Chennai Court April 1913 Judgments
Narayana Aiyar and ors. Vs. Rama Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1913
Reported in: 20Ind.Cas.625; (1913)25MLJ219
Sadasiva Aiyar, J. 1. The defendants Nos. 3 to 6 are the appellants before us. The suit was by a reversioner for a declaration that the two alienations of 1881 and 1889 made by a widow, Aramvalarthammal, under Exhibits I and II (b) respectively are invalid against the minor plaintiff. Aramvalarthammal died in 1899, and the next reversioners are her daughters, defendants Nos. 1 and 2. The plaintiff is the adopted son of the 1st defendant, having been adopted in May 1903. The suit was brought in 1907 within five years of the plaintiff's adoption but more than 12 years from the dates of the alienations by the plaintiff's maternal grand-mother, Aramvalarthammal. The lower appellate court decreed the plaintiff's suit on the following findings and reasonings:(a) The alienations under Exhibits I and II(b) were not made for purposes binding on the reversioner.(b) Though the sale under Exhibit I was attested by the next presumptive male reversioner (Aramvalarthammars brother) and though the nex...
Tag this Judgment!Manonmani Ammal Vs. Vythialinga Naicker and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1913
Reported in: (1913)25MLJ481
Miller, J.1. The point is a short one but not very easy, and it is after some doubt that I have arrived at the conclusion that the Courts below are right.2. The question is whether the cause of action in respect of which the two suits have been instituted is one and the same, and to arrive at the answer we must, I think, have regard to the position of affairs at the date of the earlier suit.3. At that date the plaintiff had by two separate transactions acquired the shares of two out of five (or perhaps four; the number is unimportant for my present purpose) members of an undivided family. The shares had not been separated, and to obtain the benefit of his purchases the plaintiff, being driven to a suit, had to sue the whole family. At the date of the suit he could say ' I am entitled to two-fifths of the family property,' but he could not say ' I am entitled to one fifth here and to one fifth there to one fifth of such and such fields and to one fifth of such and such other fields.' Hi...
Tag this Judgment!Narayana Aiyar and Three ors. Vs. Rama Aiyar and Two ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1913
Reported in: (1915)ILR38Mad396
Sadasiva Ayyar, J.1. The defendants Nos. 3 to 6 are the appellants before us. The suit was by a reversioner for a declaration that the two alienations of 1881 and 1889 made by a widow, Aramvalarthammal, under Exhibits I and II (b) respectively, are invalid against the minor plaintiff. Aramvalarthammal died in 1899, and the next reversioners are her daughters, defendants Nos. 1 and 2. The plaintiff is the adopted son of the first defendant, having been adopted in May 1903. The suit was brought in 1907 within five years of the plaintiff's adoption but more than 12 years from the dates of the alienations by the plaintiff's maternal grandmother, Aramvalarthammal. The Lower Appellate Court decreed the plaintiff's suit on the following findings and reasonings:(a) The alienations under Exhibits I and II (b) were not made for purposes binding on the reversioner.(b) Though the sale under Exhibit I was attested by the next presumptive male reversioner (Aramvalarthammal's brother) and though the ...
Tag this Judgment!Umadai Raja Rajai Damara Kumara Thimma Nayanim Bahadur Varu Raja of Ka ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1913
Reported in: (1913)25MLJ198
1. This appeal is against an order of the District Court of North Arcot refusing to set aside the sale of a village Chintapalli held in the execution of a mortgage decree. The mortgagor Judgment-debtor is the Rajah of Kalhasti, and the mortgagee is the Maharajah of Venkatagiri. The purchaser at the Court sale is the Rajah of Tuni. Subsequent to the mortgage which was the subject of the decree, the mortgagor entered into a transaction of exchange with one Narasimha Rayanimgar by which Chintapalli was given to Narasimha in exchange for some other property. Under the terms of the instrument of exchange the mortgagor was entitled in addition to the village received by him in exchange to an annual sum of Rs. 507-2-9 . from the income of the Chintapalli yillage. This arrangement was apparently made in order to compensate the mortgagor for the difference in value between Chintapally and the village given by him in exchange for it. The suit and the decree on the mortgage were subsequent to the...
Tag this Judgment!Vairavan Chettiar and anr. Vs. Avicha Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1913
Reported in: (1913)25MLJ256
1. So far as the 1st and 2nd Respondents are concerned this appeal must fail on the finding of the Subordinate Judge, with which we agree. There is no evidence that the 3rd defendant (3rd respondent) executed Exhibit C with the authority of his father, Chockalinga, or that Exhibit C was subsequently ratified either by Chockalinga or by Srirangam Achi and Sivagami who succeeded Chockalinga in the guardianship of the1st and 2nd defendants. The 3rd defendant's testimony is completely against the plaintiffs. It may be that he is not speaking the truth but in the absence of any evidence to prove plaintiffs' case their claim against the 1st and 2nd respondents must fail. Exhibit A does not shew that Srirangam Achi and Sivagami intended to ratify Exhibit C. The appeal must therefore be dismissed with costs as against the 1st and 2nd Respondents.2. The next question is whether the 3rd defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiffs for the damage caused to them by his executing Exhibit C. wit...
Tag this Judgment!Kotagiri Venkataramarayanim and ors. Vs. Partibanda Basavayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1913
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.185; (1913)25MLJ447
Arnold White, C.J.1. I have had the advantage of , reading the judgment which Miller J. is about to deliver and I agree with his conclusion.2. Both the learned judges by whom this appeal was first heard seem to have concurred in the view that the property attached was according to the law in force when the attachment took place, immoveable property. On the argument of the appeal before us, it was not seriously contended that they were wrong as to this.3. In this case both land and crops were attached in the first instance, though the attachment of the land was afterwards raised. It seems to me that the plaintiff's cause of action was trespass to land within the meaning of Article 39. If this is so, the period of limitation is 3 years and the suit is in time. The alleged trespass took place on December 13th 1906, and the present suit was instituted on November 18th, 1909. 4. In Narasimha Rao v. Gangaraju I.L.R. (1908) M. 431 a majority of the court were of opinion that as regards the qu...
Tag this Judgment!Umadi Rajaha Rajai Damara Kumara Thimma Nayanim Bahadurvaru Raja of Ka ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1913
Reported in: (1915)ILR38Mad387
1. This appeal is against an order of the District Court of North Arcot refusing to set aside the sale of a village Chintapalli held in the execution of a mortgage-decree. The mortgagor judgment-debtor is the Rajah of Kalahasti, and the mortgagee is the Maharaja of Venkatagiri. The purchaser at the Court sale is the Rajah of Tuni. Subsequent to the mortgage which was the subject of the decree, the mortgagor entered into a transaction of exchange with one Narasimha Rayaningar by which Chintapalli was given to Narasimha in exchange for some other property. Under the terms of the instrument of exchange the mortgagor was entitled in addition to the village received by him in exchange to an annual sum of Rs. 507-2-9 from the income of the Chintapalli village. This arrangement was apparently made in order to compensate the mortgagor for the difference in value between Chintapalli and the village given by him in exchange for it. The suit and the decree on the mortgage were subsequent to the e...
Tag this Judgment!Angammal Vs. Melic Muhamad Syed Aslam Saib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-1913
Reported in: (1913)25MLJ625
Arnold White, C.J.1. I adhere to my former judgment, and I think that the appeal should be dismissed with costs.Miller, J.2. As regards the point that the building was not attached to the land by the plaintiff or her husband during the tenancy under Exhibit II, a point which was not taken in the Courts below I do not think it is necessary to hold that Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act would be inapplicable to the case. So far as I can see, the recognition, for the period of the new tenancy, of the tenant's property in the building has no other necessary effect than to prevent the landlord from treating the building as having been surrendered to him at the end of the previous, term; it may be taken as evidence of a contract to allow the removable fixture to remain as such upon the land for the new term. I find nothing inconsistent with this view in Exhibit II, and the effect so far as the tenant's right to the building is concerned, is to reserve to him for the new term whatev...
Tag this Judgment!Angammal Vs. M.M.S. Aslami Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-1913
Reported in: (1915)ILR38Mad710
Charles Arnold White, C.J.1. I think Wallis, J., was right. The facts are stated in his judgment. I need not repeat them.2. I am not satisfied that Sir Barnes Peacock, in the passage in his judgment in In the matter of the petition of Thakoor Chunder Paramanick (1866) B.L.R. Sup. 595 , which is cited in Ismai Kani Rowthan v. Nazarali Sahib (1904) I.L.B., 27 Mad., 211 , intended to lay down that, in cases where the builder did not remove the material before the expiry of his lease, the option in the owner of the soil to take the building was an option which he could only exercise subject to the payment of compensation to the builder. There is a passage on page 217 of Sir Bhashyam Ayyangar's judgment in Ismai Kani Rowthan v. Nazarali Sahib (1904) I.L.B., 27 Mad., 211 ,' according to the customary or common law of the land, as laid down in In the matter of the petition of Thakoor Chunder Paramanick (1866) B.L.R. Sup. 595 , the option in such cases will be with the lessor either to take th...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: R. Nataraja Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1913
Reported in: (1913)25MLJ565
ORDERSundara Aiyar, J.1.This is an application asking us to declare under Clause 39 of the Letters Patent that an order passed by us refusing to set aside an order made by a Deputy Collector as an Income Tax Officer directing that the petitioner be prosecuted for an offence under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code is a fit one for appeal to His Majesty in Council. Against the order of the Deputy Collector two proceedings were taken in this Court one to set it aside under Sections 435 and 439 Cr.P.C. and the other to quash the proceedings of the Deputy Collector by a writ of certiorari.2. We dismissed both the petitions.3. The present application for leave to appeal to His Majesty is made in the application to quash the Deputy Collector's order by a writ of certiorari. The application is made under Section 39 of the Letters Patent. According to that section an appeal lies to His Majesty in Council only when the matter to which the judgment or order of this Court relates is not one of ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »