Chennai Court September 1920 Judgments
Tellicherry Pichi Naidu Vs. C. Jefferson
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Mad541; (1921)41MLJ94
1. The plaintiff had a lease of the land in dispute from the defendant for a period of five years for mica mining purposes on the 6th May 1903 with the follwing clauses: I bind myself to give you such leases as you may require from time to time after the expiration of this agreement on same conditions. Should I fail to do so, I bind myself to pay you all your expenses that you incur.' The plaintiff entered into possession according to the terms of the lease and erected certain structures on the land with a view to carry on the mining operations. But sometime in 1915 the defendant obtained a decree for possession of the land inasmuch as the present plaintiff had not on the expiry of the term mentioned in the lease taken out any renewal. Thereupon the plaintiff called upon the defendant on the 4th November 1916 to execute a lease for five years with the clause for renewal in the terms set out above but the defendant refused to grant any such renewal. The lessee then instituted this suit....
Tag this Judgment!Chinna Vellayan Alias Chinna Karuppan Chetty (Deceased) and anr. Vs. M ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Mad116; 61Ind.Cas.901
1. There ware several judgment-debtors in this case. The lower Court has held that the application for execution, dated 30th August 1913, was not barred against the first defendant, because the decree against him was suspended between the 23rd August 1910 and 10th September 1910 and if the period between these two dates be deducted, then the application of the 30th August 1913 was within three years of the prior application, that is, of the 16th August 1910. But the Subordinate Judge has held that, so far as the other judgment-debtors are concerned, the application of the 30th August 1913 was out of time and, therefore, the present application dated the 26th February 1916 was barred.2. It is contended on the strength of Section 15, and Article 182, Explanation (1), of the Limitation Act that, as the application for execution of 1913 was in time as against the first defendant, it must be held to be effective as against all the judgment-debtors. Section 15 says: In computing the period o...
Tag this Judgment!Swaminatha Odayar Vs. S. Sundaram Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-1920
Reported in: (1920)39MLJ711
Abdur Rahim, J.1. These cases arise out of applications made by certain tenants of the Palace Estate which is under the management of a receiver appointed by the Court for the compulsory acquisition of occupancy rights under Section 46 of the Estates Land Act. The Revenue authorities decided against the ryots on the ground that Section 46 precludes any application being made under it to a receiver appointed by the Court as distinguished from the beneficial owner of the property. We have not found it necessary to decide the preliminary objection raised that no objection lies against the order of the Revenue authorities as on the merits we are clearly of opinion that Sub-section 5 of Section 46 is a bar to the present application of the ryots in the case. While in the main clause of that section the word ' Landholder' alone is used, in Clause 5 at the end the legislature has added ' the sums payable under the section for the acquisition of the occupancy right shall be paid to the landhol...
Tag this Judgment!Swaminatha Odayar and K. Arumuga Padayachi Vs. S. Sundaram Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Mad314; 60Ind.Cas.18
Abdur Rahim, J.1. These cases arise out of an application made by certain tenants of the Palace Estate, which is under the management of a Receiver appointed by the Court, for the compulsory acquisition of occupancy rights under Section 46 of the Estates Land Act. The Revenue Authorities decided against the ryots on the ground that Section 45 precludes any application being made under it to a Receiver appointed by the Court as distinguished from the beneficial owner of the property. We have not found it necessary to decide the preliminary objection raised that no objection lies against the order of the Revenue Authorities as, on the merits, we are already of opinion that sub Section 5 of Section 43 is a bar to the present application of the ryots in the case. While in the main clauses of that section the word landholder alone is used, in Clause (5) at the end, the Legislature has added: 'The sums payable under this section for the acquisition of the occupancy rights shall be paid to th...
Tag this Judgment!John J. Fernandez Vs. Sylvester Souza and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Mad118; 61Ind.Cas.829
1. The preliminary objection is that there is no appeal against the order in the case remanding the suit to the District Munsif for trial of the question whether the default, consisting in non-performance of the agreement, which, as found by the lower Appellate Court, was in fast arrived at between the plaintiff and the defendant, was due to the default of the plaintiff or the defendant. What is or is not a preliminary point it is not always easy to determine. The only definition that has been attempted, so far as it has been brought to our notice, is that given by Muthusami Aiyar, J., in Ramachandra Joshi v. Hazi Kassim 16 M. 207 , where he says that a preliminary point means some point either collateral to the merits which precluded their determination altogether, or some particular question which, though relating to the merits, precluded their general determination.' It seems to us that this is a fairly accurate definition, which we find has also been adopted in the resent decision ...
Tag this Judgment!R. Singariah Chetty Vs. Chinnabbi Alias Muni Reddy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-1920
Reported in: (1921)40MLJ7
Ayling, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit on a mortgage bond executed by the guardian of defendants 1 and 2 in favour of plaintiffs. Before its institution the mortgaged property had been brought to sale by 5th defendant in execution of a decree obtained by him against defendants 1 and 2 (O.S. No. 69 of 1914 on the file of the District Munsiff of Tirupati) and purchased by defendants 3 and 4. The latter opposed the suit alleging (1) that the suit mortgage was only a fictitious document without consideration and (2) that the suit was otherwise not maintainable. The first defence, though successful in the court of first instance, was found against by the Subordinate Judge in appeal; and we are not now concerned with it. The Subordinate Judge however, in giving a decree for plaintiffs omitted to consider the objections to the maintainability of the suit and it is with these, which have been pressed on us by Mr. Ananthakrishna Iyer on behalf of 3rd defendant, the present appellant that...
Tag this Judgment!Rama Sahu (Dead) and ors. Vs. Gouro Ratho
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Mad337; (1920)39MLJ639
1. The question raised in the Order of Reference in this case is whether leases for less than a year, which require registration to make them operative by virtue of Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act, must be considered, by virtue of Section 4 of that Act which provides that that and other sections shall be read as 'supplemental to the Indian Registration Act,' to be documents 'required by Section 17 of the Registration Act to be registered' so as to bring them within the operation of Section 49 of the Registration Act which provides that 'no document required by Section 17 to be registered shall affect any immoveable property ... or confer any power to adopt, or be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property or conferring such power unless it has been registered.' The question what precise effect is to be given to the provisions of Section 4 of the Transfer of Property Act as to Section 107 and the other sections specified being read as supplemental to the...
Tag this Judgment!T.K. Srinivasa Aiyangar Vs. Kuppuswami Aiyengar Alias Veerasamy Aiyeng ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-1920
Reported in: (1921)ILR44Mad801
John Wallis, C.J.1. We have been asked in this case to depart from the usual form of decree in suits for partition between sons and their father in which alienees are joined for the purposes of setting aside the father's alienations of the joint family property, one of the commonest classes of suits in this Presidency, by making the setting aside of the alienations conditional on the refund by the sons of the moneys paid to the father in consideration of the alienations on the ground that the father becomes liable to make such a refund on the setting aside of the alienations and that his sons at the same time incur a pious obligation to discharge the liability. The setting aside of such alienations has often been made conditional on the refund to the alienees of such part of the consideration as was shown to have been advanced by them for necessary purposes, including in that term the discharge of the father's debts antecedent to the alienations in discharge of which the son's shares c...
Tag this Judgment!Rama Sahu (Dead) and ors. Vs. Gowro Ratho
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-1920
Reported in: 59Ind.Cas.350
ORDERSpencer, J.1. The question raised in second appeal is whether Exhibit B, which is an unregistered lease for six months of a house at a rent of eight annas a month, was admissible in evidence to prove that defendants Nos. 1 to 3 occupied the house as fourth defendant's tenants.2. To be effective as a lease of immoveable property this document required registration under Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act; although being a lease for a period less than one year it was not compulsorily remittable under Section 17(d) of the Indian Registration Act (Act XVI of 1908).3. Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act provides that leases of immoveable property from year to year or for any term exceeding one year must be made only by a registered instrument, and that all other leases may be made either by a registered instrument or by an oral agreement accompanied by delivery of possession.4. No place is provided by this section for written but unregistered leases even for periods of...
Tag this Judgment!M. Govindarajulu Naidoo Vs. D.H. Ranga Rao and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Mad113; (1921)40MLJ124
1. The appeal is by the sixth defendant judgment debtor in the suit in which the order under appeal has been passed. The order was passed on an application for execution and it is said that we should set aside the order granting execution on several grounds. It is first argued that as the decree was apparently in favour of a minor, it could not be transferred except with the sanction of the Court, and in support of this contention reliance is placed on Order 32, Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure. That rule refers to an application for the compromise of the suit which has to be sanctioned by the court before which the suit is pending. It is argued that the transfer of a decree on behalf of a minor stands on the same footing because the rule as framed by this court contains the words ' for taking any other action on be half of a minor.' But reading these words in the context in which they occur, they refer to an action taken in the course of the suit in the nature of a compromise or ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »