Chennai Court October 1917 Judgments
Kamulammal Avergal, Zamindarini of Bodinaickanur Vs. Athikari Sangali ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-1917
Reported in: (1918)35MLJ11
Seshagiri Aiyar, J.1. The same point arises in all these Second Appeals. Second Appeals Nos. 1307 to 1340 arise out of suits by the landlord for rent in the Revenue Court. Second Appeals Nos. 1341 to 1370 are from suits by tenants against the landlord to set aside Revenue sales. The first group of cases relates to the rent of fasli 1318. The second group of cases relates to sales for the rent due for fasli 1321. The landlord is the Zamindarini of Bodinaickanur. The tenants are known as Mannadies and reside in the village of Agamalai within the Zamindari. The plaintiff by which expression I refer to the landlord throughout this judgment sued for rent on the ground that Agamalai is within her Zamindari, that she is the landlord and that defendants are her tenants. The plea of the Mannadies is that the plaintiff is not their landlord, that from time immemorial, they have been paying a Bill Mukta amount of Rs. 50 a year known as porppuguthagai, that the said payment was not made by them in...
Tag this Judgment!Muthiah Chettiar (Dead) and ors. Vs. M.P.M.R.M.N. Rimanatham Chettiar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-1917
Reported in: 43Ind.Cas.972
1. This is an appeal from the judgment-of the Temporary Subordinate Judge of Sivagaga giving the plaintiffs a decree for the amount sued on. The finding is that this money, in the first place entrusted to the firm of defendants Nos. 1 to 7, was to be invested by them with Chetti firms of good standing in Burma. This was under Exhibit A, which provided that the money should be invested by the defendants' firm, the defendants being remunerated by an adathi or commission of 1/64th of a rupee. The money was to be invested on thavanai, the usual terms with the Nattukottai Chetties. The money was so invested but was afterwards recovered by the defendants' firm and retained by themselves on the same thavanai terms. This appears from Exhibit C, dated the 1st May 1896, which says, 'Rs. 3,7071 plus 1/16 plus 1/32 should be credited to you in the name of S.Y.R. and debit the said sum of Rs. 8,707 plus 1/16 plus 1/32 in the name of our firm for thaianai. We have so entered in our accounts here.' E...
Tag this Judgment!Subramania Aiyar Vs. Narayanaswami Vandayar Alias Narayanaswami Tevar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-30-1917
Reported in: (1918)34MLJ439
Seshagiri Aiyar, J.1. This suit is for redemption. Although the question of the priority of the two mortgages in dispute is not easy to determine, I shall proceed on the same assumption on which the courts below have acted throughout The defendant obtained a mortgage of the A schedule properties in 1902. On a portion of these properties which are included in the B schedule there was a mortgage to one Bava Rowther. This Rowther brought a suit on his mortgage. The properties were put up to sale and the present plaintiff purchased the B schedule properties alone in 1908, subject to the defendant's mortgage. After he became the purchaser, the plaintiff presented an application under Section 8 of the Transfer of Property Act, in January 1912 calling upon the defendant to receive the amount due and to deliver up the title-deeds. This application is Ex. Q. In it petitioner states that he has paid into court the whole of the money due on the mortgage of the A. schedule properties, and asks the...
Tag this Judgment!Subramania Aiyar Vs. Narayanaswami Vandyar Alias Narayanaswami thevar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-30-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad88; 45Ind.Cas.638
Seshagiri Aiyar, J.1. This suit is for redemption. Although the question of the priority of the two mortgages in dispute is not easy to determine, I shall proceed on the fame assumption on which the Courts below have acted throughout. The defendant obtained a mortgage of the A schedule properties in 1902. On a portion of these properties which are included in the B schedule, there was a mortgage to one Bava Rowther. This Rowther brought a suit on his mortgage. The properties were put up to pale and the present plaintiff purchased the B schedule properties alone in 1908, subject to the defendant's mortgage. After he became the purchaser, the plaintiff presented an, application under Section 88 of the Transfer of Property Act, in January 1912, calling upon the defendant to receive the amount due and to deliver up the title deeds. This application is Exhibit Q. In it petitioner states that he has paid into Court the whole of the money due on the mortgage of the A schedule properties, and ...
Tag this Judgment!P.V. Madhavan Vydiar Vs. Lakshmana Pattar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-30-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad121; 44Ind.Cas.447
1. The plaintiff's allegations are that a Nair Tarwad was the jenmi of the plaint property, that it was mortgaged to the ancestors of defendants Nos. 1 and 2, that the said persons sub-mortgaged it to a person not before the Court who transferred his rights to the 3rd defendant, that the 3rd defendant subsequently purchased the jenm right from the Nair Tarwad and gave the plaintiff a second mortgage in 1912 (Exhibit H). He sues to redeem the first mortgage. He does not give the date of the first mortgage but relies upon the admission of the ancestor of the 1st and 2nd defendants contained in Exhibit A and upon the statement of the 2nd defendant contained in Exhibit L In Exhibit A, while granting a sub-mortgage, the ancestor mentioned that the property was held by him under a kanom from the Nair Tarwad. In Exhibit L, which was a statement Bled in proceedings taken by the plaintiff under Section 83 of the Transfer of Property Act, the 2nd defendant stated that the amount due and payable ...
Tag this Judgment!Mankoottil Chathukutti Nair Vs. P.P.M. Komappan Nairand ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad61; (1918)35MLJ380
1. The question for decision is whether a deed of mortgage executed by a Karnavan in payment of a decree debt which was barred by limitation at the date of the mortgage ia binding on the junior members of the Tarward.2. Mr. Kuttikrishna Menon for the appellant relied on Era-vanni Ravi Varman v. Ittappo Ravi Varman I.L.R. (1875) M. 153 in support of the proposition that the Karnavan of a Malabar Tarwad occupies a position analogous to that of a Hindu father under the Mitakshara Law We do not think that the learned Judges intended in that case to draw a distinction between the position of a father and that of a bare manager. The exact status of a Karnavan was considered more elaborately in Achal Ram v. Kazim Husain (1905) 15 M.L.J. 197 and Kunhi-chekhan v. Lydia Arucanden (1911) 11 M.L.T. 232 and we agree with the view taken in these two decisions that the Karnavan occupies a position more akin to that of a manager, than to that of a Hindu father. The peculiar obligations which a Hindu s...
Tag this Judgment!Ganesa Aiyar and anr. Vs. Amirthasami Odayar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad178; 44Ind.Cas.605
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. The plaintiffs, who are the appellants, sued for a partition of the properties specified in the plaint between themselves and their father, who was the first defendant, after setting aside the alienations made by the first defendant to the other defendants, The alienations complained of were made under four sale deeds, Exhibits B, C, D and F. The Sub-ordinate Judge held that the alienation under Exhibit C was binding on the plaintiffs and dismissed the. suits as regards the items comprised therein. He found that the alienations under B, D and F were not binding, but passed a decree in favour only of the 2nd plaintiff for his share of the items holding that the 1st plaintiff's claim was barred by limitation. The plaintiffs appeal in so far as the decree is against them.2. As regards the question of limitation, the case so far as the 1st defendant's alienation is concerned clearly falls under Article 126 of. the Limitation Act, which provides for a period of 12 y...
Tag this Judgment!Mankoottil Chathukutti Nair Vs. P.P.M. Komappan Nair and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1917
Reported in: 44Ind.Cas.572
1. The question for decision is whether a deed of mortgage executed by a Karnavan in payment of a decree debt which was barred by limitation at the date of the mortgage is binding on the junior members of the Tarwad.2. Mr. Kuttikrishna Menon for the appellant relied on Eracanni Revivarman v. Ittapu Revivarman I Ind. Jur. 10 in support of the proposition that the Karnavan of a Malabar Tarwad occupies a position analogous to that of a Hindu father under the Mitakshara Law. We do not think that the learned Judges intended in that case to draw a distinction between the position of a father and that of a bare manager. The exact status of a Karnavan was considered more elaborately in Achal Ram v. Kazim Husain Khan 15 M.L.J. 197 and in Kunhichekkan v. Lydia Arucanden 14 Ind. Cas. 480 : 11 M.L.T. 232 : (1912) M.W.N. 386 and we agree with the view taken in these two decisions that the Karnavan occupies a position more akin to that of a manager than to that of a Hindu father. The peculiar obliga...
Tag this Judgment!Annamalai Chettiar Vs. Palamalai Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad127; 43Ind.Cas.539; (1917)33MLJ707
Wallis, C.J.1. The question is as to the effect of the explanation added to Section 64. (formerly Section 276) of the Code of Civil Procedure of 1908 that for the purposes of the section ' claims enforceable under an attachment include claims for the rateable distribution of assets'. It had been held by the Courts in India that decree-holders other than the attaching decree-holder acquired no right to rateable distribution under Section 295 (now 73) of the Code until assets had been realized in execution, and Sir Lawrence Jenkins delivering the judgment of the Judicial Committee has observed in the recent case in Mina Kumari Bibi v. Bijoy Singh Dudhuria . 'To bring Section 295 into play certain conditions are necessary, and one of them is that there should be assets held by the Court'. Applying this principle the Indian Courts held under Section 276 that, if the judgment-debtor has satisfied the claim of, the attaching decree-holder even by alienating the attached property, that does n...
Tag this Judgment!Doraisami Aiyar and ors. Vs. T. Subramania Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad484; 42Ind.Cas.929; (1917)33MLJ699
Wallis, C.J.1. I agree with the referring Judges. Explanation V to Section 11 of the present Code of Civil Procedure is in exactly the same terms as the corresponding explanation III to Section 13 in the Code of 1882. Under the Code of 1882 it was held by a Pull Bench of this Court in Kuppusamy Aiyar v. Venkataramier (1908) 15 M.L.J. 462 in conformity with the decisions of other High Courts that the word 'relief' in the explanation means relief arising out of a cause of action which had accrued at the dale of suit and on which the suit was brought, and did not include relief such as mesne profits accruing after the date of suit as to which no cause of action had then arisen, but which the Court was nevertheless expressly empowered to grant. The explanation having been reproduced in exactly the same words, the presumption is that it was intended to have precisely the same effect. I do not find any sufficient indication to Rebut this presumption in the fact that Sections 211 and 212 of t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »