Chennai Court April 1920 Judgments
In Re: T.G. Krishnasami Naidu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-1920
Reported in: 60Ind.Cas.1003
ORDERAbdur Rahim, J.1. In this case the conviction is attacked on the ground, that the complaint in respect of the offence which consisted in a breach of the District Municipalities Act (Mad. Act IV of 1884) was not made by one of the persons referred to in Section 280 of that Act, That section says: 'No person shall be tried for any offense against the provisions of this Act.... except upon complaint made by the Police, or by the Municipal Council or by the Chairman, or by a person expressly authorised in this behalf by the Municipal Council, or the Chairman.' Mr. V.P. Row was the Ex Office Chairman of the Municipality of Tiruppathur and he, by an order, Exhibit D. dated 30th January 1919, authorised, under Section 32, Sub-section (4), of the Act. Mr. A.N. Ardbanari Aiyar, a Municipal Councilors, to exercise all the powers conferred, and to perform all the duties imposed, on the Chairman by the said Act, with the exception of signing checkups and incurring expenditure, in anticipation...
Tag this Judgment!Chidambara Nadan Late a Minor but Now Declared a Major and anr. Vs. Mu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1920
Reported in: (1920)39MLJ445
1. The facts which give rise to this appeal are somewhat complicated and consist in a series of mortgages created in succession over the same property. The mortgages with which we are concerned are four in number. The first dated the 17th June, 1905 is a mortgage for Rs. 1,000 in favour of one Balasubramania Nadar and another, the second dated the 4th June, 1908 is a mortgage for Rs. 500 in favour of the plaintiff's predecessors-in-title and it is this mortgage that they seek to enforce in this suit. The third was a mortgage dated 8th June, 1908 in favour of the Madura Nidhi Company for Rs. 1,000 and by that mortgage the mortgagees were directed to discharge the debt under the first mortgage to Balasubramania Nadar. The last mortgage dated 1st July, 1908 was for Rs. 400 in favour of the 6th defendant. That mortgage directed payment by the 6th defendant of Rs. 250 to Balasubramania Nadar the first mortgagee, the third mortgagee, the Nidhi Company, having already discharged his debt to t...
Tag this Judgment!Chidambara Nadan and anr. Vs. Musuvathi Muni Nagend Rayyan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1920
Reported in: 58Ind.Cas.813
1. The facts which give rise to this appeal are somewhat complicated and consist in a series of mortgages (treated in succession over the same property. The mortgages with which we are concerned are four in number. The first, dated the 17th Jane 1905, is a mortgage for Rs. 1,000 in, favour of one Bilasubramania Nadar and another; the second, dated 4th June. 1908, is a mortgage for Rs. 500 in favour of the plaintiff's predecessors-in title and it is this mortgage that they seek to enforce in this suit. The third was a mortgage, dated 8th June 1903, in favour of the Madura Nidhi Company for Rs. 1,000 and by that mortgage the mortgagees were directed to discharge the debt due under the first mortgage to Balasubramania Nadar. The last mortgage, dated 1st July 1908, was for Rs. 400 in favour of the 6th defendant. That mortgage directed payment by the 6th defendant of R3. 250 to Balasubramania Nadar, the first mortgagee, the third mortgagee, the Nidhi Company, having already discharged his d...
Tag this Judgment!M.S.M.M. Meyyappa Chetty Alias Chokkalingam Chetty and ors. Vs. A.V.P. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1920
Reported in: 61Ind.Cas.349; (1920)39MLJ603
1. The order under appeal was passed against the appellants, auction purchasers, in their application under Order XXI, Rule 97, C.P.C. and we shall deal first with the lower Court's conclusion on the facts, that the 1st respondent's title to item 2, to which alone the appeal relates, was established. It is common ground that the property belonged to one Velayuda, who died in 1896. Appellants' title, which is that of the Judgment debtor, whose interest they purchased, is based on a sale by Velayuda's widow to the latter on 3-5-1897 by Ex. E, 1st respondent's on a sale by Chittanatha, alleged to have been adopted by Velayuda, by Ex. II to one Avichi Chetty on 16-4-1897, subsequent changes in ownership being evidenced by Exs. III, IV and VI. The question is whether the adoption of Chittanatha is established. It must of course be dealt with on consideration not only of the direct evidence but also of the subsequent dealings with the property.2. We have gone through the evidence carefully a...
Tag this Judgment!Ramachari Minor Through His Guardian C.P. Seshayar and anr. Vs. Sarasw ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1920
Reported in: 60Ind.Cas.246
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The defendants NOS. 1 and 2 are the appellants. The tenth defendant is the natural father of the 1st defendant, The plaintiff is the widow of a Sourasthra Brahmin, Sundararamier, who died in April 1906, when he was about 22 or 23 years old. The plaintiff was the second wife whom he had married, when she was a girl aged about 12 years. The marriage took place only 17 days before his death, though he had already another girl-wife, the second defendant, living. The tenth defendant is the elder brother of the plaintiff's husband. The plaintiff's husband seems to have been a wild young man who, as soon as he attained majority, about 1902, demanded partition from his elder brother and obtained his share of the ancestral property, worth about Rs. 50,000. Since then, he seems to have been addicted to strong drink (foreign liquors) and, as I said already, he died when he was comparatively young. The plaintiff's case is that the death was sudden and that it was accused by he...
Tag this Judgment!Areali Veeman and ors. Vs. T.S. Subbaroyan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-1920
Reported in: 60Ind.Cas.145
1. These revision petitions are against the decrees of the Small Cause Court of Karur in a number of suit brought to recover various sums as rent. They were tried together by consent of parties and the judgment in 1316 of 1917 deals with all the cases. Various objections were raised before us, the only one of real sub as being that the Small Cause Court had no jurisdiction to try the suits. They were ay originally filed in the Small Cause Court The defendant applied for and got an order under season 23 of the Small Cause Courts Act (IX of 1837) returning the plaints to be presented to the proper Court having jurisdiction to try the question of title. They were so presented to the Munsif and when taken up for hearing, the parties agreed that there was no question of title that need be tried and wished the suits to be disposed of by the Small Cause Court. This was done, and they were tried and disposed of, on the merits. It is now objected (hat there was no jurisdiction in the Small Caus...
Tag this Judgment!Panaganti Ramarayanimgar Vs. Maharajah of Venkatagiri and Three ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1920
Reported in: (1921)ILR44Mad301
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 first plaintiff as assignee of the mortgagor, the Raja of Kalahasti, now impleaded as the third defendant, against the first defendant who is the assignee of the original mortgagee, the Raja of Tuni. The mortgage deed, Exhibit A, provided for an advance of 11 lakhs on a usufructuary 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. A decree for sale had been obtained by the 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 the 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 advan...
Tag this Judgment!Muthusami Samiar (Died) and Pakkiria Pillai, L.R. of the Deceased Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-1920
Reported in: (1920)39MLJ438
Oldfield, J.1. Plaintiff, here appellant, purchased the mortgage right now sued on at a sale held by the Official Receiver, Tanjore District in the insolvency of 4th defendant and has sued 1st defendant, the mortgagor, to recover by sale of the mortgaged property. The only defence with which we are concerned at present, is that plaintiff did not obtain the mortgage right by his purchase, because it had not vested in the Official Receiver and could not be sold by him. The lower Courts accepted this with reference to Official Receiver, Trichinopoly v. Somasundaram Chetty, in which two learned Judges held that, when, as in the present case, an adjudication of insolvency is made by an Official Receiver in the exercise of the powers delegated to him under Section 52(1)(a) Provincial Insolvency Act, the Insolvent's Estate does not vest in him under Section 18 or any other provision and will not do so, unless an order vesting it in him is passed by the Court. Official Receiver, Trichinopoly v...
Tag this Judgment!Kondapalli Viziyarathnam and anr. Minors by Next Friend Kona Dalayya V ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1920
Reported in: 60Ind.Cas.146
1. We are not prepared to differ from the finding of the learned District Judge that the Will is genuine. As he says, the evidence of execution is net very strong, but that is largely attributable to the fact that the parties who row contest the Will accepted the anted upon it for many years, so that when it was challenged many of the witnesses were dead. The fact that the Will, though made by a minor, contained dispositions of property as well as the authority to adopt does not appear to us to afford any indication that it was not genuine. The deceased was 19 and the fact that his minority bed been prolonged to 21 owing to the appointment of a guardian under the Guardians and Wards Act may have been overlooked. The invalid of the bequests appears to have been discovered after his death and 10 attempt was made to give effect to them. This negatives the suggestion that they were inserted in a forged Will with some corrupt intention.2. The widow herself when she was 23 adopted a boy unde...
Tag this Judgment!Venkatachalam Chetty Vs. Rama Mudali and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1920
Reported in: 59Ind.Cas.91
1. In this case a mortgage was executed by one Rangammal, who was the aunt of Perumal. It is found that she had no authority to execute the mortgage, that it was not for a necessary purpose, and that it was a collusive transaction. Subsequently, Perumal's widow was sued on this mortgage and in the course of the suit she re married as she was entitled to do by the custom of the caste. After her re marriage she was a party to a consent decree which was also found to have been collusive. The plaintiff in this suit is the purchaser of the mortgaged property in the sale under the consent decree. It has been held in a recent Fall Bench case Vitta Tayaramma v. Onatakondu Sitayya 48 Ind. Cas. 50 that under the Hindu Law, a widow forfeits her status as a widow by re-marriage and that she forfeits the property which thereupon vests in the next reversioner, A widow represents her husband's estate so long as it is vested in her; but when she has divested herself of it she, in our opinion, ceases t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »