Chennai Court September 1920 Judgments
Yagnasami Ayyar Alias Ayyavayyar Vs. K. Chidambaranatha Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Mad81; 61Ind.Cas.961
1. A preliminary objection is taken that no appeal lies. Inasmuch as the question for decision is one between the auction purchaser and the judgment-debtor, we may take it, on the ruling of the Full Bench in Veyindramuthu Pillai v. Maya Radon 54 Ind. Cas. 209 that the auction purchaser is a representative of the judgment-debtor. But Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code says: 'all questions arising between the parties to the suit in which the decree was passed, or their representatives, and relating to the execution, etc. shall be determined by the Court executing the decree and not by a separate suit.' A prima facie reading of this section suggests that the questions which are meant to be covered by this section are those which arise between persons opposed in interest in the suit, and not between a party to the suit and his own representative. There is a ruling of the Bombay High Court in Maganlal Mulji v. Doshi Mulji 3 Bom. L.R. 255 to the effect, and we have not been referred to a...
Tag this Judgment!Kandiyil Parkum Vania Puthukkuti Kanna Kurup Vs. Thottoli Kottarathil ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Mad243; (1921)40MLJ282
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The third defendant whom I shall call the mortgagee is the appellant before us. The plaintiff is a melkanomdar and he got his melkonam from the Jenmi, the first defendant, who was then the stanom-holder of a Desam. The suit was for redemption of the 3rd defendant, the mortgagee under the Kanom deed dated 1904, Ex. A, and all the sub-mortgagees and other demises under the 3rd defendant were also made parties. (The second and the third plaintiffs and the second defendant may be treated as claiming under sub-mortgages created by the 1st plaintiff.) The first Count held that Melcharth or Melkanom to the 1st plaintiff given by the 1st defendant was not a Kanom, but an improvement lease and that if it did not require therefore to be attested by two witnesses (as a mortgage is required to be attested by Section 59 of the Transfer of Property Act.) Then it found the value of improvements due to the 3rd defendant and his sub-mortgagees and lessees and gave an elaborate decr...
Tag this Judgment!Nachiparayan Vs. Narayana Goundan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-1920
Reported in: 60Ind.Cas.171; (1920)39MLJ574
1. The contention of the appellant in this case is that he enjoyed a right of way over the first respondent's land peaceably and without interruption for a period of twenty years. But it is found that for four years before the institution of the suit the plaintiff did not enjoy any such right of way being effectively prevented from doing so by the first respondent. Those being the facts, the learned Judge held that the plaintiff's suit failed by virtue of the provision of Section 15 of the Easements Act that 'each of the said periods of twenty years shall be taken to be a period ending within the two years before the institution of the suit wherein the claim to which such period relates is contested.' The argument on behalf of the appellant is that since the appellant had enjoyed for a period of twenty years the right claimed by him peaceably, openly and without interruption, it made no difference that for four years before the institution of the suit he was prevented from using the pa...
Tag this Judgment!Kandiyil Parkum Vania Puthukkutti Kanna Kurup Vs. Sankara Varma Rajah ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-1920
Reported in: (1921)ILR44Mad344
Sadasiva Ayyar, J.1. The third defendant whom I shall call the mortgagee is the appellant before us. The plaintiff is a melkanomdar and he got his melkanom from the jenmi, the first defendant, who was then the stanom-holder of a desam. The suit was for redemption of the third defendant, the mortgagee under the kanom deed Exhibit A, dated 1904, and all the sub-mortgagees and other demisees under the third defendant were also made parties. The second and third plaintiffs and the second defendant may be treated as claiming under sub-mortgages created by the plaintiff. The first Court held that the melcharth or melkanom to the first plaintiff granted by the first defendant was not a kanom, but an improvement lease and that it did not require therefore to be attested by two witnesses (as a mortgage is required to be attested by Section 59 of the Transfer of Property Act). Then it found the value of improvements due to the third defendant and his sub-mortgagees and lessees and gave an elabor...
Tag this Judgment!G. Chakrapany Chettiar Vs. Kamalavalli Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-1920
Reported in: 60Ind.Cas.639
1. This is an appeal from a degree in a suit on a promissory note instituted under Order XXXVII of the Code of the Civil Procedure, in which leave to defend has been refused. Rule 3 of that Order requires the Court to give, the defendant leave to appear, and defend the suit upon affidavits which disclose such facts as would make it incumbent on the holder to prove consideration or such other facts as the Court may deem sufficient to support the application. This is paraphrased in the summons to be served on the defendant under Rule 2(1), Form No. 4 of Appendix B as follows:Leave to appear may be obtained on an application to the Court supported by affidavit...showing that there is a defence to the suit on the merits, or that it is reasonable that you should be allowed to appear in the suit,' which would make the scope of the suit like that of the well-known Order XIV, Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules. The language of Rule 3 is taken from the Bills of Exchange Act, V of 1866, which was...
Tag this Judgment!Moosalakanthi Venkatarama Naganatha Rao, Minor by Guardian Visvanatha ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-01-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Mad132; (1921)40MLJ46
Ayling, J.1. The only substantial question in this appeal is whether the minor defendant's natural father Thimmayya was entitled to represent his estate after the minor's adoption. If so, there can be no doubt that the suit promissory note Exhibit C is binding on the estate and that the decree of the lower appellate court must be upheld.2. The facts are these : Mr. M. Suryanrayana Rao, sole proprietor of the Waltair estate died on the 31st March, 1904 leaving a registered will. This Will is not exhibited but its provisions are admitted to be as set out in the plaint paragraphs 1 to 3. That is to say, it authorised his widow to adopt the minor defendant and directed that until the adoption should be effected, defendant's natural father Thimmayya should manage his estate as executor under the will and that after the adoption he should be the guardian of the minor defendant until the latter attained majority. Defendant was duly adopted on the 12th December, 1908. Subsequently Thimmayya, d...
Tag this Judgment!Jagannadha Rao by Guardian Vasanta Rao Vs. Ramayamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-01-1920
Reported in: (1921)ILR44Mad189
Ayling, J.1. The only substantial question in this appeal is whether the minor defendant's natural father Timmayya was entitled to represent his estate after the minor's adoption. If so, there can be no doubt that the suit promissory-note, Exhibit C, is binding on the estate and that the decree of the lower Appellate Court must be upheld.2. The facts are these: Mr. M. Suryanarayana Rao, sole proprietor of the Waltair estate died on 31st March 1904, leaving a registered will. This will is not exhibited, but its provisions are admitted to be as set out in the plaint paragraph No. 3. That is to say, it authorized his widow to adopt the minor defendant and directed that until the adoption should be effected, defendant's natural father Timmayya should manage his estate as executor under the will and that after the adoption he should be the guardian of the minor defendant until the latter attained majority. Defendant was duly adopted on 12th December 1908. Subsequently, Timmayya, describing ...
Tag this Judgment!Alagappa Chetty Vs. Alagappa Chetty and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-01-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Mad382; (1921)ILR44Mad187
1. The suit in which this Second Appeal has arisen was instituted by the endorsee of a hundi in order to enforce payment of the hundi. The case is pressed only against the second defendant, who is the endorser. The hundi itself is not forthcoming but the defendant in his written, statement admitted that such a hundi had been issued but that it was made payable to bearer on demand and as such it was an invalid document by virtue of Section 26 of the Paper Currency Act. That section is absolutely clear and there can be no doubt that it applies to a hundi of this character. The point is settled by a ruling of this Court reported in Chidambaram Chettiar v. Ayyasawmi Thevan I.L.R.,(1917) Mad., 585. But it was argued by Mr. Anantakrishna Ayyar that the endorser is estopped from denying the validity of his instrument The authority for the proposition is an observation of one of the learned Judges in Arunachalam Chettiar v. Narayanan Chettiar I.L.R., (1919) Mad., 470 . That observation is pure...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›