Chennai Court September 1916 Judgments
Kannusami Thanjiroyan Vs. Muthusami Pillai, Deceased and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-29-1916
Reported in: 38Ind.Cas.194
Spencer, J.1. This suit was brought to redeem a usufructuary mortgage of the year 1885, and the sole question for determination is whether the mortgagor had 60 years within which to sue to recover possession under Article 148 of the Limitation Act, or only 12 years under Article 134 or 144. The mortgagee's interest in the suit properties changed hands four times between the execution of the mortgage-deed of 188.5 and the institution of this suit in 1911, first, by a Court sale in execution of a decree, secondly, by a sale in 1893 for arrears of rent due by the purchaser at the Court-auction, and thirdly and fourthly, by private sales in 1896 and 1906. The two private sales purport to be absolute transfers of the entire right in the property. The mortgagor's suit is obviously time-barred if 12 years have to be reckoned from any of these transfers but the last. If fraud had been alleged and proved, the plaintiff would of course have 12 years under Section 18 of the Limitation Act from th...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Anipe Palladu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-1916
Reported in: 36Ind.Cas.847
Oldfield, J.1. The first argument in appeal is based on the following facts: On the day of the trial a sufficient number of Jurors summoned under Section 326 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was not present. The Sessions Judge, therefore, made up the Jury, which tried the accused, by election from the persons present in Court, choosing from them, according to the accused's Vakil, the whole, and according to the Public Prosecutor, part of the requisite number. It is not alleged that the accused made any objection to this course during the trial. It is urged that the trial is bad, because the Court was improperly constituted, since the Jury was not chosen by lot, as Section 276 of the Code of Criminal Procedure requires.2. The Sessions Judge was entitled in the circumstances to choose Jurors from the persons present in Court under Section 276, proviso 2. It is argued, however; that even so, he was bound to choose them by lot with reference to the main provision of the section. That prov...
Tag this Judgment!Mulambath Kunhammad and ors. Vs. Acharath Parakat Kathiri Kutti and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-25-1916
Reported in: (1916)31MLJ827
Ayling, J.1. In this case I have had the advantage of perusing the Judgment of my learned brother and agree in the orders proposed by him. With all respect I am by no means satisfied that the District Judge's order reviewing his award was without jurisdiction. It is not necessary to accept Mr. Menon's argument that Section 53 of the Land Acquisition Act extends even to appellate proceedings and would confer the ordinary right of appeal given by the Code of Civil Procedure, even if Section 54 were nonexistent. But I see no reason why review proceedings under Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure should not be regarded as ' proceedings before the Court under this Act ' within the meaning of Section 53 of the Land Acquisition Act or why, as Mr. Sundram would have it, the application of Section 53 should necessarily terminate with the pronouncement of the award by the Court? If this view is correct, it would seem to follow that even Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure is inappl...
Tag this Judgment!Thachangot Cheruvani Narayani Amma and anr. Vs. Malammal Kootancheri K ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-1916
Reported in: (1917)32MLJ541
Coutts Trotter, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs from the decision of the Subordinate Judge of Palghat. The suit was brought to redeem a kanom demise, dated the 20th October 1895. The kanom demise was in renewal of prior demises dating from 1887 and 1873. So that while the actual contract of tenancy out of which the suit arises dates from 1895, the defendants or their predecessors-in-title may in some sense be said to have been tenants of the plaintiffs since 1873.2. The first point raised in the appeal was as to the identity of certain lands sought to be redeemed.3. [His Lordship goes into the evidence on the question and agrees with the Subordinate Judge.]4. The next point taken by Mr. Rosario raises questions of interest and difficulty. The kychit of 1887 contains the following clause 'Without making such a payment (i.e., of the seigniorage) to you for your jenmi right and satisfying you, no trees will be cut'. This seems to imply that the jenmi had rights of ownership in th...
Tag this Judgment!Kuppunni Vs. Parasu Patter and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-1916
Reported in: 39Ind.Cas.167
Spencer, J.1. The document on which this suit was brought is styled a melkanom deed. It has been held by the lower Courts to be invalid for non compliance with the rules as to attestation contained in Section 59 of the Transfer of Property Act.2. Mr. Ananthakrishna Iyer for appellant; conceded that a kanom is a mortgage and that the holder of the suit document bad the prospective rights of a kanomdar if he redeemed the prior kanom, and argued that he has only the present rights of a lessee.3. He contended further that his client had no immediate rights as mortgagee, as the sum of Rs. 575 was paid only as a premium for being given an interest to redeem the kanom, and that Section 91 of the Transfer of Property Act contemplates such interests being vested in other persons besides the mortgagor and the mortgagee. I find it expressly stated in the document that it is a conveyance of melkanom rights, that is, the rights of a second kanomdar.4. Further, the document provides that the kanom m...
Tag this Judgment!imbiohi Vs. Achampat Avukoya Haji and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1916
Reported in: (1917)33MLJ58
Coutts Trotter, J.1. In this case there was a partition and in that partition it was provided that certain debts should be paid by two of the separating co-parceners and certain other debts by the others. There was, also, a partition of the properties between them and it was provided that in case two of the. dividing coparceners, who are called Nos. 1 and 2, fail to discharge the debts that were allotted to their portion to be, discharged, then they as well as the properties allotted to them should be liable for the losses resulting therefrom. In plain English : If owing to the default of two of the dividing co-parceners the debts which they had undertaken to pay should have to be paid by the others, then the persons who paid should recoup themselves out of the properties allotted to the defaulting parties.2. Now the learned Judge has held that this deed of partition Ex. D. did not create a 'charge' under Section 100 of the Transfer of Property Act and in coming to that decision he bas...
Tag this Judgment!S. Venkatikrishna Pattar Vs. R. Krishna Pattar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1916
Reported in: (1916)31MLJ820
Oldfield, J.1. The grounds on which relief is asked for in these appeals against appellate orders would justify interference under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is therefore unnecessary to decide whether appeals will lie or whether the remedy in these cases should be sought in revision.2. The appellants, petitioners, are two creditors, who hold decrees against the plaintiff, decree-holder in O.S. No. 27 of 1911 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Palghat and who apparently after obtaining transfer of their decrees from the decreeing Courts, are claiming rateable distribution of money belonging to plaintiff, which is in the Subordinate Judge's Court. This money represents the balance of plaintiff's share in family property, awarded to him by that Court on partition and sold by it in order to discharge the claim of Government to a portion under Order XXXIII, Rule 10. One creditor in E.A. No. 529 of 1914 claimed rateable distribution; and, a fact which ma...
Tag this Judgment!Kovvuri Thirujpathi Raju Vs. Kovvuri Venkataraju, Minor by His Mother ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1916
Reported in: 40Ind.Cas.418
1. We are of opinion that Article 44 of the Limitation Act 1877 cannot properly be applied to this case.2. No doubt in the sale-deed the plaintiff's brother is described as the guardian of the minor as well as his senior brother, but the family was admittedly an undivided one, and it is a well-established principle of law that in an undivided family no guardian can be appointed for a minor co-parcener who has no separate property [see Gharibullah v. Khalak Singh 30 I.A. 165 : 5 Bom. L.R. 478 and Bindaji v. Mathurabai 7 Bom. L.R. 8093. The case reported as Sivavadevelu Pillay v. Ponnammal (1912) M.W.N. 383 was one in which the minor's guardian was his mother and no question of co-parcenary property was raised. The transaction evidenced by the sale-deed, Exhibit I, was essentially one of sale by the managing member of a joint Hindu family. Article 44 may apply to cases in which a person acts as a guardian of a minor in respect of property in which he has individual rights of ownership.4....
Tag this Judgment!Subramaniam Chettiar Vs. Arjuna Perumal, Minor, by His Mother and Guar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1916
Reported in: 37Ind.Cas.377
1. Subramanian Chetty agreed to sell paddy to Ayodhia Pillai and received a deposit of Rs. 500. Ayodhia Pillai failed to perform his part of the contract and is sued for damages by Subramania. The finding is that it was Ayodhia that broke the contract. The question is whether Subramania is restricted in his claim by the amount of the deposit. The Courts below have held that he is not entitled to recover anything, more.2. In second appeal Mr. Venkatachariar wants to support the judgments of the Courts below by asking us to read a finding in their judgments to the effect that the parties agreed at the time of the contract that nothing more than Rs. 500 is to be recovered, in case of breach. We are unable to agree with this contention. There is no finding, as a matter of fact, that there was an agreement that the only amount payable as damages is Rs. 500. The District Judge gives as reason for refusing damages the fact that the contract contains no stipulation for damages for breach of co...
Tag this Judgment!S. Venkatakrishna Pattar and Vs. R. Venkatakrishna Pattar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1916
Reported in: 37Ind.Cas.900
Oldfield, J.1. The grounds, on which relief is asked for in these appeals, against appellate orders would justify interference under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is, therefore, unnecessary to decide whether appeals will lie or whether the remedy in these cases should be sought in revision.2. The appellants, petitioners, are two creditors, who hold decrees against the plaintiff, decree-holder in Original Suit No. 27 of 1911 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Palghat, and who apparently after obtaining transfer of their decrees from the decreeing Courts, are claiming rateable distribution of money belonging to plaintiff, which is in the Subordinate Judge's Court, This money represents the balance of plaintiff's share in family property, awarded to him by that Court on partition, and sold by it in order to discharge the claim of Government to a portion under Order XXXIIT, Rule 10. One creditor in Execution Appeal No. 529 of 1914 claimed rateable distrib...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »