Chennai Court August 1920 Judgments
Bandaru Marayya Vs. Bandaru Ramalakshmi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1920
Reported in: (1920)39MLJ495
1. The sole question for decision in this appeal is whether it is proper to apply the doctrine of factum valet to the adoption of an orphan. The facts are admitted. Appellant Marayya was in fact adopted by Narasitnhayya, respondent's husband in 1910. Marayya was at the time an orphan and was given in adoption by his elder brother. It is conceded on his behalf that the adoption was, strictly speaking illegal Vide Vaithilinga v. Natesa I.L.R. (1912) Mad. 529. Can it be nevertheless upheld on the maxim factum valet quod non fieri debuit.2. In our opinion it cannot be so upheld. The doctrine is one which must always be applied with great caution and we do not think we should be justified in applying it here. A case is reported in Subbuluammal v. Ammakuttiammal (1861) 2 M.H.C.R. 129 in which the learned Judges rejected the argument that the maxim of factum valet could be applied to the adoption of an orphan and set aside the decision of the Sadar Amin based on that doctrine. They also rejec...
Tag this Judgment!Mareyya Vs. Ramalakshmi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Mad331; (1921)ILR44Mad260
1. The sole question for decision in this Appeal is whether it is proper to apply the doctrine of 'factum valet' to the adoption of an orphan. The facts are admitted. Appellant, Mareyya, was in fact adopted by Narasimhayya, respondent's husband, in 1910. Mareyya was at the time an orphan and was given in adoption by his elder brother. It is conceded on his behalf that the adoption was, strictly speaking, illegal--vide Vaithilingam v. Natesa I.L.R., (1914) Mad., 529. Can it be nevertheless upheld on the maxim 'factum valet quod non fieri debuit?'2. In our opinion it cannot be so Upheld. The doctrine is one which must always be applied with great caution and we do not think we should be justified in applying it here. In Subbaluvammal v. Ammakutti Ammal (1864) 2 M.H C.R., 129 the learned Judges rejected the argument that the maxim of 'factum valet' could be applied to the adoption of an orphan, and set aside the decision of the Sadar Amin based on that doctrine. They also rejected the con...
Tag this Judgment!Devulapalli Venkatasubba Rao Vs. Kolluri Satyanarayanamurti and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1920
Reported in: (1921)ILR44Mad179
Ayling, J.1. No point of law arises in this Appeal except in connexion with items 1-19 and 25 of plaint Schedule A.2. These were originally karnam service inam lands and were enfranchised in 1906 in the name of first defendant, who was then holding the office of karnam. Second plaintiff and first defendant belong to what was originally the same joint family in which the post of karnam vested. According to the plaint, partition never took place; but it is found as a fact that partition did take place about 1874 and that second plaintiff's branch and first defendant's branch then became divided and have boon living separately since. It is however contended that this does not affect plaintiff's claim to a share of the service inam lands on enfranchisement.3. As it is expressed, in paragraph 13 of the plaint:The enfranchisement of the properties converts them into family property and enures for the benefit of all the members of the service-holder's family existing at the time of enfranchis...
Tag this Judgment!Bhumireddi Suranna and ors. Vs. Bhumireddi Appadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Mad232; 60Ind.Cas.615
1. The third defendant in the suit who is the principal respondent before us claimed to have been adopted by a member of the family of the three plaintiffs. Daring the absence of the first plaintiff from the village, the two other plaintiffs who are the remaining members of the; family and the third defendant referred the question as to the letter's status to the arbitration of five persons. One of these persona did not act; the four others made an award giving the land in dispute to the third defendant. The District Munsif decreed the plaintiff's suit holding that there was no valid award nor anything which can be called a valid and binding settlement of a family dispute, The Subordinate Judge has reversed that decree. He agreed with the Munsif that the adoption was not proved by evidence, but he nays that the award, though made only by four oat of five arbitrators originally named by the parties had been accepted by the second and third plaintiffs and, therefore, was binding on them ...
Tag this Judgment!Pujari Lakshmana Goundan and anr. Vs. K. Subramania Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Mad103; 61Ind.Cas.962
Abdur Rahim, J.1. In this sage a decree was passed in a suit under Section 92, Civil Procedure code, dismissing the suit by the Temporary Sub-Court of Salem. Then there was an appeal to the High Court from the decree. A Division Bench of this Court confirmed the decree of the Subordinate Judge under Section 98, Civil Procedure Code. On further appeal from the said decree of the High Court, the original decree of the Temporary Sub Court was set aside and a direction was given that the lower Court was to restore the suit and proceed with it according to law. The Temporary Sub-Court which had passed the original decree ceased to exist on 31st December 1916, and another Temporary Sub-Court was establish ed on 14th February 1919; It was to that Court that the order of the High Court was directed, Then an application was made to it by the defendants in the suit, the appellants before us who had originally unseeded, for payment of costs, and they realized their costs from the plaintiffs. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Karnam Kandaswamy Pillay Vs. Chinnabha Alias Subbaraya Pillay and 3 or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Mad82; (1921)40MLJ105
Ayling, J.1. This Second Appeal arises out of a suit for redemption. Plaintiff's father and three others mortgaged the suit lands and certain other properties to defendant in 1871. In 1S85 an arrangement was made between the mortgagors and mortgagee by which the latter was to give up the other lands and retain possession of the suit lands in full ownership in satisfaction of the mortgage debt and certain other debts. This arrangement was given effect to:the other lands were relinquished and defendant has remained in enjoyment of the suit lands ever since. Plaintiff now sues to redeem his own share of the suit lands.2. The District Munsiff dismissed the suit on the ground that 'the suit lands were conveyed to defendant by an oral sale more than 30 years ago and that defendant has been in possession all this time as owner.' The District Judge on appeal found the above facts (which were not seriously contested) to be true and held that defendant had been holding as owner for more than 12 ...
Tag this Judgment!Karnam Kandasami Pillai Vs. Chinnabba Alias Subbaroya Pillai and Three ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-1920
Reported in: (1921)ILR44Mad253
Ayling, J.1. This Second Appeal arises out of a suit for redemption. Plaintiff's father and three others mortgaged the suit lands and certain other properties to defendant in 1871. In 1885 an arrangement was made between the mortgagors and mortgagee by which the latter was to give up the other lands and retain possession of the suit lands in full ownership in satisfaction of the mortgage debt and certain other debts. This arrangement was given effect to, the other lands were relinquished and defendant has remained in enjoyment of the suit lands ever since. Plaintiff now sues to redeem his own share of the suit lands.2. The District Munsif dismissed the suit on the ground that 'the suit lands were conveyed to defendant by an oral sale more than 30 years ago and that defendant has been in possession all this time as owner.' The District Judge on appeal found the above facts (which were not seriously contested) to be true and held that defendant had been holding as owner for more than twe...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Sri Sri Rajendramani Devi Garu and anr. Vs. Yellappa Ramu Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1920
Reported in: 60Ind.Cas.15; (1920)39MLJ565
1. The defendant, the respondent in this second appeal, has been in possession of the land in dispute for a long time as usufructuary mortgagee. A suit was instituted by the plaintiff-appellants for redemption and that suit was compromised in 1905. By that compromise the defendant remained in possession for seven years rent free. Then in April 1912 he was given a kadapa or lease of the land on certain terms and the plaintiffs have instituted this suit in the Revenue Court under the provisions of Sections 77 and 192 of the Estates Land Act for the recovery of the rent on the basis of that kadapa. It is argued by Mr. Ramesam that the land is seri or home farm land, that the finding of the District Judge that although it was home farm' land originally it had been converted into ryoti land is wrong and that we ought to set it aside. But we must hold that the plaintiffs by their own conduct debarred themselves, at least so far as this suit is concerned from contending that the land is home ...
Tag this Judgment!Lingamallu Varadha Raghaviah and ors. Vs. Lingamallu Venkataramanayya ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-1920
Reported in: 61Ind.Cas.772
John Wallis, C.J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of the Temporary Subordinate Judge of Guntur in a partition suit and raises questions of some importanae which have been elaborately argued before us.2. Part of the joint family assets consisted of a joint family trade and the Subordinate Judge seems to have been under the impression that this made a difference as to the form of account which should be ordered. It must really now be taken to be well-settled in this Presidency that, an account in a partition suit is an account of the assets and liabilities of the joint family as they existed on the date of the plaint. This is down in Balakrishna Aiyar v. Muthusawmy Aiyar 3 Ind. Cas. 878 . It is there said that this is so in the absence of fraud or misappropriation. What appears to be meant is that, what has to be ascertained is, what are really the assets of the joint family and that, if any of the no parceners has attempted to misappropriate any of the joint family property by put...
Tag this Judgment!Pambayam Chetty Alias Ramaswami Chettiar (Dead) and anr. Vs. Kandaswam ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-24-1920
Reported in: 60Ind.Cas.22
1. The razinama petition slates that it was presented by the parties, that is to say, through their Pleader, and it also contains a clear and foil statement of the views of the parties to the compromise. The matter is set forth in the petition and there is nothing in the record to suggest that this statement is not arrest. The petition is signed by the Pleaders appearing on both sides. But it is now said that the appellant did not in front authorise his Pleader to file this razinamah. If that were so, he would at once have brought the mutter to the notice of the Court and filed an application to have the decree set aside, or at least he would have filed an affidavit before us stating that the Pleader was not authorised to file this petition. In the absence of any such affidavit, it is not possible for us to act upon a mere statement made by the Pleader appearing before ns under instructions.2. Then it is argued that the vakalatnaqh did not empower the Vakil to compromise the suit. He d...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »