obtain possession, and from 1893 onwards at any rate, the Swamiar was collecting the rent reserved by the old lease of 1872 from the persons then occupying as transferees of the lessee, and in 1903 the litigation about the sixth defendant's lease having come to an end, he treat...
Tag this Judgment!Bodi Alias Lakshmakka and Three ors. Vs. Venkataswami Naidu and Two or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-1913
Reported in: (1915)ILR38Mad369
1. The suit in this case was instituted by a legatee under a will executed by a Hindu, for recovering the properties devised to him. The first defendant is the widow of the testator. Various pleas were raised in answer to the plaintiff's claim but it is unnecessary to refer to them all, as the contentions in this Second Appeal have been confined to the points of law raised. The first of them is that the will ceased to be legally operative, as it related to the ancestral property of the testator and as a son was subsequently born to him, by which he ceased to have any power of testamentary disposition over the property. It is admitted that the testator was quite competent to dispose of the property by will at the time when he executed it. Mr. Seshagiri Ayyar, the learned vakil for the appellant, argues that the cessation of the testator's absolute estate in the property in consequence of the subsequent birth of a son had the effect of revoking the will in law. He relies on the statement...
Tag this Judgment!Kummatta Vittil Kunhikutti Haji Vs. Reverend Antoni Gower and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1913
Reported in: (1913)24MLJ472
1. The plaintiffs sued to redeem a Kuzhikanom demise made in 1862 in favor of the 1st defendant's father.2. The District Munsif gave the plaintiffs a decree for possession on payment of the sum ascertained as due to the defendants as compensation for improvements. On appeal the District Judge held that the tenancy created by the demise of 1862 terminated in 1874 by efflux of time, apparently under the provisions of Section 111 of the Transfer of Property Act. He seems also to have held that Section 116 does not protect the tenant, as there was no payment of rent, and therefore, no holding over. He held that the plaintiffs' suit was barred by Article 139 of the Limitation Act, not having been brought within 12 years of the termination of the tenancy, and he dismissed the plaiptifts' suit with costs throughout. The 1st plaintiff now appeals to us against this decree, and with good reason. The Transfer of Property Act does not apply to agricultural leases in Malabar. If it did, Section 11...
Tag this Judgment!Yerakantha Subbiah Vs. Dilawar Khan Doulot Joi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1913
Reported in: (1913)24MLJ482
Sankaran Nair, J.1. The Munsif passed an exparte decree on the 19th August 1907. On the 14th April 1910 the plaintiff applied for execution. The application was posted for hearing on the 14th June. The defendant on the 6th June 1910 applied to set aside the exparte decree. The application was posted to the 14th June. Notice was not served on the plaintiff. But the pleader who appeared for him in his execution petition on the 14th was asked to file his counter-affidavit on the 17th, Though he says in his affidavit that he appeared only in the petition. On the 17th, the plaintiff and his pleader for the execution petitioner were present, and the Munsif set aside the exparte order. The section is imperative that the exparte order can be set aside only after notice is served on the plaintiff. Subramania Aiyar who appeared for him in the execution petition was not his pleader in the case. The Munsif acted illegally in setting it aside without notice. His order also is defective. It does not...
Tag this Judgment!Duvvada China Jagayya Cowdary and 9 ors. Vs. Probha Narasimham
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1913
Reported in: 20Ind.Cas.832; (1913)25MLJ15
1. We do not think the provisions of Act VIII of 1865 require the exchange of a second muchilika, and a second patta between the ryot and the farmer of land under the Zamindar, when for the same fasli a patta and a muchilika have already been exchanged between the ryot and the zamindar. This is the only ground argued. The appeal is dismissed with costs.2. The same judgment follows in S.A. No. 1573 of 1910 presented from the decree of the District Court of Ganjam in A.S. No. 1 of 09 preferred against the decree of the District Munsif of Sompettah in O.S. No. 127 of 08....
Tag this Judgment!Raja Rajeswara Dorai Alias Muthu Ramalinga Dorai Late a Minor Through ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1913
Reported in: 19Ind.Cas.596; (1913)24MLJ592
Miller, J.1. This appeal arises from a suit in which the Rajah of Ramnad (the present sole plaintiff) prays the Court to hold that two leases executed by his father, one on the 5th of November 1889 and the other on the 2nd of June 1893, are not binding upon him and to direct the defendant to deliver to him possession of the property affected by them.2. The principal ground on which the suit is based is that the lessee obtained the leases by the exercise of undue influence. That is denied by the defendants, who also raise many other pleas and, among them, a plea that the suit is barred by Article 91 of the 2nd schedule of the Limitation Act.3. The original lessee died in 1899, and the plaintiff's father was then alive. The suit was instituted in 1904, and it is not contended before us though it was contended in the court below, that the undue influence continued, after the death of the lessee, to be exercised by his sons.4. For the appellant it is argued that Article 91 is inapplicable ...
Tag this Judgment!N. Arthanari Goundan and anr. Vs. Ramasami Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1913
Reported in: 20Ind.Cas.304; (1913)25MLJ8
Miller, J. 1. The plaintiff as reversionary heir of the son of one Marakathammal sued for a declaration that a deed of gift executed by her to one Ramaswami Goundan was not valid and binding on him and for partition. The principal question in this appeal is whether the gift by Marakathammal to Ramasami Goundan, (the transaction as evidenced by Exhibit I) is valid and binding on the plaintiff Ramasami Goundan, the donee, as the next presumptive reversioner to succeed on the death of the donor. The document Exhibit I runs as follows;--' As you have performed the funeral rites to my husband, the deceased Arthanari Goundan and my son the deceased Ramasami Goundan, as you have the right to inherit as surviving heir, all my properties after my death, as you have spent on my behalf and on behalf of my son, your own, and after borrowing monies required for conducting O.S. No. 5 of 1883 on the file of the District Court, Salem, conducted by my son, the deceased Ramasami Goundan, as plaintiff an...
Tag this Judgment!Raja Rajeswara Dorai Alias Muthuramalinga Dorai Late a Minor Through H ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1913
Reported in: (1915)ILR38Mad321
Miller, J.1. This appeal arises from a suit in which the Raja of Ramnad (the present sole plaintiff) prays the Court to hold that two leases executed by his father, one on the 5th of November 1889 and the other on the 2nd of June 1893, are not binding upon him and to direct the defendant to deliver to him possession of the property affected by them.2. The principal ground on which the suit is based is that the lessee obtained the leases by the exercise of undue influence. That is denied by the defendants, who also raise many other pleas and among them, a plea that the suit is barred by Article 91 of the second schedule of the Limitation Act.3. The original lessee died in 1899, and the plaintiff's father was then alive. The suit was instituted in 1904, and it is not contended before us, though it was contended in the Court below, that the undue influence continued after the death of the lessee to be exercised by his sons.4. For the appellant it is argued that Article 91 is inapplicable ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »