Chennai Court October 1914 Judgments
M. Swaminatha Aiyar Vs. Appasami Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-30-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad651; (1914)27MLJ686
1. This case has been argued yesterday and to-day with great ability by Mr. Krishnaswami Aiyar, but he has not persuaded us that the Subordinate Judge was wrong. The question is whether two documents one of which (Exhibit B.) is in terms of a deed of absolute sale and the other Exhibit A an agreement to reconvey executed ten days later by the vendee under the previous document constitute a mortgage by conditional sale. Section 58 of the Transfer of Property Act, Clause (c) says that where the mortgagor ostensibly sells the mortgaged property on condition that on payment of the mortgage money the buyer shall transfer the property to the seller, the transaction is called a mortgage by conditional sale. And to see whether the ostensible sale referred to in the section when taken with the agreement for reconveyance was intended to operate as a mortgage by conditional sale, it is well settled that the surrounding circumstances have to be looked to as ruled by their Lordships of the judicial...
Tag this Judgment!Rajah Kumara Venkata Perumal Raju Deva Maharajulungaru Minor by Guardi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-30-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad1022; (1915)28MLJ81
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. The question for decision is whether Section 13, Clause 3 of the Estates Land Act enables the tenant to claim exemption from liability to pay a higher rate of rent for crops raised with the help of improvements made at the tenant's sole expense where the improvements had been effected before the Act came into force and where there had been a contract entered into between the landlord and the tenant before the passing of the Act for the payment of such enhanced rent. 2. The facts found by the learned Judges are:(1) That the rent claimed by the Zamindar has been paid by the tenants for over 60 years,(2) that there was a valid contract to pay the rent which was legally enforceable under the provisions of the Rent Recovery Act,(3) that the improvements in respect of which the enhanced rent had been paid ever since 1846 were effected by the tenants. Mr. Justice Sadasiva Aiyar was of opinion that in spite of these facts the landlord was not entitled to sue tor the re...
Tag this Judgment!Venkata Perumal Raja Deva Maharajulungaru (Minor by Guardian, W.A. Var ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-30-1914
Reported in: (1916)ILR39Mad84
Kumaraswami Sastriyar, J.1. The question for decision is whether Section 13, Clause (3) of the Estatas Land Act enables the tenant to claim exemption from liability to pay a higher rate of rent for crops raised with the help of improvements made at the tenant's sole expense where the improvements had been effected before the Act came into force and where there had been a contract entered into between the landlord and the tenant before the passing of the Act for the payment of such enhanced rent2. The facts found by the learned Judges are(1) that the rent claimed by the zamindar has been paid by the tenants for over sixty years,(2) that there was a valid contract to pay the rent which was legally enforceable under the provisions of the Bent Recovery Act.(3) that the improvements in respect of which the enhanced rent had been paid ever since 1846 were effected by the tenants. Mr. Justice Sadasiva Ayyar was of opinion that in spite of these facts the landlord was not entitled to sue for t...
Tag this Judgment!Chockalingam Chetti Vs. Periakaruppan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1914
Reported in: (1915)28MLJ197
1. We must accept the finding of the District Judge that Karuppan Chetti was a joint landholder with the plaintiff in the plaint lands. We are not concerned with the plaintiffs' right to sue for the whole rent (including Karuppan Chetti's share) in case no portion of the rent had been paid up but with quite a different question whether plaintiff can sue for the whole or even his half share of the rent if the tenants had paid up the whole rent to the plaintiff's co-sharer as is found in this case. The decision of that point depends on the answer to two questions (a) whether the payment of the whole rent to the plaintiff's co-sharer was bona fide (See Sheik. Ibrahim Tharagan v. Rama Aiyar : (1911)21MLJ508 and (b) whether a tenant is or is not entitled to pay to a co-sharer of the landlord's rights the latter's share of the rent simply because the said co-sharer's name does not appear in the title deeds under which the transfer of the melwaram right was effected in the plaintiff's name.2....
Tag this Judgment!K.P. Ramakrishna Patter Vs. K.P. Narayana Patter and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1914
Reported in: (1914)27MLJ634
1. The first defendant is the appellant. He is the Karaiswan (or proprietor) of a Kuri which he started in August 1906. There were 11 tickets in the Kuri and the 1st defendant induced other persons to enter into contracts with himself on certain terms which included the payment of subscriptions by them to the Kuri at the rate of Rs. 250 yearly for each ticket holder. The first defendant allowed also each ticket holder to assign his rights under each contract to third persons subject to certain conditions.2. The plaintiff became the assignee of half of a ticket from the 2nd defendant who had entered into one of the several contracts with the 1st defendant. The sixth subscription to the Chit had to be paid on the 17th August 1911. The plaintiff had to send Rs. 125 to the 1st defendant as subscription towards the chit due on that date. He sent the Rs. 125 but the 1st defendant refused to receive it. Hence the plaintiff brought the suit on the 31st August 1911 for two reliefs namely, (a) t...
Tag this Judgment!Rajarajeswara Dorai Alias Muthuramalinga Dorai Avergal Rajah of Ramnad ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad664; (1914)27MLJ694
John Edward Power Wallis, C.J.1. I agree for the reasons given by my learned brother with the decision of the District Judge that the first plaintiff has failed to prove that he was the adopted son of the deceased 'Muthudorasami Thevar and that his appeal (193 of 1911) must be dismissed with costs; the memoranda of objections must also be dismissed with costs. The appeal (173 of 1911) of the Rajah of Ramnad (the 2nd defendant) against the decree in favour of the 3rd plaintiff, who is the father of the 1st plaintiff but claims as assignee of one Poolar Tevan the next reversioner of the deceased Muthudorasanii Tevar has now to be dealt with. The mother of the deceased was the 2nd plaintiff and sued as his heiress, and it was on her death pending the suit the 3rd plaintiff the assignee of the next reversioner was brought on and allowed to continue the suit as her legal representative.2. The claim is for an annuity of Rs. 700 settled in January 1861 on Sivasami Tevar the father of Muthudor...
Tag this Judgment!Aiyasami Udayan and ors. Vs. Appasami Udayan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad414(2); (1915)28MLJ542
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. I agree with my learned brother in his conclusions and I shall state my reasons shortly. I feel myself unable to accept the contention of the appellants' learned vakil that the document Ex. IV was not a will but a deed of settlement. The document calls itself a will in more than one place, it is not written on a stamp paper, the beneficiaries were to take only after the death of the executants and the latter do not use any expression in the deed by which they restricted their own rights in the properties till their deaths to mere life interests.2. As regards the next, contention of the appellants' vakil, it seems to be, (so far as I was able to understand it) that even if Ex. IV was not a deed of settlement, there was a proposal made in it by the executant to the 1st defendant and his wife (the 2nd daughter's husband and the 2nd daughter of the executant) to leave the properties by will if the 2nd daughter of the executants and her husband the 1st defendant protect...
Tag this Judgment!K.P. Ramakrishna Pattar Vs. K.P. Narayana Pattar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad584; (1916)ILR39Mad80
1. The first defendant; is the appellant. He is the karaiswan (or proprietor) of a kuri which he started in August 1906. There were 11 tickets in the kuri and the first defendant induced other persons to enter into contracts with himself on certain terms which included the payment of subscriptions by them to the kuri at the rate of Rs. 250 yearly for each ticket-holder. The first defendant allowed also each ticket-holder to assign his rights under each contract to third persons subject to certain conditions.2. The plaintiff became the assignee of half of a ticket from the second defendant who had entered into one of the several contracts with the first defendant, The sixth subscription to the chit had to be paid on the 17th August 1911. The plaintiff had to send Rs. 125 to the first defendant as subscription towards the chit due on that date. He sent the Rs. 125 but the first defendant refused to receive it. Hence the plaintiff brought the suit on the 31st August 1911 for two reliefs, ...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Rajah Vatasavaya Venkata Simhadri Jaghapathi Raju Bahadur Garu, Dy ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1914
Reported in: (1916)ILR39Mad67
Spencer, J.1. The simple question in these appeals is whether the respondents are liable to pay water-cess to Government for irrigating lands in excess of the area classed as wet at the inam settlement with the water of the Eti Koppaka channel. Similar questions arose in Appasami Aiyar v. The Secretary of State (1910) 1 M.W.N. 107 and in Kesari Venkatasubbiah v. The Secretary of State for India (1913) 14 M.L.T., the latter decision having been published after the filing of these appeals; and if those cases were rightly decided, as I think they were, these appeals must be dismissed.2. Prior to the present suit, there has been litigation between the parties. In Original Suit No. 545 of 1885 on the file of the District Munsif's Court of Ellamanchilli, it was decided that two sluices should be constructed at the entrance of the Koppaka channel, two feet in height, one being one and a half yards wide for the use of the Koppaka mokhasadars, and the other, three yards in width, for the use of...
Tag this Judgment!Kallepalle Venkatarama Raju Vs. Kallepalle Bapamma, and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad759; (1914)27MLJ638
Spencer, J.1. This is a suit to set aside an adoption. Two questions arise for decision (1) whether the alleged adoption of the 2nd defendant is true; and (2) whether the refusal of the plaintiff to give his consent to the adoption invalidated any adoption made by the 1st defendant as the widow of the deceased Lakshmipati Raju.2. Although the adoptive mother, the 1st defendant, has in this suit, taken the part of the plaintiff and denied the factum of the adoption. I have no doubt that the Subordinate Judge was correct in the finding that the 2nd defendant was adopted. All the documents produced in the case from 1906 onwards describe him as an adopted son. Exhibit III is a promissory note executed by the.1st defendant as guardian of her adopted son, the 2nd defendant, which purports to have been attested by the plaintiff. D. W. 5 proved the fact that the plaintiff attested this promissory note executed in his (witness's) favour. The plaintiff, in the witness-box, professed himself unab...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »