Chennai Court February 1915 Judgments
T.R.M.T. Subramaniam Chettiar Vs. the Secretary of State for India by ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad696(2); (1915)28MLJ392
1. This is an appeal from a decree of the Subordinate judge's Court of Ramnad dismissing a suit brought by the plaintiffs against the Secretary of State for India in Council for a declaration that the Government order of the 10th February 1510 directing the suit village to be fully assessed was not valid and for an injunction. The evidence clearly shows that the suit village was lakiraj or exempt from the payment of revenue at the date of the Permanent Settlement and that it was excluded from the settlement under Section 4 of the Regulation 25 of 1802. Further it is now admitted that the Section 2 of the Regulation 31 of 1802 which confirmed certain grants of this kind did not apply to Ramnad where the suit village is situated. The Inam Commissioner in 1864 recommended that the village should be fully assessed, but it was not until February 1910 that effect was given to his recommendation by Exhibit A.2. The case is clearly governed by the decision in Uddupalli Jagannadham v. The Secre...
Tag this Judgment!C.T.N. Narayanan Chettiar and ors. Vs. V.S.V. Lakshmanan Chettiar (Dec ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1915
Reported in: (1915)28MLJ571
1. This is an appeal by some of the defendants against a decree in favour of the plaintiffs in a suit brought by certain trustees as Hukdars of a temple to recover possession of the temple properties from the defendants (appellants) to whom the trustees had made over the management of the temple under an agreement Exhibit I, dated 21st June 1901. Four question? were argued before us. In the first place it was said that the suit is bad for non-joinder, as, though all the Hukdars including the 9th and 10th defendants were impleaded, the plaintiffs in paragraph 16 of the plaint stated that these defendants had lost the office owing to their neglect to discharge its duties, and that they were joined merely because they asserted a right to it. At the trial this contention was abandoned by the plaintiffs, and a decree was passed in favour of the 9th and 10th defendants with their consent as well as of the other defendants. In these circumstances, I do not think the decision in Kohilasari Das...
Tag this Judgment!Elichi Ussack and 5 ors. Vs. Ramaswami Iyer and 18 ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1915
Reported in: AIR1915Mad11173; (1915)28MLJ662
1. This is an appeal against the decree of the Sub-Judge of Calicut directing the defendants to pay the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 51,801-3-2 and in default directing the mortgaged properties to be sold. The representatives of the family of defendants 1 to 8 mortgaged certain properties to the deceased Sankumani Iyer the predecessor-in-title of the plaintiffs for a sum of Rs. 30,000 on the 24th July 1882. They subsequently hypothecated the same properties to the same creditor for Rs. 5,000 on the same date (Ex. A) for another sum of Rs. 5,000 on 11th April 1882 (Exhibit E) and for Rs. 7,000 on 22nd September 1882 (Ex. C.) They acknowledge the receipt of Rs. 4,154-10-0 and sue to recover the money due under these 3 instruments of mortgage Exh. A, B and C. The main defence is that the plarntiffs are not entitled to sue on these hypothecation bonds because in July 1886 there was a settlement of accounts between the parties and it was agreed that the amount of Rs. 60,000 was payable under Ex. ...
Tag this Judgment!Kaliaperumal Keerudayan and anr. Vs. Chidambaram Thanjiran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1915
Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.10
1. The learned Subordinate Judge has, it seems to us, overlooked the bearing of Article 142 of the Limitation Act. The plaintiff must prove not only that he is entitled to the property, but also (if and in so far as that is contested) that he has not been oft of possession during the whole of the twelve years preceding his suit. The fact that the defendants are not able to establish affirmatively that they have been continuously in possession for the said period of twelve years under Article 144 of the Limitation Act does not necessarily entitle the plaintiff to succeed unless the requirements of Article 142 are also satisfied. We must call for a finding, therefore, on the following issue: 'Whether at any time within twelve years from the date of the suit the plaintiff or his predecessors-in-title were in possession of the property referred to in the plaint.'2. In answering this question the Subordinate Judge will not consider the possession which was given to the plaintiff on the 24th...
Tag this Judgment!C.T.N. Narayanan Chettiar and ors. Vs. V.S.V. Lakshmanan Chettiar and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1915
Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.1
1. This is an appeal by some of the defendants against a decree in favour of the plaintiffs in a suit brought by certain trustees as hukdars of a temple to recover possession of the temple properties from the defendants (appellants) to whom the trustees had made over the management of the temple under an agreement, Exhibit I, dated 21st June 1901. Four questions were argued before Rs. In the first place it was said that the suit is bad for non-joinder, as, though all the hukdars including the 9th and 10th defendants were impleaded, the plaintiffs in paragraph 16 of the plaint stated that these defendants had lost the office owing to their neglect to discharge its duties, and that they were joined merely because they asserted a right to it. At the trial this contention was abandoned by the plaintiffs, and a decree was passed in favour of the 9th and 10th defendants with their consent as well as of the other defendants. In these circumstances, I do not think the decision in Kokilasari Da...
Tag this Judgment!The Official Assignee of Madras Vs. Bangy Abdul Razack Sahib and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad402; 29Ind.Cas.204
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The only question in this appeal is whether the sale-deed for Rs. 7,000 executed by the insolvent to his father-in-law, who is now represented by the respondents, can be upheld as against the Official Assignee. In other words, the question is whether Abdul Kadir, the vendee, was a purchaser in good faith and for valuable consideration' within the meaning of Section 55 of the Insolvency Act. If the sale was made for an adequate price and if further the vendor's debt, which was discharged out of the purchase-money, was equal to or nearly equal to the value of the property, I am not disposed to treat the transaction as fraudulent, or to hold that the vendee is not a vendee in good faith. If, however, the sale was for a price appreciably lower than the real value of the property and if there are facts indicating that the vendee was actuated by the intention to get a much larger benefit for himself than he was fairly entitled to as a diligent creditor or that he conspir...
Tag this Judgment!K. Vellayappa Rowthen Vs. K. Bava Rowthen and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1915
Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.747
1. Under Exhibit A the respondents purport to convey full title in the suit property and the appellant is entitled to rely on Section 55 (2) of the Transfer of Property Act. His knowledge that the title was defective will not in such circumstances preclude him from suing for recovery of his purchase-money. Vide Subbaraya Reddiar v. Rajagopala Reddiar 23 Ind. Cas. 570 : (1914) M.W.N. 376 : 15 M.L.T. 240 and Thekkemannengath Raman v. Kakkesseri Pazhiyot Manakkal Karnavan 27 Ind. Cas. 989 : 28 M.L.J. 184 : 2 L.W. 433.2. The decree of the Subordinate Judge is set aside and the appellant (plaintiff) will be given a decree for Rs. 538-4-0 with subsequent interest at 6 per cent.3. Each party will bear its own costs throughout....
Tag this Judgment!Vemooru Audi Narayaniah Vs. Panchagnula Sreeramulu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad896; 29Ind.Cas.785
1. We agree with the District Judge that the suit is clearly barred. The plaintiff's evidence that he came to know 3 1/2 years before suit is inconsistent with evidence of his mother, and the general evidence clearly shows that the plaintiff must have been aware that the 1st defendant was being put forward as the adopted son of his grandfather much more than six years before the institution of this suit.2. The appeal is dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!The Secretary of State for India in Council Vs. P. Venkayya (Died) and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1915
Reported in: (1917)ILR40Mad910
Coutts Trotter, J.1. This is an appeal by the Secretary of State for India in Council against a judgment of the District Judge of Godavari awarding to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 14,000 by way of damages. The facts of the case are comparatively simple, though the questions for determination are complex and difficult. The plaintiff in March 1896 acquired from the Collector of Godavari district acting as Agent for the Government, a patta or lease of a piece of land called the Sidhantam Lanka at an annual kist of Rs. 6,010 for a period of five years. These lankas are islands formed in the bed of the river Godavari by the silting up of solid matters brought down by its waters. They are pursue any remedy in damages which that finding might entitle him to. At the same time Government was allowed by the learned Judges to take the point of limitation which had not been raised by them at the first hearing. The case accordingly went back to the District Court, and the then District Judge, Mr. Par...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Subba Naiker Minor by His Mother and Next Friend, Kichiammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad699(1); 30Ind.Cas.781
1. It is argued that though the gift may be binding on the son of the donor, or on a reversioner when made by a widow, it is not binding on the other co-parceners. We are of opinion that this contention cannot be sustained. According to the authorities cited in the decisions referred to by the lower Appellate Court, the gift is binding on the joint family.2. There is no other question of law. The second appeal is dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »