Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1918Mad620; 41Ind.Cas.701; (1917)33MLJ219
Ayling, J.1. 1st respondent in this caseis the assignee decree-holder in Original Suit No. 379 of 1906 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Kumbakonam, and the sole question for disposal is whether his Execution Application (E.P. 526 of 1914) presented on 12th August 1914 was barred by Article 182 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 (Schedule I). The next previous application of which there is record was Execution Petition No. 385 of 1911, presented on 13th July 1911; but the decree-holder relies on the following circumstances to save limitation:(1) An oral application in aid of execution presumed to have been made on the 12th August 1911, in the course of the hearing of Execution Petition No. 385 of 1911.(2) An alleged payment towards the decree on 17th August 1911.2. As regards the first, the facts are simple. In Execution Petition No. 385 of 1911, the decree-holder applied for attachment and sale of the judgment-debtor's moveables after issue of the preliminary notice r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1918)ILR41Mad246
ORDER1. In this case notice has been issued by the Headquarters Deputy Magistrate of Nellore calling on the petitioners to show cause why they should not give security under Section 107, Criminal Procedure Code. The matter has a long history. It appears that in the village of Kaluvoy there are two factions, one headed by the first petitioner Nagireddy Konda Reddy who has under his protection a number of Muhammadans, some of whom are also petitioners in this matter, and on the other side are the rest of the influential Hindus of that locality. For some time there has been a dispute as regards the right to play music during the Mohurrum before the Hindu temples. On the other hand, the Hindus claim the right to play music during their festivals before the local mosque. There seems to be also a private quarrel between the first petitioner on the one side and some of the other leading Hindu residents of that village on the other. There have been a number of cases and proceedings going on si...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1918Mad555; 41Ind.Cas.990
1. In this case notice has been issued by the Head Quarters Deputy Magistrate of Nellore, calling on the petitioners to show cause why they should not give security under Section 107, Criminal Procedure Code. The matter has a long history. It appears that in the village of Kaluvoy there are two factions, one headed by the first petitioner Nagireddi Kondareddi who has under his protection a number of Muhammadans, some of whom are also petitioners in this matter, and on the other side are the rest of the influential Hindus of that locality. For some time there has been a dispute as regards the right to play music during the mohurram before the Hindu temples. On the other hand the Hindus claim the right to play music during their festivals before the local mosque. There seems to be also a private quarrel between the first petitioner on the one side and some of the other leading Hindu residents of that village on the other. There have been a number of cases and proceedings going on since 1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1918Mad1030; 42Ind.Cas.352; (1917)33MLJ211
1. We think this question must be decided with reference to the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, and more especially of Section 60 which deals with the right to redeem. Redemption in England is an equitable relief which the Court allows on such terms as have been considered equitable in a long course of decisions. One of the established rules is not to allow redemption of any portion of the mortgaged property except on payment of the whole of the mortgage debt, and further limitations of the right to redeem are to be found in the doctrines of Tacking and Consolidation. In India the right is now governed by Section 60 which gives the mortgagor a right to redeem on payment or tender of the mortgage money but expressly provides that ' nothing in this section shall entitle a person interested in a share only of the mortgaged property to redeem his own share only, on payment of a proportionate part of the amount remaining due on the mortgage, except where a mortgagee, or if there...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1918)35MLJ219
S.A. No. 1989 of 1915.1. The plaintiff a Sthanee, granted a kanom of the properties in dispute for Rs. 71-6-11 to the 1st defendant in the year 1873--Exhibit D. In 1892 that kanom was renewed, the amount being fixed at Rs. 3,363-0-9. Exhibit A is the counterpart executed by the 1st defendant in that year. He assigned Exhibit A to the defendants 2 and 3. The present suit was brought for redemption. The main question related to the value of improvements. The Subordinate Judge awarded to the 2nd and 3rd defendants Rs. 19,009-3-7 which was increased by the District Judge in Appeal to Rs. 43,552 5-10. Both parties have preferred second appeals. We shall first deal with the plaintiff's appeal. In considering the questions argued before us the contention of Mr, Ananthakrishna Aiyar, who appeared for the tenant, that whatever may be the value of the second appeal, our powers are governed by Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has to be borne in mind.2. Before dealing with the question ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1918Mad32; 43Ind.Cas.679; 45Ind.Cas.729; (1917)33MLJ665
ORDER1. These are applications made under the Agency Rules for a direction to the agent to review his judgment by which varying the decree of the Special Assistant Agent, he dismissed the plaintiff's suit with costs. The suit was brought for the recovery of certain moveables and cash of nearly a lakh of rupees in value from the 1st defendant the Maharaja of Jeypore to whom they were handed over for safe custody by the Government the 3rd defendant, after the death of Sri Sulochana Patta Maha Devi whose property they were. The plaintiff claimed them as sole legatee under the will dated the 23rd November, 1901, of the Patta Mahadevi. The 1st defendant in answer to the plaintiff's claim raised two substantial pleas, one that the will which was executed by the Mahadevi at a time when she was bitterly hostile to him in consequence of a pending litigation between them was subsequently revoked by her after the suit was compromised in 1904 and (2) that the Mahadevi had no power of disposition o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1918)35MLJ509
1. The suit is by a female member of a tarwad and her children for maintenance against the tarwad ; the defence is that as the 1st plaintiff's marriage has been registered under Act IV of 1896, she and her children should entirely look to the husband of the 1st plaintiff for maintenance and not to the tarwad. The question is said to be one of first impression; the learned vakils on both sides have addressed to us very full arguments on the question. In our opinion, the view of the Lower Appellate Court is wrong.2. At the outset it might be mentioned that the expression maintenance is loosely applied to this class of cases. The allowance claimed by an anandravan of a Malabar tarwad or by a junior member of a joint Hindu family is not as a dependent upon the owner of the property, but as one who in his own right is entitled to participate in the income The common law in both cases having vested the management in the senior member, the claim for separate allowance is an indicia of proprie...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 43Ind.Cas.25; (1917)33MLJ676
Wallis, C.J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of Mr. Justice Bakewell, dismissing a suit brought by the minor plaintiff for a declaration that the mortgage decree passed against her father-in-law, brother-in-law, and herself, as representatives of her deceased husband, is not binding on her on the ground that she was sued and the decree obtained against her as a major. The plaintiff also asks for an injunction restraining the defendant from executing the decree against her interest in the mortgaged property. The learned Judge has dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff is debarred from bringing this suit for a declaratory decree by the proviso to Section 42 of the Specific Belief Act, that 'No court shall make any such declaration where the plaintiff, being able to seek further relief than a mere declaration of title, omits to do so.' The learned Judge observes that the plaintiff is now entitled to redeem the mortgaged property and holds therefore that she is not entit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1918Mad389; (1918)ILR41Mad241
Spencer, J.1. One Anganna Chetti had three wives. At his death he left surviving him a daughter by his first wife, named Thayammal, and Parvathammal, his third wife. Application was made to the District Court of Salem to appoint a guardian for the estate of Parvathammal. As the result of a razinama put in by the contending parties, it was arranged that Chokkalinga Chetty should be guardian of Thayammal. Subsequently Gurunatha Chetty was appointed by Court guardian of the person and property of the minor Parvathammal, he being her own father. In 1908 an application was made to the Court to allot a sum of money for the marriage-expenses of the minor Thayammal. The District Judge after considering all the circumstances of the case, fixed Rs. 1,600 as a proper sum to be paid out of the estate for the said marriage, and on appeal to this Court, the order was confirmed. Parvathammal has now attained majority and her guardian Gurunatha Chetty has been discharged. Chokkalinga Chetty now seeks ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 41Ind.Cas.341
Spencer, J.1. One Anganna Chetti had three wives. At his death he left surviving him a daughter by his first wife, named Thayammal, and Parvathammal, his third wife. Application was made to the District Court of Salem to appoint a guardian for the estate of Parvathammal. As the result of a razinama put in by the contending parties, it was arranged that Chokkalinga Chetti should be guardian of Thayammal. Subsequently Gurunatha Chetti was appointed by Court guardian of the person and property of the minor Parvathammal, he being her own father. In 1908 an: application was made to the Court to allot a sum of money for the marriage expenses of the minor Thayammal. The District Judge, after considering all the circumstances of the case, fixed Rs. 1,600 as a proper sum to be paid out of the estate for the said marriage, and, on appeal to this Court, the order was confirmed. Parvathammal has now attained majority and her guardian Gurunatha Chetti has been discharged. Chokkalinga Chetti now see...
Tag this Judgment!