Chennai Court November 1921 Judgments
Koralla Buch Lingam Vs. Koralla Satyanarayanamurthi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1921
Reported in: 65Ind.Cas.710
1. The parties to Original Suit No. 33 of 1912, which was a suit for partition, referred their disputes to be settled by three arbitrators who made an award on April 2nd 1913.2. After this, the 3rd arbitrator divided the properties and reported to the Court on 6th October 1915 and at the foot of his report it was written that both the parties agreed to the matters in that report, and the plaintiff and the first defendant for himself and as guardian of the second defendant signed this statement. In this report the 3rd Panchayatdar apparently exceeded his powers as a single arbitrator by fixing the amount of mesne profits to be paid after the date of the award.3. On 13th December 1915 the District Judge (Mr. Roy) passed orders on this report but omitted (apparently by oversight) to specifically direct a decree to be drawn up in accordance with the award and the report.4. But a decree was drawn up and signed by the District Judge's successor Mr. Fernandez on 14th December 1915.5. Nearly f...
Tag this Judgment!Gujju Nagamma Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council Represen ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Mad106; 66Ind.Cas.356; (1922)42MLJ318
1. We are of opinion that Section 11 of the Salt Act applies to transfers by way of mortgage and is not limited to absolute transfers. The word ' transfer ' is general, and there is nothing in the section to limit it to absolute transfers of the entire interest of the licensee. The fact that, as between the licensee and his transferees, Section 12 protects the interests of a person who may have an interest in or lien upon such license or salt works does not affect the question as to the position between the transferees and the Commissioner.2. The rules under the Salt Act framed under Section 11 prohibit the licensee on pain of termination of the lease from assigning, under letting or parting with possession without the permission of the Commissioner; and the licenses contain these terms. The whole policy of the Act is to give the Commissioner control as to the person who is to acquire an interest.3. We are of opinion that the mortgage of the salt pan without the leave of the Commission...
Tag this Judgment!Parvathi Ammal Vs. Elayaperumal Konar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Mad70; 66Ind.Cas.216
1. The respondent in this case is the father of a minor girl and has, at his own request, been appointed statutory guardian of her person and property under Guardians and Wards Act. This order is appealed against by the child's maternal aunt who alleges that she was appointed guardian by an oral Will by the mother of the child who is said to have bequeathed the property in question to the child. The District Judge has not enquired into the fact of this appointment of the appellant and we think he is justified in refusing to do so provided ha finds, as he seems to do, that the appointment of the father as guardian is for the benefit of the minor. Our attention has been drawn to sections 6 and 7 of the Guardians and Wards Act and in particular to Clause (3) of Section 7 which says: 'Where a guardian has been appointed by Will or other instrument or appointed or declared by the Court, an order under this section appointing or declaring another person to be guardian in his stead shall not ...
Tag this Judgment!Muhammad Jehangir Sahib Vs. Kajee Mohamad Oli Ahmad Sahib and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-1921
Reported in: 66Ind.Cas.237
1. This appeal arises oat of a suit filed by the first respondent against the appellant and others for recovery of possession of the mosque and Idga mentioned in the plaint. The plaintiff's grandfather and the first defendant's father were brothers. The case for the plaintiff was that the mosque and Idga were places where parsons who formed his father's jama were entitled to offer prayers and perform other religions ceremonies and were in possession of his father till his death; that after his father's death he (the plaintiff) was appointed Kazi, (the business of the office of Kazi being conducted by a deputy during his minority) and was in possession; that the first defendant took wrongful possession of the mosque and Idga under colour of his appointment as Kazi by the Government; and that the plaintiff is, therefore, entitled to possession and mesne profits as claimed in the plaint. The first defendant denied the appointment of the plaintiff as Kazi and pleaded that he was the duly a...
Tag this Judgment!Arulananda Muthu and anr. Vs. Ponnuswami Alias Thambaya Swami Maniyaga ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Mad1; 66Ind.Cas.265; (1922)42MLJ129
Spencer, J.1. The plaintiff brought this suit for a declaration of his title to succeed to the properties of Ponnusami Maniyagar by virtue of his having been adopted by that individual and for recovering his share in the estate. The Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit holding that, as Ponnuswami Maniyagar was a ward under the Court of Wards at the time of the adoption, and as the Court of Wards had not sanctioned the alleged adoption, even if true, would be invalid for want of the previous consent of the Court of Wards in writing as required by Section 25 of Regulation V of l804.2. Section 25 of Regulation V of 1804 declares : 'It shall not be competent for disqualified landholders to adopt children without the consent of the Court of Wards previously had in writing' and Section 4 of that Regulation declares 'where minors may succeed to inheritable property, they shall not, in any case, be competent to take charge of or to administer their own affairs during the period of the minority...
Tag this Judgment!Karuppan Goundan Vs. Mudali Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1921
Reported in: (1922)43MLJ36
1. We are of opinion that Exs. I and II and the evidence in the case show that there was a surrender by the 2nd defendant to the 3rd defendant of all the properties she was in possession of as widow and that she got a sum of Rs. 500 and land yielding about Rs. 25 a year absolutely for her maintenance. There is nothing in the evidence to show that the transaction evidenced by Exs. I and II was a device by the widow to get an absolute estate in a portion of her husband's property. It is in evidence that she would require at least Rs. 4 a month for her maintenance and that the land she got would yield about Rs. 25 a year. The interest on the sum of Rs. 500 and the yield of the land would hardly be sufficient for her maintenance. Having regard to the extent of the lands surrendered by her and the yield, it is difficult to see why he should have entered into the transaction evidenced by Exs. I and II if her object was not bona fide.2. The next question is whether the fact that she got an ab...
Tag this Judgment!Doraiappa Iyer Alias Krishnaswamy Iyer Vs. the Official Assignee of Ma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Mad456; 65Ind.Cas.244; (1922)42MLJ141
W.S. Schwabe, C.J.1. In this case the question for our determination is whether under Section 7 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act there was jurisdiction in the Insolvency Court to decide between the parties. The matter arises in this way. The insolvent sold certain property--the property was family property--and the purchaser being doubtful as to whether the insolvent could give him a good or complete title to the whole property, required some further--also family property--to be given to him as security against the other minor members of the family raising the question there after that the sale of the first property was as against them bad. In the Insolvency Court the Official Assignee found himself confronted with a claim to the property covered by the security bond, and in order properly to administer the estate and distribute the property completely among the creditors of the insolvent, it was necessary for him to know whether or not the security, held by the purchaser, the pr...
Tag this Judgment!Karuppa Goundan Vs. Mudali Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Mad681; 67Ind.Cas.397
1. We are of opinion that Exhibits I and II and the evidence in the case show that there was a surrender by the second defendant to the third defendant of all the properties she was in possession of as widow and that she got a sum of Rs. 500 and land yielding about Rs. 25 a year absolutely for her maintenance. There is nothing in the evidence to show that the transaction evidenced by Exhibits I and II was a device by the widow to get an absolute estate in a portion of her husband's property. It is in evidence that she would require at least Rs. 4 a month for her maintenance and that the land she got would yield about Rs. 25 a year. The interest on the sum of Rs. 500 and the yield of the land would hardly be sufficient for her maintenance. Having regard to the extent of the lands surrendered by her and the yield, it is difficult to see why she should have entered into the transaction evidenced by Exhibits I and II if her object was not bona fide.2. The nest question is whether the fact ...
Tag this Judgment!Pothari Illath Madhavan Nair Vs. Chalikadavath Pakkissan Thotiyil Abdu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Mad404; 77Ind.Cas.917
1. We are of opinion that the decision in Original Suit No. 398 of 1903 does not render the question of the validity o the deed of partition res judicata. There was no contest between the defendants. Somasundara Mudali v. Kulandaivelu Pillai 28 M.Z 457 supports the contentions of the appellant The suit being to eject the defendants or the ground, of an alleged trespass, it was not necessary for the second defendant to raise the question of the validity of the partition.2. As regards the deed of partition in 1896 it is clear from the facts set out by the District Munsif in paragraph 8 of his judgment that Atta Bi and the other parties acted on the deed. Attn Bi took under the Will of her brother who gave her the share he got on partition. Assuming that the partition was invalid as Atta Bi was not properly represented in the partition, the fact that all the adult male members treated the partition as valid and enjoyed or disposed of their shared under the deed and the fact that Atta Bi a...
Tag this Judgment!Venkatachalapathi Aiyar Vs. China Muna Chakrapani Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Mad83; 66Ind.Cas.844; (1922)42MLJ258
Oldfield, J.1. I agree with the judgment which my learned brother is about to deliver and have nothing to add.Krishnan, J.2. The first question we have to decide in this Second Appeal is whether a trust has been created by the parties with reference to the Rs. 300 and interest dealt with in Ex. A, The lower courts have held that no trust was created but the respondent's vakil has tried to support the decree of the lower appellate court by arguing that in reality a trust was created.3. The question has to be decided entirely on the wording of Ex. A, the agreement between the parties, for there is no other evidence bearing on it, That document says in one portion of it 'Rs. 300/- with balance of interest which has been allotted for Dwadasi charity out of the balance still due, shall be allotted for that chanty and a dharmasasanam be executed, and again in another party 'the sum of Rs. 300/ -with balance of interest relating to the said charity shall not remain with both of us but we shal...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »