Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1918Mad362; 45Ind.Cas.164; (1918)34MLJ421
1. The Thirumalarayapuram Jananukoola Dhanasekhara Sanka Nidhi Ltd., which was a company registered under the Indian Companies Act went into liquidation and an official liquidator was appointed. He as liquidator, applied under Order 33 of the Civil Procedure Code to file a suit on behalf of the Nidhi in forma pauperis against the petitioners before us who are alleged to owe the Nidhi about Re. 8,524 under a promissory note. The allegations in the petition show that the Nidhi was bankrupt and that the only properties it had (except the subject of the suit) were worth Es. 12. The Subordinate Judge allowed the Nidhi to sue in forma pauperis and the respondents have filed this petition against the order.2. The chief contention raised before us is that Order 33 of the Civil Procedure Code, does not apply to companies, corporations or other associations. It is argued that as the explanation to Order 33 Rule 1 refers to necessary wearing apparel and Rule 3 requires presentation of the petitio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1918)ILR41Mad624
Kumaraswami Sastriyar, J.1. The Thirumalarayapuram Jananukoola Dhanasekhara Sangha Nidhi (Limited), which was a company registered under the Indian Companies Act went into liquidation and an official liquidator was appointed. He as liquidator applied under Order XXXIII of the Civil Procedure Code to file a suit on behalf of the Nidhi in forma pauperis against the petitioners before us who are alleged to owe the Nidhi about Rs. 8,524 under a promissory note. The allegations in the petition show that the Nidhi was bankrupt and that the only properties it had (except the subject of the suit) were worth Rs. 12. The Subordinate Judge allowed the Nidhi to sue in forma pauperis and the respondents have filed this petition against the order.2. The chief contention raised before us is that Order XXXIII of the Civil Procedure Code does not apply to companies, corporations or other associations. It is argued that as the explanation to Order XXXIII, Rule 1, refers to necessary wearing apparel and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1918Mad165; 45Ind.Cas.24
1. This is a suit by an auction-purchaser to recover possession. He applied in execution for possession, but was obstructed by defendants. The District Munsif passed the following order upon the application: 'the counter-petitioner has no witnesses. It is not necessary to take evidence in this case. It is ordered that the property be delivered over to the petitioner at once. In case the counter-petitioners raise any further obstruction, they will be committed to jail'. No attempt was made to obtain possession and we accept the finding of the Courts below that possession remained all along with the defendants. As more than 3 years had elapsed from the date of the order above referred to, the plaintiff brought this suit for possession basing his title on the sale certificate. The District Munsif held that the order for possession precluded the defendants from disputing plaintiff's title. On appeal, the Subordinate Judge held that the order for possession was not passed on investigation a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1918Mad44; (1918)34MLJ234
John Wallis, C.J.1. These are appeals from the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Tanjore in a suit brought by the plaintiff as trustee of a temple to eject the defendants from the lands in their possession in the village of Sellur on the ground that the lands are the properties of the temple. The Subordinate Judge after a very careful examination of the eivdence decreed the plaintiff's suit and the defendants have appealed. The case which is one of great importance to the parties was again very ably and elaborately argued before us for several days, and we reserved judgment. The first question for consideration is, is the village of Sellur an estate within the meaning of the Estates Land Act of 1908, as, if so, the defendants are entitled to occupancy rights under the Act and the jurisdiction of the civil courts in ejectment is taken away. This question is closely connected with the question whether the defendants are entitled to occupancy rights apart from the Act, because in conferr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1918Mad120; 45Ind.Cas.98; (1918)34MLJ396
1. The subject of dispute is an easement claimed as acquired by prescription. The servient tenement belonged to Government till 2 years before suit and was then assigned by Government to the defendant. At the time of assignment the easement had been exercised only for 30 or 40 years and had therefore not become absolute as against Government. Appellant contends that the transfer of ownership had the effect of rendering it absolute inasmuch as the servient tenement became the property of a private individual against whom the previous 30 or 40 years' enjoyment would be sufficient under Section 15 of the Easements Act.2. The point is a novel one and is not covered by authority. But we think appellant's contention cannot be admitted. We think the words 'belongs to Government' in the last paragraph of Section 15 must refer, not to the time of suit, but to the time during which the easement is enjoyed. An easement can only be acquired by 20 years' enjoyment against a private person or by 60 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1918)ILR41Mad622
Ayling, J.1. The subject of dispute is an easement claimed as prescription. The servient tenement belonged to Government till two years before suit and was then assigned by Government to the defendant. At the time of assignment the easement had been exercised only for thirty or forty years and had therefore not become absolute as against Government. Appellant contends that the transfer of ownership had the effect of rendering it absolute inasmuch as the servient tenement became the property of a private individual against whom the previous thirty or forty years enjoyment would be sufficient under Section 15 of the Easements Act.2. The point is a novel one and is not covered by authority. But we think appellant's contentious cannot be admitted. We think the words 'belongs to Government' in the last paragraph of Section 15 must refer, not to the time of suit but to the time during which the easement is enjoyed. An easement can only be acquired by twenty years enjoyment against a private ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1918Mad285; 45Ind.Cas.656
1. The 2nd defendant obtained a kanom from the plaintiff's Tarwad in 1860. There was a decree for redemption against him; after decree and before restoring possession, he assigned his rights to the grandmother of the 1st defendant by Exhibit VIII. Subsequently, the 1st defendant's grandmother obtained a kanom in 1888 from the plaintiff's Tarwad which was renewed, in 1899. The 2nd defendant took on lease the properties included in these demises from the 1st defendant, Exhibit XXX. Plaintiff sues to redeem the kanom. The 2nd defendant contended that the lands in suit were not included in the demise sued on. The Subordinate Judge has found after full discussion that they were included, and we see no reason to differ from him.2. The learned Vakil for the appellant next contended that the lease under which he was holding was determined by the Government granting him a patta for the lands in 1893 and as he has been holding the lands under the Government, since then without paying any rent to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1918Mad316; 45Ind.Cas.649
1. The present plaintiff first brought a suit against the defendants to recover 2 out of 5 shares in one plot of property. He also asked in the alternative that he should be given 2 out of 12 shares in that and another plot of property. The District Munsif gave him a decree for 2 out of 5 shares in the first plot. There the defendant preferred an appeal to the District Court. Before the appeal was beard, the plaintiff sued to recover mesne profits in respect of the property decreed to him by the District Munsif, as he faced reserved his right to sue for such mesne profits. In appeal, the District Judge modified the decree of the Munsif and gave the plaintiff 2 out of 12 shares in both the plots. Thereupon the plaintiff presented a petition to the District Munsif to allow him to amend the plaint by inserting a claim for mesne profits on 2 out of 12 shares in both the plots. This amendment was disallowed by the District Munsif, as he Held that the nature of the amendment was such as to B...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1918Mad194; 44Ind.Cas.483
Abdur Rahim, J.1. The appellant, who is a minor, instituted the suit by her next friend, her father, to recover certain properties from the respondent-defendant, her husband. Her title is based on a deed of gift executed by Krishna Kampti, the adoptive father of the respondent, who died on the 17th April 1909. The defence on the merits, broadly speaking, was of two-fold character. Firstly, that the alleged deed of gift was executed under the undue influence of the appellant's father who procured it by means of mis-representation and fraud and secondly, that the contemplated gift was never completed according to law and was in fact revoked by Krishna Kampti before it could be completed.2. Krishna Kampti, who was possessed of considerable properties, moveable and immoveable, was an inhabitant of a village called Karingan in the South Kanara District. He adopted the defendant when he was only 9 months old and until shortly before the date of the transaction in question, the defendant and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 44Ind.Cas.987
1. In the First Court, on the death of the original plaintiff, the question arose whether Subramania Iyer (referred to as 2nd plaintiff) alone should be recognised as his legal representative or whether certain other persons (referred to as plaintiffs Nos. 3 to 12) should also be recognised along with him as legal representatives of the original plaintiff.2. This is a question which under Order XXII, Rule 5. of the Code of Civil Procedure, it was obligatory on the Court to decide; but it is clear from the order recorded and the Munsif's remarks in his finding dated the 15th October 1915 that he did not determine the question, but simply added all the claimants (plaintiffs Nos. 2 to 12) as legal representatives without enquiry or hearing 2nd plaintiff's objections and proceeded with the case.3. When the case came up on appeal, the lower Appellate Court called for a finding as to who were the proper persons to be added as legal representatives of the original plaintiff, and passed an ord...
Tag this Judgment!