Chennai Court August 1918 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Singa Raja and ors. Vs. Pethu Raja and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1918
Reported in: (1918)35MLJ579
1. This is an appeal from the decree for sale in a mortgage suit passed by the Subordinate Judge of Ramnad. The plaintiff obtained a preliminary decree on the 27th September 1916 and the appellant, the 3rd defendant complains that the Subordinate Judge at the time of passing the decree for sale refused to inquire into and recognise an alleged settlement of the decree out of Court on the 13th February 1917. The application for the decree for sale was made on the 25th June 1917 and therefore even if the procedure in Order XXI, Rule 2, Civil Procedure Code, were applicable the defendant was out of time and was too late to have the adjustment recorded. However, we think that the appeal fails on a larger basis. The scheme of the Code appears to us to be that if the amount made payable in the preliminary decree is not paid into Court within the time limited then the decree for sale is to be made. In this respect the provisions of Order XXXIV differ from Section 89 of the Transfer of Property...
Durugamma Poojari Bheemappa Vs. Durugamma Poojari Timakka
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1918
Reported in: 51Ind.Cas.221
1. The question whether a woman can get puja performed in a temple by a proper proxy is now settled by the ruling of the Full Bench in Annaya Tantri V. Ammaka Hengsu 47 Ind. Cas. 3412. The appellant contends that the plaintiff's choice of proxy must be limited to the other sharers who were entitled to perform puja in their turn. This was put as a matter of special custom in the plaint temple in the lower Appellate Court, but that Court has found against it and we must accept the finding.3. It is now argued before us that it is a rule of Hindu Law. Cole brook's Digest, Book II, Chapter III, Section 2, Rule 21, is relied on. We do not think that rule has anything to do with the choice of proxies at all; nor is it shown to be in force in this Presidency.4. The second appeal fails and is dismissed with costs....
Muniappa Chettiar (Dead) and ors. Vs. Su. MA. Vellachamy Mannadi and o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1918
Reported in: 49Ind.Cas.278
Abdur Rahim, J.1. In this case a mortgage bond was executed by two persons. One of them executed it in his own house in* the presence of two attesting witnesses. Afterwards the document was taken to the jail, when the other executant executed it. The attesting witnesses who had already attested the document went to the jail and saw the execution of it by the other executant, but they did not subscribe their names again as attesting witnesses after the document was executed by the 2nd executant in jail. It is the question of the Validity of the mortgage so far as this executant, the 1st defendant, is concerned, that has been argued before us in the appeal.2. I have, not the least doubt that an attestation of a document before its execution cannot be called proper attestation within the meaning of Section 59 of the Transfer of Property Act. Attestation does not consist merely in seeing the execution of a document. It requires a further act, that is, subscribing the name of the witness on...
Lakshumanan Chetty and ors. Vs. R.M.K.S. Sadayappa Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-15-1918
Reported in: (1918)35MLJ571
1. The first defendant was a minor. There was a suit for dissolution of the firm, and in that suit a Receiver was appointed under order of the Rangoon Court in these terms,--' It is ordered that M.A.R.A.R. Ramanathan Chetty be, and he is hereby appointed Receiver to take charge of the property of the Chetty firms of M.L.R.M.A. and A.L.A.S.R.M. pending the decision of this suit for dissolution of partnership with power to collect outstandings and do all things necessary for the realization and preservation of the assets of the said firms.' The question we have got to decide in the appeal is whether an acknowledgment of a debt due by the firm under dissolution made by the Receiver was valid.2. It is contended that Section 19 of the Limitation Act is limited, so far as the signing of an acknowledgment by agents is concerned, to agents appointed by an act of the debtor himself, or in other words, by a contractual act. Explanation II does not cover the case of an agent who is otherwise appo...
V. Ponniah Nadan and ors. Vs. T.N. Deivanai Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-15-1918
Reported in: 52Ind.Cas.247; (1919)36MLJ463
John Wallis, C.J.1. The question is whether the compensation awarded under the Land Acquisition Act for certain lands in a village in Tinnevelly should be apportioned between the pattadvar a registered holder, which in this case is a temple, and the ryots under it on the basis that the ryots have occupancy rights in the lands, a claim which the District Judge has rejected. The Fifth Report speaks of a practice in Tinnevelly under which land, which had been under cultivation by the mirasidars or hereditary owners and had afterwards been left uncultivated by them, was cultivated by others who paid them 13 p. c. of the produce as Swami Bogam and divided the rest between the Government and themselves. There was a somewhat similar usage in Chinglepet. Mr. Venkatrama Sastriar for the respondent in this case, says that it has not been proved that these lands were cultivated by the tenants in this way.2. All that we know is that in 1817 a pious founder acquired at a revenue sale a five-sixths'...
Kuppusami Iyer and anr. Vs. K. Kuppusami Iyer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-15-1918
Reported in: 48Ind.Cas.109
Abdur Rahim, J.Appeal Against Appellate Order No. 70 of 1916.1. The case arises out of an application by a holder of a decree to enter satisfaction under the rules of the Civil Procedure Code. That decree was attached by certain judgment-creditors of the decree-holder and these attaching creditors have been made parties to the application by the District Munsif and they are on record. The adjustment or payment was made after the decree had been attached, but it appears that no notice of such attachment was issued to the judgment-debtor. The decree-holder must have and, in fact, did have notice of the attachment.2. The position taken up on behalf of the decree-holder is that until notice has been issued to the judgment-debtor upon an application made by the attaching creditor, the judgment-debtor is entitled to make any payment or adjustment he likes and when once such payment or adjustment is made, the Court is bound under Order XXI, Rule 2, to record satisfaction, whether the applicat...
Sreeram Narasiah Vs. Bommireddi Venkataramiah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-1918
Reported in: 47Ind.Cas.976; (1918)35MLJ450
1. Plaintiff obtained a mortgage of certain properties including a bull, with which alone we are concerned here. The bull was left in the mortgagor's possession and was eventually purchased by 3rl defendant from the mortgagor's vendee. The hypothecation of move ables has been recognised in Indian Courts Vide Shyam Sunder v. Chetti (1871) 3 N.W.P. Reports 71 and Shrish Chandra Roy v. Mungri Bewa 9 C.W.N. 14 but that is not the question for consideration now. We have to determine whether a bona-fide purchaser for value of hypothecated goods without notice of the hypothecation is bound by vit. There is no direct authority on the point, nor is hypothecation of moveables recognised by any statute. We are therefore thrown back upon principles of equity and justice.2. Under Section 108 of the Indian Contract Act a penson in possession of moveables, although not the owner, can pass ihe property in the goods to an innocent purchaser. Much more then, would it appear that the real owner could pas...
A. Thiagaraja Aiyar Vs. G. Ramaswami Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-1918
Reported in: (1918)35MLJ605
1. In Bayya Sao Narasingha Mahapatro I.L.R. (1811) Mad 209 it was held that a deposit under Section 83 of the Transfer of Property Act was invalid if made in one court after the institution of a suit by the mortgagee' in another court, and the judges who decided that case were of opinion that the same principle would apply in the case of such a deposit in the court where the suit had been instituted and that the deposit should be made under Order 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure. We respectfully agree with the reasoning in that case and can see no reason for making any exception in favour of allowing a mortgagor to deposit the money before he recevies notice of the suit but after its institution.2. When once a suit has been instituted the amount due on the mortgage cannot be ascertained until the decree is passed providing for interest, costs, etc., for, we think that costs must also be included in the amount remaining due on the mortgage within the meaning of Section 83 of the Transf...
Abdur Samad Sahib Vs. Chinnathambi Sahib Alias Gulam Mohideen Sahib an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-1918
Reported in: (1919)37MLJ509
1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The genealogical tree found at page 16 of the printed papers is admitted to be correct and I shall reproduce it here for easy reference. SYED SULTAN ABDUL KADIR SAHIB | ____________________|____________________ | | Mahomed Kaliba Kaliba Syed Sahib Hussain Kabir Sheikh Sultan Sahib Sahib | | Kaliba Syed Syed Sultan Mahomed Sahib Bava Moideen | Sahib Syed Mahomed | Hussain Kaliba______________|__________ Sahib alias | | | Haji SheikhSyed Muthuvalli Sheikh HussainMahomed Syed Peer Mahomed _______________|_______________Bakir Mahomed Sahib | |Sahib Syed Mohidin Assan Kudas | Sahib Kaliba SahibKaliba Moula | alias SanthiMahomed Ghouse Syed Kader Kaliba Sahib Mohidin Sahib | | _______|__________ Mahomed Kaliba | | KalibaSyed Peer Kaliba Mastan Kaliba Sahib | Mahomed Sahib (1st Defendant) Foster Sahib Son______|________ Vappuchi| | SahibKaliba Syed Hamid |Moula Bibi SyedMahomed | MahomedGhouse Abdul Samad KalibaSahib Sahib | (Plaintiff). Sahib (P.W. 5).On on...
Panangipalli Suranna Vs. Sree Raja Datta Venkata Suryanarayana Jagapat ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1918
Reported in: (1918)35MLJ443
Phillips, J.1. The plaint properties were sold to 7th defendant in execution of a decree for rent due upon them, and the sole question for decision is whether the purchase by 7th defendant is subject to plaintiff's mortgage on the properties or not. The two lower courts have taken opposite views, the District Munsif holding on the strength of the ruling in Tariniprosad Roy v. Narayan Kumari Debi I.L.R. (1906) Cal. 301 that a sale in execution of a decree for rent did not affect a prior mortgage, while the Subordinate Judge following the opinion of the Calcutta High Court in Royzuddi Sheik v. Kali Nath Mookerjee I.L.R. (1889) Cal. 985 that the statutory charge upon the land for arrears of rent was not a charge with in the meaning of Section 100 of the Transfer of Property Act, held that the sale transferred the property free of encumbrance.2. Under Section 5 of the Madras Estates Land Act a first charge is created upon the land for rent, but the provision in Section 65 of they Bengal Te...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »