Chennai Court December 1921 Judgments
A. Veda Murthi Mudaliar Vs. Jwalapuram Raghavacharlu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1921
Reported in: 65Ind.Cas.978
1. We are unable to accept the finding of the District Judge that the first plaintiff is the only person interested in the contract. The agreement to sell, Exhibit A, expressly states that the contract is in favour of the first plaintiff and others, The case for the first plaintiff is that the others referred to in the document are the second and third plaintiffs, The case for the contesting defendant is that by others were intended the other plaintiffs, the sixth defendant and 20 other villagers. The only evidence is that of first plaintiff and first defendant. The first plaintiff says that the others means second, and third plaintiffs, and the first defendant in his evidence lays that 'others' means second and third plaintiffs, sixth defendant and 20 others. The sixth defendant in his written statement also says so. Having regard to the terms of the document, the written statement and the evidence in this case, we find it difficult to see how the Court can find that the first plainti...
Tag this Judgment!Sistla Subbayya Vs. Pata Pitchanna Alias Pithayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1921
Reported in: AIR1923Mad28; (1922)43MLJ64
1. The only question raised in this second appeal is whether the plaintiff's suit to recover part of the purchase money paid by him in respect of a property purchased by him is barred by limitation. The purchase by the plaintiff was under a sale deed dated the 1st of October 1905 executed by the defendant and another in favour of the plaintiff. The son of the other vendor filed (O.S. No. 885 of 1909 to set aside the sale so far as the share of his father was concerned and obtained a decree in 1913 for possession of the half share belonging to the other vendor, This suit was filed in 1917.2. The lower appellate court held that the plaintiff was entitled to recover Rs. 300, half the price paid by him, and that the suit was not barred by limitation as the starting point of limitation was the date of dispossession and that the suit was within three years from that date.3. The contention for the appellant is that the suit not having been brought within three years from the date of the decre...
Tag this Judgment!Kunjammal and ors. Vs. Rathinam Pilial
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1921
Reported in: (1922)42MLJ417
1. This appeal arises out of a suit by the plaintiff for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from obstructing the scavenger from passing though the defendants' house and cleaning the plaintiff's privy. The case for the plaintiff is that the scavengers have been cleaning his privy for over 60 years by going through the defendants' doorway marked in the plan, crossing the defendants' privy and then passing by a doorway in the wall to the plaintiff's privy which is adjacent, and cleaning it. The 1st defendant's case was that the right was never exercised. The District Munsif found that the plaintiff's privy was cleaned for over 30 to 40 years by the scavenger passing through the defendants' house as alleged in the plaint and that it was not obstructed before October 1917. The suit was filed on the 19th of March 1918. On appeal the Subordinate Judge concurred with the findings of the District Munsif and dismissed the appeal.2. It is contended in second appeal that Section 15 ...
Tag this Judgment!Kunjammal and Three ors. Vs. Rathinam Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1921
Reported in: (1922)ILR65Mad633
1. This Appeal arises out of a suit by the plaintiff for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from obstructing the scavenger from passing through the defendants' house and cleaning the plaintiff's privy. The case for the plaintiff is that the scavengers have been cleaning his privy for over 60 years by going through the defendants' doorway marked in the plan, crossing the defendants' privy and then passing by a doorway in the wall to the plaintiff's privy which is adjacent and cleaning it. The first defendant's case was that the right was never exercised. The District Munsif found that the plaintiff's privy was cleaned for over 30 to 40 years by the scavenger passing through the defendants' house as alleged in the plaint and that he was not obstructed before October 1917. The suit it was filed on the 19th of March 1918. On Appeal the a Subordinate Judge concurred with the findings of the District Munsif and dismissed the appeal.2. It is contended in Second Appeal that Sect...
Tag this Judgment!Kunjammal and ors. Vs. Rathnam Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Mad5; 66Ind.Cas.11
1. This appeal arises out of a suit by the plaintiff for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from obstructing the scavenger from passing through the defendants' house and passing the plaintiff's privy. The Base for the plaintiff is that the seavengers have been cleaning his privy for over 60 years by going through the defendants' doorway marked in the plan, crossing the defendants' privy and then passing by a doorway in the wall to the plaintiff's privy which is adjacent and cleaning it. The first defendant's case was that the right was never exercised. The District Munsif found that the plaintiff's privy was cleaned for over 30 to 40 years by the seaveanger passing through the defendants' house a? alleged in the plaint and that it was not obstructed before October 917. The suit was filed on the 19th of Marsh 1918. On appeal the Sutordinate Judge concurred with the findings of the district Muosif and dismissed the appeal. It is contended in second appeal that Section 15 o...
Tag this Judgment!Matamulla Manikoth Pattan Chandu Vs. Kuttiyil Rayiru and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Mad2; 66Ind.Cas.396; (1922)42MLJ280
1. We accept the finding. In the light of it the facts we have to deal with are that the 2nd plaintiff has obtained a melcharth from five out of the seven uralars, of the two remaining uralars one having been and the other, the 2nd defendant, not having been consulted. The 2nd defendant, as now appears, is the seventh uralar. The only question remaining is whether the melcharth is invalidated by the failure, to consult him.2. The general rule that uralars are entitled to be consulted before any act is clone in the management of the trust property is well established. It is, however, argued that this general rule is subject to an exception, when the omission to consult the uralar is attributable to his possession of an interest which would disqualify him from giving an independent opinion.3. In the present case the evidence is stated by the lower Appellate Court as being that plaintiff's witness 1 asked the 2nd defendant to take a renewal of his lease and the 2nd defendant said he would...
Tag this Judgment!Varada Ramaswami and ors. Vs. Vumma Venkataratnam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Mad99; 67Ind.Cas.546; (1922)42MLJ473
1. The respondent in this case obtained a decree against a certain judgment debtor Mothivala Usman in O.S. No. 776 of 1916 on the file of the Ellore District Munsif. In execution he attached certain monies belonging to the Judgment-debtor. Various other decree holders who are appellants now before us applied for and obtained rateable distribution under Section 73 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The money was distributed. On appeal the order for rateable distribution was set aside by the Court. The respondent then applied for the return of the money which had been paid to the other decree holders and this was ordered by the District Munsif, the order being confirmed on appeal by the Subordinate Judge. The matter now comes up before us on second appeal.2. The lower courts purported to have directed the return of the money under Section 144 C.P.C. though the Subordinate Judge in his Judgment also refers to Section 151. It is represented on behalf of the appellants that Section 144, has no...
Tag this Judgment!Thina Shanmuga Moopanar Vs. Mona Chuna Nana Subbayya Moopanar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Mad317; (1922)42MLJ133
Spencer, J.1. The two plaintiffs brought this suit (O. S. No. 6 of 1919) to recover properties forming the endowments attached to a temple.2. They based their claim for possession upon their right as trustees in sole management of the trust. The lower Court found that the 1st plaintiff had no right to call himself a trustee, and although it found that the trust was vested in one other person besides the 2nd plaintiff, namely in Papayya alias Subbayya who was not made a party to the suit, it gave the 2nd plaintiff a decree for ejecting the defendant. It is argued in appeal that the suit was bad for non-joinder of Papayya and should have been dismissed.3. Under the original trust deed (Ex.-A) five trustees were appointed and their names were, 1. Ramalinga Moopanar, 2. Nallamuthu Moopanar, 3. Veerabhagu Moopanar, 4. Chokkalinga Moopanar, 5. Subbayya alia Papayya Moopanar and it was provided that on the death of any trustee his eldest male son was to carry on the trust provided that he was...
Tag this Judgment!S.R.M.S.T.R.M. Ramaswami Chettiar Through His Authorised Agent Kuppan ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-1921
Reported in: (1922)42MLJ185
1. This appeal in effect raises the question whether a purchaser from the Official Receiver, of a property of the insolvent whom the receiver represents, can obtain an order from the Insolvency Court for delivery of possession of the property, where his application is resisted by a third party.2. This appeal has been argued before us on the footing that the rights of the parties are governed by the provisions of the Provincial Insolvency Act, Act V of 1920. It is necessary to examine carefully the terms of Sections 4, 5 and 56 of this Act. By Section 56(3) it is provided that 'where the Court appoints a receiver, it may remove the person, in whose possession or custody any such property as aforesaid is, from the possession or custody thereof.Provided that nothing in this section shall be deemed to authorize the Court to remove from the possession or custody of property any person whom the insolvent has not a present right so to remove.3. This section clearly applies to the case of a re...
Tag this Judgment!Kandaswami Reddi and ors. Vs. Suppammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Mad104; (1922)42MLJ268
Ayling, J.1. The sole question for our determination is one of limitation. Plaintiffs sue on a mortgage bond, Ex, A , dated 11th November 1907, and it is admitted that the suit is time barred unless a certain passage in a plaint, Ex. B, filed by the defendants (appellants before us) against plaintiffs (O.S. No. 1011 of 1912) can be relied on as an acknowledgment of liability under Section 19 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908. The passage runs thus: '7. The 1st plaintiff and his brother the 2nd plaintiff, namely, Suppa Reddy, jointly executed to him (Ist defendant) on the said date an hypothecation deed for Rs. 200 after deducting the sums paid towards the said othi amount of Rs. 275. Along with the said deed, the deed of othi . executed in the year 1888 and the othi deed of 1907 were also given to the 1st defendant. '1st plaintiff and 2nd plaintiff referred to were respectively defendants 1 and 2 in the suit before us; and the '1st defendant' was the present 2nd plaintiff.2. It is adm...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »