Chennai Court January 1920 Judgments
P. Suryanarayana Rao Naidu Vs. P. Balasubramania Mudali and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1920
Reported in: 56Ind.Cas.524; (1920)38MLJ433
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. He purchased in Court auction sale the plaint house in execution of a decree passed against the defendants Nos. 2, 3 and 4. The defendants Nos. 3 and 4 had no rights in the property, and we may take it that the plaintiff purchased the right, title and interest of the 2nd defendant in the house. The house belonged to the 2nd defendant's husband Ekambara Mudali and then to Bkambara Mudaly's only son, who died a minor. On her minor son's death, the 2nd defendant as his heir became the qualified female owner of the house. The minor left his two sisters, defendants Nos. 6 and 7, unmarried. The money decreed against the 2nd defendant was passed for a personal debt of the 2nd defendant, the mother and the next heir of the last male owner. The plaintiff, purchaser in Court auction, obtained delivery of the downstairs portion, but the upstairs portion of the house now in dispute was occupied by the defendants Nos. 6 and 7, the two unmarried s...
Tag this Judgment!The Municipal Council of Conjeevaram Represented by the Chairman Vs. T ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1920
Reported in: 57Ind.Cas.718; (1920)39MLJ58
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. Section 147 of the District Municipalities Act (both in its old form and in its new form) does contemplate in Clause (1) some arrangement for 'supplying water' to 'the owner or occupier of a building' for some purpose or purposes. That 'arrangement' whether it made the house-owner liable to pay any dues or not is mentioned in Section 269 as a 'contract' under Section 147. Under the new Section 147(2) there might be a contract for supply for non-domestic purposes separately and that contract also must be included in the term 'contract made in accordance with Section 147' in Section 269.2. Under the old Section 147(1) that 'contract' might relate to supply of water for both domestic and non-domestic purposes and would result in the house-owner's liability to pay some dues to the Municipality, only if he used water under the contract for non-domestic purposes, 'terms' as to such payment having to be inserted in such a contract.3. Under the new Section 147 Clause (1) t...
Tag this Judgment!Subramania Pattar Vs. Krishna Embranderi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1920
Reported in: 60Ind.Cas.77; (1920)39MLJ590
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The 2nd defendant is the appellant. The seven plaintiffs are the junior members of a Malabar brahmin illom (tarwad of brahmins is usually called illom) of which the 1st defendant is the karnavan. The 1st defendant when he was a junior member in 1906 obtained a simple bond in his name. While still a junior member, he obtained a decree thereon in his own name on 9-7-1910. Three years afterwards (in 1913) he became the karnavan of tarwad on the death of the prior karnavan. He treated the bond he obtained in 1906 and the decree thereon which he obtained in 1910 as the self acquistion and transferred the decree to the 2nd defendant on 8-12-1915 for a consideration of Rs. 650. The 2nd defendant is a Pattar while the plaintiff and the 1st defendant are Embrandris. The 3rd defendant is the judgment-debtor under the decree.2. The plaintiff stated in paragraph 11 of the plaint that 'the 2nd defendant lives not far from the illom of the plaintiff and knew very well that the d...
Tag this Judgment!Rajangam Aiyar Vs. Rajangamier Minor by Guardian Sankarama Ayyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1920
Reported in: (1920)38MLJ330
1. We think that under the definition in Section 2(15) of the Indian Stamp Act 1899 this deed is chargeable as a contract of partition under Article 45, and we determine that it is chargeable with a 15 rupee stamp....
Tag this Judgment!Rajangam Iyer Vs. Rajamangamer Minor by Guardian Sankarama Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1920
Reported in: 55Ind.Cas.965
1. We think that, under the definition in Section 2(15) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, this deed is chargeable as a contract of partition under Article 45 and we determine that it is chargeable with a 15 Rupees stamp....
Tag this Judgment!Mahomed Ali Sheriff and ors. Vs. Budharaju Venkatapathi Raju and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-1920
Reported in: 60Ind.Cas.235; (1920)39MLJ449
1. Upon the construction of Ex. A which is a deed of sale in favour of the 1st Plaintiff (1st Appellant) by the father of Defendants 1 to 3 the Subordinate Judge came to the conclusion that, it did not contain any express warranty of title and that the warranty implied by Section 55, Clause 2 of Transfer of Property Act was negatived by special contract to the contrary embodied in Ex. A. Ex. A recites ' it has been settled previously to dispose of by sale to you for Rs. 2,800 my right, title and interest in the marginally noted 30 acres 59 cents of land.' Then it sets out the title of the vendor beginning with a deed of sale of 16th March, 1875,exe-cuted by D, Suryanarayanaraju's wife Venkataramanaiah alias Ramaniah in favour of Chinakondaraju and next the sale, dated 21st February, 1878, by Chinakondaraju to Jagannatha Raju who sold the property to the vendor under Ex. A by a deed, dated 30th August, 1878. It goes on to state that the vendee and the others had been in possession of th...
Tag this Judgment!T. Aminudeen Sahib Vs. Pyari Bai and anr. Minor by Guardian Mahomed Az ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-1920
Reported in: (1920)38MLJ340
ORDER1. This case raises a question as to the meaning of the words ' time requisite for obtaining a copy of the decree appealed from' in Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act which provided for the exclusion of time in computing the period of limitation prescribed for the appeal. The appellant in this applied within the prescribe d period for a copy of the decree but allowed the application to be dismissed for non-payment of the copying charges. He subsequently filed the appeal together with a copy of the decree which had been obtained by another party, and claimed a deduction under the section, of the time taken in obtaining such a copy. It was held in Ramamurthi Aiyar v. Subramania Aiyar : (1902)12MLJ385 that he was not entitled to the deduction but the Allahabad High Court in Ramakistan Shastari v. Kasti Bai I.L.R(1907) All. 264 dissented from this ruling for which no reasons are given and we are unable to follow it. As has often been pointed out this and other sections of the Limitat...
Tag this Judgment!Bayya Sahu (Dead) Vs. Sri Sri Sri Krishnachandra Gajapathy Naraya Deo ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-1920
Reported in: 56Ind.Cas.598
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The question relates to a tank in the Parlakimidi Zemindari. The plaint is rather obscure and if we take prayer (a), paragraph 14, which is, 'the Court may be pleased to pass a decree establishing the plaintiff's right to the Dayanidhi tack,' it looks as if be claimed title to the ownership itself of the tank. But it seems to have been conceded from the beginning that his only right was a right by contract or custom against his landlord, the Zemindar (1st defendant), to use the water of the tank for irrigating the plaintiff's lands. He cannot, of course, obtain by mere enjoyment a prescriptive easement against his landlord. See Basavanagudi Narayana Kamathy v. Lingappa Shetty 54 Ind. Cas. 943. But there is nothing to prevent his having a customary right, which may also be called 'customary easement,' or a right by implied contract with his landlord to use the water of the tank to irrigate some particular lands of his. Calling that ri...
Tag this Judgment!T. Aminudeen Sahib Vs. Pyari Bi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-1920
Reported in: 56Ind.Cas.73
ORDER1. This case raises a question as to the meaning of the words 'time requisite for obtaining a copy of the degree appealed from' in Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act, which provides for the exclusion of such time in computing the period of limitation prescribed for the appeal. The appellant in this case applied within the prescribed period for a copy of the decree but allowed the application to be dismissed for non-payment of the copying charges. He subsequently Sled the appeal together with a copy of the decree which had been obtained by another party, and claimed a deduction under the section of the time taken in obtaining such a copy. It was held in Ramamurthi Aiyar v. Subramania Aiyar 12 M.L.J. 885 that he was not entitled to the deduction, bat the Allahabad High Court in Ram Kishan, Shatri v. Kashi Bai 29 A. 264 dissented from this ruling for which no reasons are given, and we are unable to follow it. As has often been pointed out, this and other sections of the Limitation A...
Tag this Judgment!A.A.R. Ponnambala Pillai and ors. Vs. Annamalai Chettiar (Dead) and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1920
Reported in: 55Ind.Cas.666; (1920)38MLJ239
1. We agree with the decision of the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Bisheshur Dial v. Ram Sarup I.L.R. (1900) All. 284 which was in accordance with the earlier Bombay decision in Lakshmidas v. Jamnadas Shankar Lal I.L.R.(1896)22 Bom 304 and has been followed in Calcutta in Mir Easuf Ali Haji v. Punchanan Chetterjee 11 Cal. L.J. 639. We have not been referred to any English authority in support of the opposite view. On the other hand, as pointed out in the last mentioned case, Lord Cottenham in Knight v. Marjeribanks I.L.R.(1897) All. 23 cited with approval the statement in Sugden's Vendors and purchasers, Vol. 3 page 227, 10th edition 'that a sale by a mortgagor to a mortgagee stands on the same principle as a sale between parties having no connection with each other, and can only be impeached on the ground of fraud,' and added ' that inadequacy of price would not be a sufficient ground to impeach such a sale.' The dicisions that a mortgagee by purchasing a part of the mortg...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »