Chennai Court July 1917 Judgments
L. A. L. Alagappa Chettiar Vs. Nagaratna Mudaliar and ors. and
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-1917
Reported in: 42Ind.Cas.789
1. Petitioner is a creditor of 3rd respondent, an insolvent. First respondent in Civil Revision Petition No. 793 of 1916 is a son of the insolvent and claimed the properties in dispute under a Will of his grandfather, between whom and the insolvent there was a partition in 1908. First respondent in Civil Revision Petition No. 797 of 1916 (called hereafter 1st respondent) is an alienee from the minor. The properties left by Will to the minor were sought to be sold by the creditors and at the request of the petitioner, the Official Receiver on 10th April 1915 ordered the sale of half the properties. First respondent in 797 of 1916 then put in a petition asking that the properties should not be sold as they did not belong to the insolvent. On 21st April 1915 the Official Receiver passed the following order: I have no jurisdiction to decide whether the insolvent has a saleable interest. That is a matter which should be decided by a Court having jurisdiction in a regular suit between the fu...
Tag this Judgment!Vitta Tayaramma by Her Constituted Attorney Kopparapu Chinna Venkatasu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1917
Reported in: (1918)35MLJ317
Wallis, C.J.1. I agree with the conclusion of Krishnan, J., in his Order of Eeference that, independently of Section 2 of Act XV of 1856, the widow of a Hindu forfeits her husband's estate on re-marriage. This was in my opinion decided by this Court in Murugayi v. Viramakali I.L.R. (1877) Mad. 226, a decision which, as I shall show, has been repeatedly approved in this and other High Courts. That decision did not, as was contended before us, proceed on any proof of a custom of forfeiture on re-marriage in the particular caste, but on general principles of Hindu Law, though in support of its conclusion the Court referred, as the Bombay Court did in a later case, to the fact that the extensive enquiry the results of which are recorded in Steele's Hindu Castes showed that among the very numerous classes of Hindus who practised re-marriage in the Deccan such a forfeiture was an invariable incident of re-marriage. Following and relying on the decision of this Court, Wilson and Banerji, JJ. ...
Tag this Judgment!T. Krishnamurthi Iyer Vs. Parvathi Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad420; (1917)42MLJ505
1. The appellant put in a petition under Sections 7 and 39 of Act VIII of 1690. So far as the application under Section 39 is concerned we think the, facts of the case reported in Bai Harkor v. Bai Shangar 9 Ind. Dec. 758, are exactly similar to those of the present, case and the ruling of Sir Charles Sargent, C. J., in that case was that the word 'instrument' in Section 39 must be confined to instruments ejusdem generis with a Will, and it does not cover a decree of Court embodying a compromise. We think that this interpretation is correct. But under Section 7 which was not noticed; by the learned District Judge if the Court was satisfied that it is for' the welfare of a minor that an order should be made appointing a guardian of his person or property or both, it could do so and the result of such an order would be removal by implication of any guardian who has not been appointed in any of the ways mentioned in Section 39. There being no guardian appointed by the Court or by Will or ...
Tag this Judgment!Singa Pillay Vs. Ayyaneri Govinda Reddy and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-1917
Reported in: (1918)ILR41Mad435
Spencer, J.1. In the Calcutta and. Allahabad High Courts it appears to have been settled by judicial decisions that a benami mortgagee may maintain a suit upon a mortgage: vide Kirtibas Das v. Gopal; Jiu (1914) 19 C.L.J. 193, Sachita Nandu Mohapatro v. Baloram Gorain I.L.R. (1897) C. 644, and Parmeshwar Dat v. Anardan Dat I.L.R. (1915) All. 113. In this Court there is no reported case on the point so far as I am aware; but in Mandarayan v. Singaram Second Appeal No. 186 of 1903, the, same view was taken as in Calcutta and Allahabad and three more unreported cases were therein referred to as authorities that precluded arguments being raised to the contrary. In Kutha Perumal Rajali v. The Secretary of State for India I.L.R. (1907) Mad. 245, the decision in Chidambara Mandarayan y. Singaram Second Appeal No. 186 of 1903, was quoted with approval and its principle was explained as being that a benamidar's suit is equivalent to a suit by an agent of an undisclosed principal. If a mortgagor ...
Tag this Judgment!Sing Pillai Vs. Ayyaneri Govinda Reddi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-1917
Reported in: 43Ind.Cas.905
Spencer, J.1. In the Calcutta and Allahabad High Courts in appears to have been settled by the judicial decisions that a benami mortgagee may maintain a suit upon a mortgage [Vide, Kirtibash Das v. Gopal Jeo 20 Ind. Cas 499 Sachitananda Mohapatra v. Baloram Gorain 12 Ind. Dec. 1099 and Parmeshwar Bat v. Anardan Dat 26 Ind. Cas 507. In this Court there is no reported case on the point so far as I am aware; but in Chidambara Mandaroyan v. Singaram 17 M.L.J. 174 the same view was taken as in Calcutta and Allahabad, and three more unreported cases were therein referred to as authorities that precluded arguments being raised to the contrary. In Kuthaperumal Rajali v. Secretary of State for India 17 M.L.J. 174. the decision in Chidamlara Mandaroyan v. Singaram 17 M.L.J. 174 was quoted with approval and its principle was explained as being that a benamidar's suit is equivalent to a suit by an agent of an undisclosed principal. If a mortgagor can successfully resist a suit brought by the benef...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Rangadu; in Re: Thoralingam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad505; 42Ind.Cas.724
Ayling J.1. Petitioner was convicted of illicit grazing of cattle in an unreserved forest in the Kangundi zemindari. In 1912, on the zemindar's application under Section 32 of the Madras Forest Act, Section 23 of the same was extended to the said zemindari and rules were made by Government under the latter section to regulate grazing, felling of timber, collection of forest produce, etc., vide Exhibit A. It is not disputed that petitioner grazed his goats without permit contrary to the above rules, Nos. 5 and 8: but it has throughout the proceedings been contended that he did, so in the exercise of a mamul right of free grazing, to which both Section 26 and all rules thereunder are subject.2. The case in fact turns solely on the existence or non-existence of this right: and the Joint Magistrate's judgment appears to me to be defective in that it contains no discussion, nor indicates any appreciation of the evidence on the point. He merely remarks that the 'host of defence witnesses hav...
Tag this Judgment!Vaidyanatha Sastri Vs. Savithri Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad469; 42Ind.Cas.245; (1917)33MLJ387
Wallis, C.J.1. This reference which was argued before the long vacation raises a question of considerable difficulty which has given rise to much difference; of opinion. On the one hand we have the judgment of Davies and Bhashyam Iyengar, JJ., in Sreeramulu v. Krishnamma I.L.R. (1902) M. 148 which is supported by Sadasiva Aiyar, J. in the order of reference. On the other hand we have the current of Bombay decisions ending with Ramakrishna v. Tripura Bai with which Spencer, J., agrees.2. With reference to the decisions of the Privy Council which have been cited on either side, I may say at once that I do not consider Bamundoss Mookerjea v. Mussamut Tarinee (1858) 7 M.I.A. 169 and Moniram Kolita v. Kerrikolitany as of any assistance because the point now in question did not in any way arise for consideration by their Lordships and was not considered by them. As regards the first case it had been held by the Bengal Sudder Dewani Adawlat in Ranee Krishnamonee v. Rcbjah Oodwunt Singh (1824)...
Tag this Judgment!Tadepalli Peda Nagabhushanam and anr. Vs. Tadepalli Pitchayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad443; 42Ind.Cas.365
1. Section 2, Clause 15 of the Stamp Act, 1899, lays down that an award or decree directing a partition is to be treated for the purpose of the Stamp Act as an instrument of partition. That being so, there can be no doubt that the parties must pay a fee on the value of the properties as required by the Stamp Act. Further, there is a provision in the decree that each of the defendants is to get his share on paying the necessary Court-fee. The contention is that there is no provision in law for the defendants to pay any Court-fee. But if a defendant under a decree or award for partition, such as we are concerned with in this case, gets a share allotted to him of the property and if he wishes to execute the decree, it seems to be reasonable that he Should pay his share of the Court-fee leviable on the entire decree. The decision in Fulchand v. Bai Ichha 6 Ind. Dec. 551. which has been referred to, does not relate to a case of partition. That was in a suit for possession of property and re...
Tag this Judgment!Ganesa Seturam, Minor by Guardian and Mother Velliammai Vs. Ramaswami ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1917
Reported in: 42Ind.Cas.219; (1917)33MLJ468
1. The plaintiff is the liquidator of a company incorporated under the Indian Company's Act: The third defendant whose legal representative has preferred this second appeal was the Secretary of the Company: Under the Articles of the Association he was entitled to be the Secretary until removed from office. The company was voluntarily wound up in January 1911; on the 4th March of that year, the plaintiff was appointed liquidator. He made a demand on the 3rd defendant on the 12th August 1911 for the monies in his hands. (See Exhibit V).2. The third defendant denied liability. Thereupon this suit was instituted. The 3rd defendant died during the course of the suit and the 8th defendant was brought in as his legal representative. The courts below have held and we think rightly, that the 8th defendant, the son is bound to pay the monies found to have come into his father's hands.3. The only question on which we feel bound to differ from the courts below is as regards the award of interest. ...
Tag this Judgment!Kunjam Venkataramanayya Vs. Dejappa Konde and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1917
Reported in: 42Ind.Cas.540; (1918)34MLJ319
Seshagiri Aiyar, J.1. The facts of the case are as follows: The last male holder of the properties in suit died between 1841 and 1845. His widow Venkamma and his mother Gowramma sold the properties in that year. The sale-deed has not been produced but it is clear from Exhibit K that it was an absolute conveyance. Venkamma died in 1854. Gowramma who succeeded to the properties sold them to one Vasapayya in 1857. The purchaser sued the vendee under the two widows in the same year alleging that the sale set up by the latter was fictitious and that he was entitled to possession under Gowramma's conveyance. Gowramma was the 4th defendant in that suit. It was held that the sale by the two widows was genuine and that Gowramma herself was barred by limitation as the suit was more than 12 years after the 1st sale, the purchaser was also barred by limitation. It is clear that Gowramma never got possession. She died in 1908 and the present suit was brought within 12 years of her death by the reve...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »