Chennai Court January 1921 Judgments
Sree Rajah Bollapragada Venkata Lakshmamma Garu. Vs. Chintapalli Achir ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Mad152; (1921)40MLJ319
John Wallis, C.J.1. In this case the Civil and the Revenue : Courts have both declined jurisdiction over a. suit instituted by the plaintiff after he had parted with his estate to recover rent which had accrued due to him while he was still the owner of the estate and, as such, a 'land-holder' as defined in Section 3, Clause 5, of the Madras Estates Land Act. One of the principal changes effected by that act was that on grounds of policy it took away from the Civil Courts and transferred to revenue officers jurisdiction to try rent suits instituted by 'landholders ' against' ryots ' as defined in the Act. Section 189, confers jurisdiction on a Collector or other revenue officer specially authorised to try this and the other suits and applications specified, and expressly prohibits any Civil Court from taking cognizance in the exercise of its original jurisdiction ' of any dispute or matter in respect of which such suit or application might be brought or made. This cause of action when ...
Tag this Judgment!Venkata Narasimha Raju Garu and anr. Vs. Kuppu Chetti and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Mad480; (1921)40MLJ524
Spencer, J.1.The question argued in this second appeal relates to the application of Section 125 of the Madras Estates Land Act read with Section 72 of the Transfer of Property Act to sums paid by a usufructuary mortgagee after the passing of the former Act to preserve the mortgaged property from sale in execution of a simple money decree.2. At a sale for arrears of rent under the Madras Estates Land Act, Section 125 saves the rights created by the ryot in favour of third persons if he has obtained the landholder's permission in writing registered for them, and also saves encumbrances created before the Act.3. Lavanna Chetti's mortgage being one of 1906 was in existence before the Act was passed, but the payments made by the mortgagee to save the property from sale in a Civil Court were made in December 1908 after the passing of the Act in June 1908.4. It is contended for the appellants, who purchased the lands at the rent sales, that neither are these payments encumbrances nor were th...
Tag this Judgment!Pulpati Hanmayya Vs. Ravuri Ramayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Mad272; (1921)41MLJ126
1. That right to apply to the Court (given by the Provincial Insolvency Act, III of 1907 to the creditor) to adjudicate the debtor as an insolvent was not exercised within the period of three months (from the date of the commission of the act of insolvency) allowed under that Act. The application under that Act was made after the expiry of that period and was properly dismissed as the applicant had no right to make the application under that Act at the time he made it in the proper Court.2. It is argued that as the application was pending when the new Act V of 1920 came into force and as that Act contains a provision (Section 78) giving a discretion to the Court to allow an extension of the period prescribed for making applications under the Act, and to excuse the delay in presentation, the District Judge ought to have exercised that discretion in favour of the appellant (Petitioner) and accepted his application as a valid one.3. It is difficult to follow the argument. An application m...
Tag this Judgment!The Official Receiver Vs. Lakshman Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Mad681(1); (1921)41MLJ453
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. I am clear that by the amendment made in the definition of ' actionable claim' on the Transfer of Property Act in 1900, the Legislature intended that when money is borrowed on mortgage of immoveable property, the creation of the security on the irnmoveables should be treated as material part of the mortgage transaction and that the mortgage debt should not be treated as validly transferred if the conditions imposed by the statute law as requisites for the valid transfer of the security have not been complied with. I think that the latest pronouncement of the learned Chief Justice in Perumal Ammal v. Perumal Naicker (1920) 40 M.L.J. 25 supports my above view.2. The result is that the appeal has to be allowed and the respondent could be treated only as an ordinary creditor and not a secured creditor. The respondent will pay the appellant's costs in both Courts.Napier, J.3. I agree.4. The mortgage debt has not been legally assigned as correctly stated by the District ...
Tag this Judgment!Pulpati Hanumaya Vs. Ravuri Ramayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1921
Reported in: 64Ind.Cas.270
1. The right to apply to the Court, given by the Provincial Insolvency Act III of 1907 to the creditor, to adjudicate the debtor as an insolvent was not exercised within the period of three months (from the date of the commission of the acts of insolvency) allowed under that Act. The application under that Act was made after the expiry of that period and was properly dismissed, as the applicant had no right to make the application under that Act at the time he made it in the proper Court.2. It is argued that, as the application was pending when the new Act V of 1920 came into force and as that Act contains a provision (Section 78) giving a discretion to the Court to allow an extension of the period prescribed for making applications under the Act, and to excuse the delay in presentation, the District Judge ought to have exercised that discretion in favour of the appellant (petitioner) and accepted his application as a valid one.3. It is difficult to follow the argument. An application ...
Tag this Judgment!Tirumalai Savuri Naicker Vs. Royar Alias Kachiraya thevar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Mad530; (1921)40MLJ529
Spencer, J.1. Section 69 of Indian Contract Act, in my opinion, applies to the case of a surety who pays a decree debt which other persons besides the judgment debtor for whose appearance he made himself liable, were bound by law to pay.2. I consider that the surety is not the less interested in the payment of the money (i.e. the decree debt) because the decree holder could legally compel him to pay the debt of the principal debtor. Even if the other judgment debtors are not to be regarded as principal debtors by a strict interpretation of the words of Section 126 (in which case Section 140 would apply to the case) the surety's liability is not co-extensive who that of the other judgment debtors because he is invested by Section 140 with a right they do not possess, namely, all the rights which the creditor had against the principal debtor, where as the judgment debtors have inter se only the inferior right of contribution, that is, a right to recover a pro-portionate amount of the joi...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Rajah Bollapragada Venkata Lakshmamma Garu Vs. Chintapalli Achi Re ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1921
Reported in: (1921)ILR44Mad433
Oldfield, J.1. In such a case there must be rateable distribution. The policy of the Act is that such suits should be brought in the Revenue Courts and the Civil Courts have no jurisdiction. If an 'owner' farms out his 'estate' after he has acquired a right for arrears of rent it cannot be said that he loses his rights of summary procedure. The right of suit having accrued in a Revenue Court no act of the landholder, such as transfer of the estate, could take away from him that right.2. N. Rama Rao for respondent.--The question is, is he a landholder any longer. He must be entitled at the time of suit to sue for the rents, i.e., he must own an estate or part thereof. By the transfer he has ceased to be a landholder. Reference was made to Sections 3(5) and 189, Sundaram Ayyar v. Kulathu Ayyar I.L.R.,(1916) Mad., 1018, Venkata Lahshmamma v. Seetayya I.L.R.,(1920) Mad., 786, and Forbes v. Maharaj Bahadur Singh I.L.R.,(1914) Cal., 926 (P.C.).Wallis, C.J.3. In this case the Civil and the Re...
Tag this Judgment!Sontayana Gopala Dasu and Three ors. Vs. Inapatalupula Rami and Four o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1921
Reported in: (1921)ILR44Mad946
1. This is an Appeal by defendants 1 to 4 in the suit which was brought by the plaintiffs on the footing of two usufructuary mortgages, Exhibits A and B, in which the father-in-law of the first plaintiff and the father of the second plaintiff were the mortgagors and the first defendant was the mortgagee. The plaintiffs claim that the mortgage debt having been completely discharged they are entitled to possession of the mortgaged lands by ejection of the defendants. They also claim an account.2. The mortgage deeds are dated respectively 27th September 1892 and 28th April 1893. The written statement filed by the defendants admits that the father-in-law of the first plaintiff, the second defendant and certain minors became indebted up to 13th March 1877 in the sum of Rs. 560 in respect of the plaint mentioned registered deeds of mortgage with possession and they executed a settlement of account. They also file an account and plead that the sum of Rs. 950 and odd is still due to them and t...
Tag this Judgment!Sontyana Gopala Dasee (Dead) and ors. Vs. Inaputalapula Rami and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1921
Reported in: 64Ind.Cas.328
1. This is an appeal by defendants NOS. 1 to 4 in the suit which was brought by the plaintiffs on the footing of two usufructuary mortgages, Exhibits A and B, in which the father in law of the first plaintiff and the father of the second plaintiff were the mortgagors and the first defendant was the mortgagee. The plaintiffs claim that the mortgage-debt having been completely discharged, they are entitled to the possession of the mortgaged lands by ejection of the defendants. They also claim an account.2. The mortgage-deeds are dated respectively 27th September 1892 and 23th April 1833. The written statement filed by the defendants admits that the father-in-law of the first plaintiff, the second defendant and certain minore became indebted up to 13th March 1887 in the sum of Rs. 560 in respect of the plaint-mentioned registered deeds of mortgage with possession and they executed a settlement of account. They also file an account and plead that the sum of Rs. 950 and odd is still due to ...
Tag this Judgment!Muthia Chettiar Vs. Karuthamada Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Mad313; (1921)41MLJ92
Spencer, J.1. The case or Lingayya v. Chinna Narayana I.L.R. (1917) Mad. 169 was a Full Bench case upon the applicability of the general provisions of the Limitation Act to the period of limitation for preferring an appeal against orders made under the Provincial Insolvency Act.2. It did not purport to decide anything as to the period of limitation provided by Section 59 of the Madras Revenue Recovery Act 1864. Srinivasa Ayyangar v. Secretary of State I.L.R(1912) . Mad. 92 and Venkata v. Chengadu I.L.R.(1888) M. 168 are decisions considered in Lingayya v. Chinna Narayana I.L.R(1917) . Mad. 169 and while it may be said the effect of the judgment of the learned Judges, who were parties to this latest Full Bench was to throw doubt upon the principles upon which the earlier decisions proceeded, the latter, which related to questions of limitation arising out of the Revenue Recovery Act, were not directly overruled.3. In the Provincial Insolvency Act III of 1907 Section 45 gives 90 days for...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »