Chennai Court December 1920 Judgments
Munishi China Dandasi Vs. Munishi Pedda Tatiah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Mad279; (1921)41MLJ261
Spencer, J.1. The appellant, who is the plaintiff in the suit, purchased certain lands in a court sale upon a mortgage decree. He alleged in the pLalnt that he obtained delivery of this property through Court but that he was dispossessed a month later by the defendant. He now sues to recover possession of the property from the mortgagor (defendant) and for an injunction against further interference by the latter.2. The suit was dismissed in the first Court on the ground that the sale was invalid, and on appeal the District Judge confirmed the District Munsif's decree. It was also found that the plaintiff had not obtained possession of the lands in suit and that his allegation of trespass was untrue. In second appeal it is contended that the defendant is debarred by res judicata from questioning the correctness of the sale and also that he is debarred under S? 47, C.P.C., from raising a question relating to execution in this suit.3. It appears that after the sale took place the defendan...
Tag this Judgment!Subba Aiyar Vs. T.S. Ramaswami Aiyangar, Official Receiver and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Mad216; (1921)40MLJ209
1. The appellant in this case bases his claim on an assignment from the Official Receiver of Tinnevelly dated ' the 2nd October, 1913. That assignment was made by the Official Receiver purporting to act in his capacity as Official Receiver in whom the estate of one Ramachandra Iyer, an insolvent, vested. Ramachandra Aiyar filed his petition in 1911 and it came up before the District Judge on 3rd January 1912 when he passed the following order: 'The petition is transferred to the Official Receiver for adjudication and for the administration of the estate. Parties and pleaders directed to appear before him on 10th January, 1912.' In due course on the 23rd January 1912 the Official Receiver passed an order of adjudication, but no separate order was passed by the District Judge vesting the property in the Official Receiver in accordance with the terms of Section 18 of the Provincial Insolvency Act. It is therefore contended and has been successfully contended, in the two courts below that ...
Tag this Judgment!Adyapadi Vasudeva Udpa and ors. Vs. Krishna Udpa and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Mad418; (1921)40MLJ460
1. The only question argued before us is whether the appellant who is the landlord should not have been allowed the full arrears of rent as a condition for relieving the defendants against forfeiture which they had incurred according to the terms of the lease by non-payment of the rent. The Subordinate Judge has allowed only 3 years rent and disallowed the rest on the ground that it could not be recovered owing to the law of limitation. Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act says that relief against forfeiture can be given 'if at the hearing of the suit the lessee pays or tenders to the lessor the rent in arrear together with interest thereon etc.' There is nothing to show that what the legislature meant was only such rent as could be recovered if the landlord was suing for rent, that is, such rent as was not barred. The English rule seems to be that the tenant will be relieved against forfeiture only on his paying full arrears of rent. (See Halsbury's Laws of England Vol. 19, Pag...
Tag this Judgment!Kani Venkatareddi and ors. Vs. Chelluri Sathyanarayanamoorthi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Mad470; (1921)40MLJ473
Abdur Rahim, J.1. Here the father of the defendants 2 to 4 at the time when they were living as members of the joint family was incurring debts, and it was thought advisable in the interests of defendants 2 to 4 who were minors at the time that there should be a partition. Accordingly a partition was effected. The two promissory notes sued upon were executed before the partition. The question for decision arises as to whether the properties which the defendants 2 to 4 received on partition are liable for those debts. In my opinion the matter is really concluded by a recent decision of this Court in Peda Venkanna v. Srinivasa Deekshatulu I.L.R. (1917) M. 136 where the previous authorities on the subject were referred to and discussed. The learned Judges held that after division of the family properties, the creditors of the father suing upon a debt which was incurred by the father before partition but which was not a charge upon the family property the son's share of the family property...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›