Chennai Court July 1919 Judgments
Amanchi Venkatrama Sastrulu Vs. Nama Venkanna (Dead) and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-1919
Reported in: (1919)37MLJ335
Seshagiri Aiyar, J.1. The defendant gave a lease of about 11 acres of inam land for 5 years to the plaintiff beginning with 1911. Before the cowle to the plaintiff the lands had been leased to another person. The plaintiff attempted to take possession of the lands but was unable to get them in the first year. In the second year he was able to get possession of a few acres and in the third year a few more. The suit was instituted for damages for failure to give possession. The defence was that there was no undertaking to give possession, that the defendant did give possession of the lands that the damages were excessive and that the plaintiff was not entitled to maintain the suit. The District Munsif held that the suit was maintainable and following The Zamindar of Vizianagaram v. Behara Suryanarayana Pantulu I.L.R. (1901) Mad. 587 gave the plaintiff a decree for his share of the crops as estimated in the cowle Exhibit A. This decree was confirmed on appeal.2. In the second appeal it wa...
Tag this Judgment!Briji Kessoor Laul and anr. Vs. the Official Assignee of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-1919
Reported in: 52Ind.Cas.979; (1919)37MLJ244
1. The insolvent arranged with his creditors by paying them four annas in the rupee that they should give him a receipt in full discharge of their debts. It has been ruled both in England and India that such a payment is not 'payment in full' within the meaning of Section 21 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act corresponding to Section 35 of the English Bankruptcy Act see Subrati Jan Mahomed In Re: 20 Ind. Cas. 859 : 16 Bom. L.B. 748 : 38 B.K 200 In Re: Shivlal Rathi 40 Ind. Cas. 207 : 19 Bom. L.R. 365, Flatau, In re, Official Receiver, Ex parte (1893) 2 Q.B. 219; 62 L.J.Q.B. 569 : 41 W.R. 629 : 10 Morrell 161 Izod, In re, Official Receiver, Ex parte (1898) 1 Q.B 241 : 67 L.J.Q.B. 111 : 77 L.T. 640 46 W.R. 304 : 4 Manson 343 : 14 T.L.R. 115 Hester, In re,. Hester, Ex parte (1889) 22 Q.B.D. 632 : 60 L.T. 943 : 6 Morrell 85 and Keet, In re, Official Receiver, Ex parte (1906) 2 K.B. 666 : 74 L.J.K.B. 694 : 93 L.T. 259 54 W.R. 20 : 12 Manson 235 : 21 T.L.R. 616 This cannot be said to be ...
Tag this Judgment!Srinivasa Aiyer Vs. Thiruvengada Maistry and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-1919
Reported in: 55Ind.Cas.588
1. The short facts of the case are these. One Swaminatha Aiyer, who was the last male owner, died in 1859 leaving a junior widow Annapurni and his mother Kuppachi Ammal. Kuppachi Ammal managed the property as the guardian of her daughter-in-law. While doing so, she alienated certain properties in favour of the defendants' predecessor-in-title. On becoming a major, Annapurni brought a suit to set aside her mother-in-law's alienations. A decree on compromise was passed (Exhibit K), by which the alienees were given certain properties absolutely and the remainder were given to Annapurni. She died in 1909. The present suit is brought to recover the property from the alienees.2. There is no evidence, and naturally there can be none at this distance of time, as to the circumstances which led to the compromise. The Courts below have held that the compromise was binding on the reversioners. Mr. K.V. Krishnaswami Iyer addressed to us a very exhaustive argument on that and two other questions. We...
Tag this Judgment!Raja Rajeswara Sethupathi Alias Muthu Ramalinga Sethupathi Avergal, Ra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1919
Reported in: (1919)37MLJ270
1. We are constrained to differ from the Subordinate Judge on the question of set-off: admittedly arrears were due on the holding : admittedly also a certain sum of money was due from the landlord to the tenant for manibham. The tenant deducted the manibham from the rent and paid the balance. The landlord appropriated the payment towards the rent and distrained for the arrears. The property was sold. This suit is to set aside the sale on the ground, among various others, that the sale was illegal.2. The Subordinate Judge has held that the tenants were by custom entitled to set-off the manibham due to them against the rent and that therefore there was no arrears; we are unable to agree with him. There are two sections in the Estates Land Act which relate to set-off, Section 155 and Section 192(e). In the first section a right of set-off outside Court is given when there is eviction. That has no application to the present case. In the second section, the Legislature distinctly negatives ...
Tag this Judgment!Manamathi Munisami Mudali Vs. Perumal Mudaly
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1919
Reported in: (1919)37MLJ367
1. An interesting question was argued by Mr. K. Rajah Aiyar relating to the appropriation of payments. The plaintiff had a mortgage from defendants 1 and 2. There was also a debt due to him from them on a promissory note. Defendants 1 and 2 requested the plaintiff to collect some money due to them from a third party. This was done on the 16th August 1915. Prior to that, the plaintiff sued on his pro-note, and obtained a decree. In his earlier execution application, he could not have asked that the money collected by him should be credited in partial discharge of the decree. On the 11th November, 1915, under another money decree against defendants 1 and 2, the 3rd defendant purchased the equity of redemption in the properties mortgaged. Five days after this plaintiff entered up satisfaction of his money decree to the extent of the money collected by him. He then sued for the full amount due on the mortgage. The 3rd defendant contended that the plaintiff should have appropriated the mone...
Tag this Judgment!Venkatarama Aiyar and anr. Vs. Raja of Ramnad
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1919
Reported in: (1920)ILR43Mad69
Seshagiri Ayyar, J.1. We are constrained to differ from the Subordinate Judge on the question of set-off: admittedly arrears were due on the holding: admittedly also a certain sum of money was due from the landlord to the tenant for manibham. The tenant deducted the manibham from the rent and paid the balance. The landlord appropriated the payment towards the rent and distrained for the arrears. The property was sold. This suit is to set aside the sale on the ground, among various others, that the sale was illegal.2. The Subordinate Judge has held that the tenants were by custom entitled to set off the manibham due to them against the rent and that therefore there were no arrears; we are unable to agree with him. There are two sections in the Estates Land Act which relate to set-off: Section 155 and Section 192(e). In the first section a right of set-off outside Court is given when there is eviction. That has no application to the present case. In the second section, the legislature di...
Tag this Judgment!Mongola Swayi Vs. Visvanatha Santaso Singarao and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-1919
Reported in: (1919)37MLJ586
1. The first defendant was the owner of the property. A money decree was obtained against him by one Venkateswara Rao. In execution of that decree, the properties in suit were attached. To obviate the sale, the 1st defendant borrowed from the plaintiff and gave him a mortgage on the property. Without paying the amount to the decree-holder, he retained the money. He did not enter up satisfaction of the decree. Venkateswara Rao brought the property to sale in court auction and 4th defendant became the purchaser. The 5th defendant is a mortgagee under the 4th defendant. Plaintiff sues on his mortgage.2. The defence is that Section 66 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Act V of 1908) bars the suit. The Courts below have rejected this plea and we think rightly. The suit is based on the mortgage and treats the 1st defendant as the owner. The 4th and the 5th defendants are impleaded as being in possession. The plain-tiff's case is not that the 4th and 5th defendants hold the property for his ben...
Tag this Judgment!Olappamananna Nanakal Neelakandam Nambudripad, Karnavan and Manager Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-1919
Reported in: 55Ind.Cas.770
Spencer, J.1. This suit was brought by a Jenmi or landowner of South Malabar to obtain a declaration that the suit land forming the bed of a Thodu or stream, called Pulliyampalli Puzha or Thcdu, and the lands on both sides of it belong in Jenm to him and that Government has no Jenm right over the suit plots, and to recover the same, The District Munsif of Ootapalam who tried the suit gave the plaintiff a decree accordingly, but the Subordinate Judge of South Malabar at Calicut who heard the appeal modified the judgment of the District Munsif and dismissed the plaintiff's claim in respect of the items now in dispute with costs.2. The items now in dispute are items Nos. 1 to 4 forming the old bed of the stream and items Nos. 6 to 8 which are part of the present bed. Item No. 5 is not subject to appeal. The 1st defendant in the suit is the Secretary of State for India in Council. This defendant adduced a large quantity of documentary evidence to show that from 1855 till 1880, the Governme...
Tag this Judgment!Vedalingam Pillai, Minor and ors. Vs. Veerathal Alias Sornathachi and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-25-1919
Reported in: (1919)37MLJ547
Seshagiri Aiyar, J.1. One Amirthammal had two sons, Vythilinga the 1st defendant, Dakshinamoorthy, the father of defendants 3 to 5 and at least one daughter. There was some dispute about the property belonging to the daughter's husband and a suit was pending in respect of it. A compromise was come to and by Exhibits A and B, the property in suit was given to Amirtham in 1882. Subsequent to this arrangement, disputes arose between the mother and the sons regarding the right to this property which is of considerable value. The mother gave leases to enable the lessee to eject the sons. There was some litigation based on these leases. Ultimately in Suit No. 228 of 1908, a decree was obtained for money by a creditor against Amirtham and Vythilinga. In execution, the property in suit was attached, as belonging to the judgment debtors. Dakshinamoorthi intervened with a claim petition. Exhibit XVIII (c) is the order thereon dated the 4th February 1910. The exact interpretation of this order wi...
Tag this Judgment!Annasami Ayyangar Vs. S. Narayanan Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1919
Reported in: 54Ind.Cas.263
1. The only objection to be considered is as to the appointment of two members of Ayirathalawar community and of the residents of Jangamarajapuram or Mangammalpuram as trustees of the temple in addition to the representatives of the families of Rama Aiyar and Ramu Iyengar. The learned Subordinate Judge stated in his judgment that the representatives of the plaintiffs' community made large additions to the temple at great cost, and it was admitted before him that they had purchased the properties for conducting the worship and festivals of the temple to the extent of Rs. 30,000. No evidence was apparently taken in this case, as the parties agreed that a scheme should be framed by the learned Subordinate Judge. And there is no affidavit before us to show that the statement in the judgment which is referred to is incorrect. We think, under the circumstances, that the Judge was justified in having the Ayirathala war community represented on the board of trustees : and the appointment of me...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »