Chennai Court December 1916 Judgments
Gopalaiyar Vs. Tiruvengadam Pillai, Late a Minor by His Guardian and M ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-1916
Reported in: (1917)32MLJ503
1. The 1st respondent is declared to be of age and allowed to proceed with the appeal. A vakalat has been filed on his behalf.2. In this case, the plaintiff-appellant sued on a promissory note under the Summary procedure prescribed by Order XXXVII of the Civil Procedure Code and obtained a decree. The 1st defendant did not obtain leave to contest the suit and after the decree he applied under Order XXXVII, Rule 4, Civil Procedure Code for setting aside the decree. The decree was set aside on his depositing into court the amount sued for. Then the suit was tried again and judgment given against him (1st defendant). His brother who was the 3rd defendant in the original suit claimed that the money which was deposited by the 1st defendant belonged to the joint family and was not therefore available to the plaintiff, his judgment creditor. The Subordinate Judge disallowed this contention, but the lower appellate Court while observing that the question really did not arise in the suit itself...
Tag this Judgment!A.S.N. Naina Pillai Marakayar Vs. T.A.R.A.R.M. Ramanathan Chettiar and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-1916
Reported in: (1917)33MLJ84
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. These three appeals have arisen out of three suits brought by the same plaintiffs. The suits were tried together and were disposed of by the Temporary Subordinate Court of Tanjore in the plaintiffs' favour by one and the same judgment. A.S. No. 248 of 1914 was filed directly in the High Court. The other two appeals were filed in the Tanjore District Court and were transferred to this Court to be heard along with A.S. No. 248 of 1914.[After setting out the main facts of the case as above extracted, the judgment proceeds.]2. I think that the defendants who claim as alienees and representatives of the original tenants of the temple during the time of its management by the Collector are clearly bound by the terms of Ex. A executed by their predecessors-in-title and that the learned Subordinate Judge has dealt with Ex. A and the other evidence in the case in a very careful, well-considered and exhaustive judgment. Notwithstanding the long and elaborate arguments advance...
Tag this Judgment!Subramania Ayyar and Six ors. Vs. Raja Rajeswara Dorai Alias Muthurama ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-1916
Reported in: (1917)ILR40Mad1016
Seshagiri Ayyar, J.1. These appeals have been preferred against orders passed by the Subordinate Judge of Ramnad in execution. The decrees were obtained in four out of these five appeals against the late Raja of Ramnad, and the respondents have been impleaded as legal representatives in possession of assets belonging to the deceased. In one of the appeals, after the decree was obtained in the first Court, there was an appeal to the High Court by the plaintiff. During the pendency of the appeal, the Raja died and the respondents were brought in as his legal representatives and a decree was passed against them.2. There are two points which are common to all the appeals. We shall first deal with them. The facts may be shortly stated as follows: The late Raja of Ramnad having become heavily involved, executed a deed of trust (Exhibit VI) on the 12th July, 1895 by which he transferred almost the whole of his properties to certain trustees for the benefit of his two minor sons, the present R...
Tag this Judgment!A. S. N. Naina Pillai Marakayar Vs. T. A. R A. R. M. Ramanathan Chetti ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-1916
Reported in: 41Ind.Cas.788
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. These three appeals have arisen out. of three suits brought, by the same plaintiffs. The suits were tried together and were disposed of by the Temporary Safe, ordinate Court of Tanjore in the plaintiff's favour by one and the fame judgment-Appeal Suit No. 248 of 1914 was filed directly in the High Court. The other the appeals were filed in the Tanjore District. Court and were transferred o this Court to he heard along with Appeal Suit No.- 248 of 1914.2. (2) The suits were brought in ejectment by five of the six trustees pf the Manthrapureeswaramswamy temple, the 6th trustee who did not care to join in the suits he being impleaded as one pf the defendants in each suit (2nd, 3rd and 5th defendant respectively). He allo(sic)ed all the three suits to proceed ex parte so far as he was concerned.3. (3) The plaints and the written statements of the contesting defendants are very similar in all the suits. Thirteen issues are common to the three suits. In one of the suits ...
Tag this Judgment!T.P. Kanthimathinatha Pillai Vs. Pugal Subramania Nadan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-1916
Reported in: 39Ind.Cas.144
Ayling, J.1. It is contended on behalf of the appellant in all these second appeals that the lower Courts were wrong in holding on issue No. 2 that the tendered pattas were improper as regards (a) the charge of rent on uncultivated dry lands, (b) the charge of 'sarasari' for dry cultivation on wet lands.2. As regards the first point, the appellant, the landlord, relies on the wording of Section 4 of the Madras Estates Land Act, which runs thus: 'Subject to the provisions of this Act, a landholder is entitled to collect rent in respect of all ryoti land in the occupation of a ryot. '3. It has been suggested with some plausibility that it is by no means clear that this section was intended to be anything more than introductory to the succeeding section of the Act, and that the emphasis laid by the appellant on the word all' is misplaced. But, however this may be, it has been held in recent cases by this Court that the sections should be read subject to the provisions of the Section 27 an...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnappa Mudali Vs. Periasami Mudali
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-1916
Reported in: (1917)32MLJ532
1. The appellant who claimed title as purchaser of certain items of property sued to redeem a mortgage executed by the 6th defendant in favour of the 1st defendant. The 4th defendant who is the present respondent was made a party to the suit on the ground that he was claiming an interest in the property. As he claimed an interest adverse to the mortgagor and mortgagee he was exonerated from the suit. The order recites that the 4th defendant was an unnecessary party to the suit and that he was exonerated with costs 'leaving open the issues affecting him'. A decree for redemption was passed in favour of the plaintiff appellant and he paid the amount decreed and prayed that possession of the mortgaged property be delivered to him. The amin in execution delivered a portion of the property in the possession of the respondent. The respondent who had been exonerated from the suit and whose claims to the properties were not adjudicated upon filed a petition under Order XXI, Rule 101 of the Cod...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnappa Mudaly Vs. Periaswamy Mudaly
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-1916
Reported in: (1917)ILR40Mad964
1. The appellant who claimed title as purchaser of certain items of property sued to redeem a mortgage executed by the sixth defendant in favour of the first defendant. The fourth defendant who is the present respondent was made a party to the suit on the ground that he was claiming an interest in the property. As he claimed an interest adverse to the mortgagor and mortgagee, he was exonerated from the suit. The order recites that the fourth defendant was an unnecessary party to the suit and that he was exonerated with costs 'leaving open the issues affecting him.' A decree for redemption was passed in favour of the plaintiff-appellant, and he paid the amount decreed and prayed that possession of the mortgaged property be delivered to him. The amin in execution delivered a portion of the property in the possession of the respondent. The respondent who had been exonerated from the suit and whose claims to the properties was not adjudicated upon filed a petition under Order XXI, Rule 100...
Tag this Judgment!Pethu Aiyar Vs. M. Sankaranarayana Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-1916
Reported in: (1917)32MLJ374
John Wallis, C.J.1. This appeal raises the following question. If, when a decree-holder has attached the property of the judgment-debtor in execution of a money decree and while he is seeking to establish his right to attach and sell such property as the property of the judgment-debtor by suit against a successful claimant, the judgment-debtor not being a party to the claim proceedings or the subsequent suit, another decree-holder attaches the same property and brings to sale is the auction purchaser affected by the doctrine of lis pendens so that a subsequent purchaser at a court auction in execution of the decree in execution of which claim proceedings were taken acquires a good title as against him. In this case the first sale took place while the claim proceedings were pending at a stage when the claimant had succeeded in the suit and an appeal had been filed by the judgment-creditor which was afterwards successful. The sale was in execution of a decree against the judgment-debtor ...
Tag this Judgment!Pethu Ayyar Vs. Sankaranarayana Pillai and Three ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-1916
Reported in: (1917)ILR40Mad955
John Wallis, C.J.1. This appeal raises the following question. If when a decree-holder has attached the property of the judgment debtor in execution of a money decree and while he is seeking to establish his right to attach and sell such property as the property of the judgment-debtor by suit against a successful claimant, the judgment-debtor not being a party to the claim proceedings or the subsequent suit, another decree-holder attaches the same property and brings it to sale, is the auction purchaser affected by the doctrine of lis pendens so that a subsequent purchaser at a Court auction in execution of the decree in execution of which claim proceedings were taken acquires a good title as against him 7 In this case the first sale took place while the claim proceedings were pending at a stage when the claimant had succeeded in the suit and an appeal had been filed by the judgment-creditor, which was afterwards successful. The sale was in execution of a decree against the judgment-de...
Tag this Judgment!Puthur Tarwad Karnavan and Manager Kunhan Alias Thassan Menon and ors. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-1916
Reported in: 43Ind.Cas.379
Sadasiva Aiyar J.1. The defendants are the appellants. The suit was brought for redemption of a kanom mortgage of 3rd March 1896. The defence was that the transaction which is allowed to his kanom mortgage by the plaintiff is an irredeemable anubha am tenure affecting the lands. The plaintiffs' contention was that the Anubhavam (perpetual enjoyment right) created (or rather renewed) under the document. was only a rent charge of 125 Paras of paddy on the lands as remuneration for future services and that as the defendants neglected to perform the said services to the first plaintiff (the mortgagor and the grantor of the anubhavam right) during three years before suit, the defendants had forfeited the right even to the rent charge.2. The District Munsif held (a) that the anubhavam right under the document Exhibit A of 1896 gave only a rent charge and did not affect the redeemability of the lands, and, (b) that it not being shown that the defendants have been called upon by the 1st plaint...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »