Chennai Court April 1920 Judgments
Rangasami Ayyangar (Died) Represented by Ramanuja Ayyangar, Minor Thro ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1920
Reported in: (1916)ILR39Mad792
Seshagiri Ayyar, J.1. This is a suit to recover possession. Plaintiff's case was that he purchased Survey No. 92-B from the owners in April 1911 and that the defendant is wrongfully in possession of it. The defendant pleaded that the same vendors conveyed to him the property in dispute in 1908 and that although the conveyance (Exhibit III) describes the land sold as Survey No. 90-B, his vendors intended to sell and he intended to purchase only Survey No. 92-B. He also alleged that he was put in possession of this latter number under the sale-deed.2. The Issue raised in the case was whether it was Survey No. 90-B or 92-B, that was sold to the defendant. The Munsif agreed with the defendant's contention and dismissed the suit. In appeal, the Subordinate Judge held that evidence to prove that what was described in the document was not what was actually sold was inadmissible under Section 92 of the Evidence Act and decreed the plaintiff's claim.3. We think the Subordinate Judge is wrong. T...
Tag this Judgment!Panaganti Ramarayanimgar Vs. Sri Rajah Velugoti Govinda Krishna Yachen ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Mad183; 61Ind.Cas.612; (1921)40MLJ236
John Wallis, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a decree of the Subordinate judge of North Arcot in a suit for redemption brought by the 1st plaintift as assignee of the mortgagor, the Rajah of Kalahasti, now impleaded as the 3rd defendant against the 1st defendant who is the assignee of the original (mortgagee the Rajah of Tuni. The mortgage deed Exhibit A provided for an advance of 11 lakhs on a usfructuary mortgage of the properties comprised in Schedules A, B, C and D, but the Schedule D property may be disregarded as it is of small value and was only included with a view to registration in the District in which it is situated. Decrees for sale had been obtained by mortgagees against the properties comprised in Schedules A, B and C and the properties comprised in Schedules B and C had actually been sold by mortgagees, but proceedings were pending as to setting aside the sales. In the case of the Schedule C properties the sales were not ultimately set aside and the advance of six out of ...
Tag this Judgment!Thazhathitathil Poovvanayi Ayissa and ors. Vs. Puthan Purayil Kundron ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1920
Reported in: 58Ind.Cas.554; (1920)39MLJ77
1. Where, as in the present case after decree, a petition has been presented under Order 21 Rule 2 to the Court whose duty it was to execute the decree, certifying, as required by the Rule, that the decree has been adjusted and praying that the petition, setting out the terms on which the decree has been adjusted, should be recorded, and the order 'record' has been passed upon it, the order must be read as referring to the petition which it would have set out in full if it had been formally drawn up. It is in effect an order that the petition should be recorded as certifying the adjustment of the decree on the terms stated in the petition, in compliance with the requirements of the Rule. In these circumstances the petition is exempted from registration by virtue of the exception in Sub- Section 2 of Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act in favour of 'any decree or order of a Court,' and the question referred to us must be answered in the affrmative. The recent decision of the privy...
Tag this Judgment!N.N.L. Ramaswami Chettiar Vs. Mallappa Reddiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1920
Reported in: (1920)39MLJ350
John Wallis, Kt, C.J.1. The decision of the Full Bench in Subramaina Aiyar v. Muthia Chettiar I.L.R. (1917) M. 612 affirmed the decision in Palaniandi Ghetti v. Appavu Chetti : (1916)30MLJ565 that a conveyance offending against the provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act can only be avoided in a suit property instituted for that purpose, and that consequently in a suit by an unsuccessful claimant under Order 21, Rule 63 of the Civil Procedure Code it is not open to the attaching decree-holder to plead that the transfer by the judgment debtor to the claimant was fradulent. This ruling has since been questioned in two cases in this Court, Cheruthazath Abdulla Haji v. Cheriyandi Ibrahim Kutli (1918) 50 I.C. 959 and Pokker v. Chandrankandi Kunhamad (1918) 36 M.L.J. 231 as observed in the referring order of Spencer J, where many of Indian decisions are cited. The question has now been very fully argued before a Bench of five Judges, and after carefully considering all the a...
Tag this Judgment!Rajah of Venkatagiri Vs. Sura Krishna Reddi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1920
Reported in: (1920)39MLJ472
1. Certain cattle were attached in execution of a decree in favour of the appellant and the amin in accordance with, the Civil Rules of Practice under the rule of the High Court and Order 21, Rule 43 made over the cattle to a villager for safe custody and production in Court for which he executed a bond with two sureties. The appellant applied in execution to enforce the bond against the respondent sureties on their failuie to have the cattle, produced in accordance with the bond. The question is whether the bond could be enforced in this way under Section 145.2. It is argued that Clause (b) of Section 145 applies. It says : ' Where any person has become liable as surety for the restitution of any property taken in execution of a decree,' then the decree may be executed against him to the same extent to which he has rendered himself personally liable in the manner provided in the Code for the execution proceedings.' This clause is prima facie intended for cases in which restitution is ...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Vadrevu Viswasundra Row and anr. Vs. Ryali Somasundara Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1920
Reported in: (1920)ILR43Mad876
Oldfield, J.1. The question in this case is generally whether second defendant is the adopted son of the late Zamindar of Vegayammapeta. Plaintiff originally denied that any adoption ceremony had been performed, but he abandoned that position at the trial. There and here he has pressed only four objections two to the consent of the kinsmen, which in the absence of authority from her deceased husband, first defendant, the widow, required to enable her to make a valid adoption, and two to the capacity of second defendant to be adopted. I deal with them in order.2. Of the kinsmen two, Bhimasankara Bow and Suryaprakasa Row, died 'during the trial. Neither informed the first defendant of his reason for not consenting to the adoption--vide Venkatakrishnamma v. Annapurnamma I.L.R(1900) ., Mad., 486 . The former in fact did not refuse his consent explicitly. Fart of the lower Court's judgment is occupied with their failure to consent. But nothing has been said regarding it by plaintiff in this...
Tag this Judgment!The Secretary of State for India in Council, Represented by the Collec ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1920
Reported in: 59Ind.Cas.98
John Wallis, C.J.1. This is a suit brought by the holder of a permanently settled estate to recover water cess, alleged to have been illegally collected from her ryots from Fasli 1315 to Fasli 1323 (1905 to 913) . As regards Fasli 1314, there was then in force an arrangement between Government and the Zemindars that the Zemindars should collect the water cess on behalf of Government from the ryots and pay it over to Government subject to a deduction of ten per cent. for collection. Pursuant to this arrangement, Government made the demand for Fasli 1314. In this oasis on the Zemindarini who paid it, and on 3rd July 1905 instituted Original Suit No. 23 of 1905 for recovery of the money so paid and a declaration that the levy was illegal. Her suit was dismissed by the Subordinate Judge but was ultimately decreed by this Court on 19th March 1914 in Appeal Suit No. 35 of 1908. No question was raised in that suit as to the Zemindarini's right to recover, if the cess had been wrongly levied. ...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Vadrevu Ranganayakamma Garu (Dead) and anr. Vs. Ryali Somasundara ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1920
Reported in: 59Ind.Cas.609
Oldfield, J.1. The question in this case is, generally, whether 2nd defendant is the adopted son of the late Zamindar of Vegayammapata. Plaintiff originally denied that any adoption ceremony had been performed but he abandoned that position at the trial. There and here he has pressed only four objections, two to the consent of the kinsmen, which, in the absence of authority from her deceased husband, 1st defendant, the widow required to enable her to make a valid adoption, and two to the capacity of 2nd defendant to be adopted. I deal with them in order.2. Of the kinsman, two, Bhimasankara Row and Suryaprakasa Row, died during the trial. Neither informed 1st defendant of his reasons for not consenting to the adoption. Vide Venkatakrishnamma v. Annapurnamma 23 M. 488 . The former in fact did not refuse his consent explicitly. Part of the lower Court's judgment is occupied with their failure to consent. But nothing has been said regarding it by plaintiff in this Court and J, therefore, t...
Tag this Judgment!A.S. Vaithialingha Chetty Vs. Kullappa Naicken
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-1920
Reported in: 59Ind.Cas.889
Seshagiri Aiyar, J.1. Both the Collector and the Divisional Officer are wrong in saying that the petitioner herein was not entitled to be heard. He became the purchaser at an auction sale for arrears of rent. Prima facie he is entitled to hold the property as his and to demand the issue of the certificate under Section 124 in his favour unless the defaulting ryot had strictly complied with the requirements of Section 131 of the Estates Laud Act which enables him, on obeying these conditions, to move for setting aside the sale.2. It is conceded that when the application for setting aside the sale was made no notice was given to the auction-purchaser. The Divisional Officer says that there is no section providing for giving notice to the purchaser. The Collector says that he has no locus standi. I am unable to agree with either of them. It is a primary rule of jurisprudence that every body whose interests are affected should be given notice before an order to his prejudice is passed. The...
Tag this Judgment!Ponangi Venkatasubbarayudu and ors. Vs. Sree Rajah Lakshmi Venkata Nar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-1920
Reported in: 60Ind.Cas.609
1. This appeal is against the judgment of the Subordinate Judge by which he decided the main question in the suit i.e., the right of the plaintiff to collect water-tax from the defendants and remanded the suit to the District Munsif for disposal on the rest of the issues. The point which has been decided could not, in our opinion, he called a preliminary point, if any significance is to be attached to the qualification 'preliminary.' According to a number of rulings of this Court, the most resent of which is reported as Athappa Chetty v. Ramanathan Chetty 53 Ind. Cas. 417, and also of another decision in Vijayaraghava Reddi v. Komararpa Reddi 15 Ind. Cas. 367, the decision of the Patna High Court in Raghunandan Singh v. Jadunandan Singh 43 Ind. Cas. 959, and of the Full Bench decision of the Calcutta High Court in Abdul Karim Abu Ahmed Khan Ghuinaii v. Allahabad Bank, Limited 15 Ind. Cas. 367, the order of remand in this case mutt be treated as one not coming within the scope of Order ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »