Chennai Court March 1915 Judgments
Hussan Ammal Bibi (Deceased)and ors. Vs. Ismal Moideen Rowther and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-1915
Reported in: (1915)28MLJ642
John Edward Power Wallis, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiffs in this case claim under an assignment from the auction-purchaser at an execution sale of the 1st defendant's interest in certain property which was in the enjoyment of the 1st and 2nd defendants as tenants in common. The sale took place on the 16th March 1898 and was confirmed on the 21st April 1898, and the sale certificate issued on the 22nd April 1898. The present suit was brought on the 15th April 1910, but it was only when it was amended on the 15th October 1910 that it became a suit to enforce the plaintiff's rights as representatives of the auction-purchaser to partition the property to which they were entitled as tenants in common with the 2nd defendant. This date therefore must be regarded as the date of instituting the suit. The Subordinate Judge has dismissed the suit, as barred under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that possession was never obtained under Order 21, Rule 96 of the Civil Procedure C...
Tag this Judgment!S. Chidambaramma Vs. S. Hussainamma and Two ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad347; (1916)ILR39Mad565
Sadasiva Ayyar, J.1. The facts are as follows: the plaintiff is the decree-holder in Original Suit No. 311 of 1901 on the file of the Nandyal District Munsif's Court. The judgment-debtor is the first defendant, a Hindu widow who represented her husband's estate fully and the decree was passed for a debt due by her husband. The plaint property was attached by the plaintiff (decree-holder) as belonging to her husband's estate. The attachment was made on the 11th November 1908, but the widow (the first defendant) had sold the property in 1899 itself to the third defendant, who sold it in his turn to the second defendant in 1905. The widow's sale was not made for necessity and was invalid beyond her life-time.2. On these facts the question in second appeal is whether the plaintiff, who is the appellant before us, is or is not entitled to attach and bring to sale in execution of his decree in Original Suit No. 311 of 1901 that portion of the husband's estate which is left unaffected by the ...
Tag this Judgment!Ayyaperumalodayan and ors. Vs. S.R.M.A.R. Ramasami Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad147; 30Ind.Cas.983
Spencer, J.1. These and other connected suits were brought under the provisions of Section 56 of the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908, by a landholder to compel his ryots to accept the pattahs tendered to them for Fasli 1318. In such suits it is the duty of the Revenue Court, under Section 57 of the Act, to determine what is a proper pattah. The proprietor claimed that a usage existed in this village to collect rents according to the amani system; in other words, that the ryots should give rents in waram which implies a division of the crop between the landholder and the ryot (vide Section 29 of the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908). To this the ryots rejoined that by a long standing custom they had been paying fixed money rents, and they denied the usage set up by the plaintiff to pay rents in kind. The question thus arose whether money rents or waram rents were the rents established by agreement or custom in this village.2. The Deputy Collector who tried these suits found that the plaintif...
Tag this Judgment!Rahman Bi and ors. Vs. Fatima Bibi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-1915
Reported in: AIR1915Mad921; 31Ind.Cas.545
William Ayling, J.1. I have no hesitation in accepting the findings of the learned Judge on the issues referred to him.2. As regards the house assigned by Exhibit B, No. 107 in Thambu Chetty Street, it is found that at any rate after the date of Exhibit I, possession was held by Chinna-vapu Sahib (the donor) only as the guardian of the donee: and it may be inferred that his possession between the date of gift and that date was in the same capacity. I should, therefore, hold that the gift is valid.3. The case of the other house, No. 76 in Angappa Naick Street, transferred by Exhibit A is different. The learned Judge finds 'that possession of the subject of the gift was not actually transferred by the donor to the donee and that, after the gift and until the death of the donor, no act of ownership was exercised over the subject of gift either by the donee or by any person on behalf of the donee but that the donor continued to receive rents from the property.'4. There is in fact nothing a...
Tag this Judgment!Hassan Ammal Bibi and ors. Vs. Ismail Moideen Rowthar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad430; 29Ind.Cas.976
John Wallis, C.J.1. The plaintiffs in this case claim under an assignment from the auction-purchaser at an execution sale of the 1st defendant's interest in certain property, which was in the enjoyment of the 1st and.2nd defendants as tenants-in-common. The sale took place on the 16th March 1898 and was confirmed on the 21st April 1898, and the sale certificate issued on the 22nd April 1898. The present suit was brought on the 15th April 1910, but it was only when it was amended on the 15th October 1910, that it became a suit to enforce the plaintiff's rights as representatives of the auction-purchaser to partition the property to which they were entitled as tenants-in-common with the 2nd defendant. This date, therefore, must be regarded as the date of instituting the suit. The Subordinate Judge has dismissed the suit, as barred under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, on the ground that possession was never obtained under Order XXT, Rule 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (s...
Tag this Judgment!P.S. Shadagopa Naidu and anr. Vs. P.S. Thirumalaswami Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1915
Reported in: 30Ind.Cas.272
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. This is a suit filed by the minor plaintiffs through their next friend for an account of the joint family properties belonging to themselves and their father, the defendant, for a partition of the properties and for delivery to them of their share of the properties.2. The plaint sets out that the plaintiffs (who are the sons of the defendant) and the defendant are members of an undivided Hindu family possessed of the joint family properties mentioned in the plaint and that they are each entitled to 1/3rd share therein. The plaintiffs pray for a partition on the ground that the defendant is leading a reckless and immoral life, that he is living in the house of some prostitute or other after having driven his wife out of the house, that he is addicted to drink and that he has not been attending to his business. It is also alleged that he has been threatening to alienate the properties to prejudice the plaintiffs and is denying their rights to the properties, alle...
Tag this Judgment!Sankaran Nair Vs. K.K. Kochappu Menon and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad1099; 29Ind.Cas.427
1. The lower Appellate Court says in paragraph 12 of its judgment that under Exhibit I, Chathunni's right was coupled with an obligation to perform certain services. But we do not find in Exhibit I, which was produced in a mutilated condition, any such obligation imposed. In Exhibit B produced by the 5th defendant, as a copy of Exhibit I in its unmutilated state, such a condition appears, but the District Munsif has given prima facie good grounds for treating it with suspicion. The Subordinate Judge has not referred to Exhibit B at all.2. Before disposing of this second appeal, we think it necessary to obtain definite findings from the lower Appellate Court on the following issues :3. 1. Is Exhibit B a true copy of the original deed, Exhibit I, in its unmutilated condition P Were any conditions attached to the anubhavam grant made under Exhibit I? (In coming to a conclusion on this question, the lower Appellate Court will also consider whether there is any explanation for the use of th...
Tag this Judgment!Alamanayakunigari Nabi Sab, Minor, by Next Friend and Mother Fakir Bee ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1915
Reported in: AIR1915Mad972; 29Ind.Cas.439
Ayling, J.1. I have had the advantage of perusing the judgment of my learned brother. As regards the applicability of Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act, in case the gift should be held invalid, I entirely agree with him.2. The validity of the gift under Muhammadan Law is a more difficult question regarding which, even if I saw reason to disagree with him, I should do so with extreme diffidence. I see no reason to differ, and agree to the finding for which he proposes to call.3. Tyabji, J.--The plaintiff sues to enforce a mortgage, Exhibit A, executed by the 1st defendant on 2nd December 1907. The property mortgaged did not belong to the 1st defendant but solely to his father, the 2nd defendant.4. The 2nd defendant died before the suit came on for hearing.5. On the death of the 2nd defendant all his estate devolved on the 1st defendant under Muhammadan Law, the defendants being Muhammadans.6. The plaintiff contends that under Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act, the mort...
Tag this Judgment!Pangaluri Venkatachelapati Rao and ors. Vs. Pangaluri Jayaramayya and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1915
Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.455
1. It is argued with reference to isssue 5 that the findings of the lower Courts are based on 1st defendant's prescription against plaintiff and the other members of the family, and that no effective prescription was established. It is alleged in this connection that the lower Courts gave insufficient weight to the facts that the patta was throughout in the name of the father of the family and that 1st defendant was the senior and, therefore, presumably the managing member. Reference has also been made to Narayana v. Krishna 8 M.P 214 and Parbati Dasi v. Baikuntha Nath Das 22 Ind. Cas. 51 : 15 M.L.T. 66 : 12 A.L.J. 79 : 19 C.L.J. 129 : 18 C.W.N. 428 : 16 Bom. L.R. 101 : 26. M.L.J. 248 (1914) M.W.N. 42 as showing that no presumption arises in favour of 1st defendant's ownership in the circumstances of this case. But those decisions are not in point, since they do not deal with acquisition, such as that now in question, which admittedly originated in trespass; and we have been shown no a...
Tag this Judgment!Krupasindhu Sahu and ors. Vs. Sree Sree Ramachandra Devu Garu, Raja of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad1196; 29Ind.Cas.718
1. This is a suit brought by the plaintiffs, who were carrying on business at Berhampore, against the late Rajah of Kallikotta to recover certain moneys due on an alleged settlement of accounts entered into in June 1906 together with subsequent advances. The case is defended by the Court of Wards on behalf of the minor Rajah, and in the written statement they plead that this settlement of account of June 1906 was entered into in circumstances which render it not binding on the Rajah and which they characterise as fraudulent. And in paragraph 13 they take exception to various items of charge which are included in the settlement of Exhibit E. The Subordinate Judge has written a very careful judgment, but so long and so involved that it was difficult for us to understand it until we had examined the whole of the evidence for ourselves and, therefore, was of much less assistance to the Court than it would otherwise have been.2. Now there can be no doubt that he Court will not hold a party ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »