Chennai Court March 1921 Judgments
Elumalai Chetty and Vs. P. Balakrishna Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Mad344; 66Ind.Cas.168; (1921)41MLJ297
Krishnan, J.1. The first question that arises for our decision in this Second Appeal is whether an indorsee for value of a negotiable instrument the amount of which had been secured by a mortgage by deposit of title-deeds can claim to enforce the mortgage in the absence of a registered instrument conveying the mortgage rights to him.2. A somewhat similar question arose before the Learned Chief Justice and my learned brother with reference to an indorsee for collection in Cunnaiya v. Gopala Chettiar (1920) 40 M. L J 25 and was answered in the indorsee's favour. That decision however, is not conclusive in this case as here we have an indorsee for value and the judgment of my learned brother in that case was based' entirely on the fact that the indorsement was for collection ; and though the Learned Chief Justice makes no such distinction, my learned brother did not apparently agree with his Lordship's views. Sitting with Hughes, J., the learned Chief Justice has again stated his view in ...
Tag this Judgment!T.A. Sesha Iyer Vs. S.N. Srinivasa Ayyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Mad459; (1921)41MLJ282
1. The facts of this case are that plaintiffs, the second defendant and three other persons, brothers entered into a partition by means of Ex. A in 1913. The term of Ex. A with which we are concerned provided that ' the common family debts should be discharged by the respective sharers to whom they fell, as per schedule of the document, and that, if any sharer failed to discharge accordingly, such sharer's properties should be liable for such debts and for the losses that might happen to the family.' One of the debts which was assigned to the second defendant in the schedule was the debt due to one Venkatrama Iyer, and Venkatrama Iyer's assignee has since obtained a decree against the second defendant and the present plaintiffs in O.S. No. 542 of 1915 on the file of the court of the Principal District Munsif of Coimbatore. One term of the decree no doubt was that it should be executed against the plaintiffs only in so far as the decree amount was not realised by proceeding against the ...
Tag this Judgment!Subramania Karayalam and ors. Vs. V.M. Sivasubramania Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Mad233; (1921)41MLJ175
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. 31 of the 112 defendants impleaded in the suit in the Lower Court have preferred this appeal. The 1st plaintiff who died after the institution of the suit was the trustee of the famous Siva temple at Tinnevelly. The 2nd plaintiff obtained a lease from him of the plaint lands for a term of 9 years under the lease deeds, ihe first lease term beginning in fasli 1319.2. The only question in this case is whether the defendants have got a right of occupancy in the plaint lands. The lands are mainly ryotwari lands and the temple has got a ryotwari pattah in respect of the lands. When tenants claim a right of occupancy in such lands, they ought to prove that right by strong evidence, the burden of proof lying heavily on them-The observations in Veeranau Ambalam Peria Karuppan Ambalam, v. Annaswami Iyer : (1911)21MLJ845 and Venkatachala Goundan v. Rangaratnam Iyer : (1913)24MLJ571 that even a ryotwari pattadar when he sues as plaintiff and seeks to eject his tenants should ...
Tag this Judgment!Muthoora Palliath Purakkot Paru Alias Pathumma and ors. Vs. Muthoora P ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1921
Reported in: (1921)41MLJ243
John Wallis, C.J.1. If it were not for the authorities the question would appear to be free from difficulty. There is no doubt that under Hindu Law a member of a Marumakkathayam Tarwad on his conversion to Mahomedanism would forfeit all interest in the tarwad property. Act XXI of 1850 however provides that any law or usage which inflicts on any person forfeiture of rights or property by reason of his renouncing his religion or being deprived of caste shall cease to be enforced as law. The effect of this statute would appear to be that a convert's interest in the tarwad is unaffected by his conversion. As has been pointed out in Matungani Gupta v. Ram Rutton Roy (1891) I.L.R. 19 Cal. 289, 291. (F.B.) by Wilson, J., the effect is not to enlarge the convert's interest in any property or to get rid of any condition or restriction to which it was originally subject. It would therefore appear to be a sufficient answer to the reference to say that conversion to Christianity cannot give a memb...
Tag this Judgment!S.T.M.R. Murugappa Chettiar and anr. Vs. Ponnuswami Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Mad405; (1921)41MLJ304
1. Following the Full Bench decision in Rustomji Dorabji v. Nurse and Anr. I.L.R. (1921) Mad. 76 we hold the appeal abates; and is dismissed with costs.2. In this case the plaintiff preferred an appeal from a decree in his favour in a suit for malicious prosecution on the groun d that the damages awarded were insufficient, and the defendant who had not appealed from the decree, filed a memorandum of objections contesting the decree. The plaintiff having died subsequently his appeal abated, as we have just held, on the authority of the Full Bench decision in Rustomji Dorabji v. Nurse and Anr. : (1921)40MLJ173 and Josiam Tiruvcngadachariav v. Swami Iyengar I.L.R. (1911) Mad. 76.3. The question then argued before us was whether the respondent in the appeal is none the less entitled to have his memorandum of objections heard and determined. Order 41, Rule 22(4) C.P.C. gives him such a right when after the filing of his memorandum of objections the appeal has been withdrawn or dismissed for...
Tag this Judgment!Muthoora Palliath Purakkot Paru Alias Pathumma and ors. Vs. Muthoora P ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Mad224; (1921)ILR44Mad891
John Wallis, C.J.1. If it were not for the authorities the question would appear to be free from difficulty. There is no doubt that under Hindu Law a member of a Marumakkattayam tarwad on his conversion to Mahammadanism would forfeit all interest in the tarwad property. Act XXI of 1850, however, provides that any law or usages which inflicts on any person forfeiture of rights or property by reason of his renouncing his religion or being deprived of caste shall cease to be enforced as law. The effect of this Statute would appear to be that a convert's interest in the tarwad is unaffected by his conversion. As has been pointed out in Matungini Gupta v. Ram Rutton Roy (1892) I.L.R., 19 Calc., 289 (F.B.) , 291 by Wilson, J., the effect is not to enlarge the convert's interest in any properly or to get rid of any condition or restriction to which it was originally subject. It would therefore appear to be a sufficient answer to the reference to say that conversion to Christianity cannot give...
Tag this Judgment!Subramania Gurukkal Vs. Ramakrishna Aiyar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Mad407(1); 70Ind.Cas.160
Krishnan, J.1. I think it is clear that the first plaintiff was suing as the manager of the family of himself and his minor brother. Though this is not so expressly stated in the cause-title, the averments in the plaint are sufficient to show that that was the position. If necessary, the plaint may have been amended to make the matter clear; but the petitioner's Vakil rightly admits that no useful purpose will be served by having a formal amendment now.2. On the point whether a managing member can sue for a debt due to the family, I think, the question is now settled that he can. The question is dealt with fully in Sheikh Ibrahim Tharagan v. Rama Aiyar 10 Ind. Cas. 874 See also the ruling of the Privy Council in Sheo Shankar Ram v. Jaddo Kunwar 24 Ind. Cas. 504 .3. There is no other question raised. The civil revision petition is dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!T.L. Rangiah Chetty Vs. T. Govindasami Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Mad179; 71Ind.Cas.266
Odgers, J.1. This is a petition to revise the decree passed on 31st March 1920 by the Sub-Judge of North Arcot. The decree was passed in terms of an award following a reference to arbitration, in Original Suit No. 59 of 1917, by the parties thereto. The suit was brought by the plaintiffs for an account of their family property which had been in the management of the defendant during the minority of the eldest member. The reference or muchilika, the terms of which are important, runs as follows (page 27 paragraphs 1 and 2, of the printed pleadings):1. That the parties herein have agreed to refer all matters in dispute between them in this suit to the arbitration of M.R, Ry. Emuloor Bojjayya Chetty Garu of Tirupati.2. The said arbitrator's decision shall be final and binding upon all the parties to the suit and they will not object to his award.2. The award was issued on 29th March 1920 and on 30th March 1920, the defendant asked for further time (one month) to file objections to the awa...
Tag this Judgment!Duvvury Ramamurthy Vs. Pabbineedi Bulliraju
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Mad686; 68Ind.Cas.907; (1921)41MLJ431
1. The plaintiff, here appellant, has sued for ascertainment; by division of his share of the property, which he and defendant are at present holding in common and for ejectment of defendant from that sharp, on the basis that defendant is in possession of it as a non-occupancy tenant. The lower Appellate Court returned the plaint for presentation to a Revenue Court.2. This disposal would, no doubt, be appropriate, if the prayer for ejectment could be regarded separately and if that remedy were authorised by the Madras Estates Land Act in the circumstances. But the Act provides for the grant of relief only in respect of holdings; and the definition of holding in Section 3 (3) by reference to parcels entails, in our opinion, that only ascertained holdings are contemplated. This is consistent with Chapter X and is supported by the interpretation plated on the similar provision of the law in Bengal in Parbatty Debya v. Math w a Nath Banerjee 15 Ind. Cas. 453C. 29., Until the plaintiff has ...
Tag this Judgment!Vellaiyammal Bibi and ors. Vs. Koolayanna Rowthan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-1921
Reported in: 66Ind.Cas.23; (1921)41MLJ273
1. The judgment appealed against was delivered on November 3rd and an application for copies of judgment and decree was made on the same date. Copies were ready on December 12th and the appeal was presented on January 12th, i.e. the 70th day.2. But the appellants were entitled to deduct 27 days in November and 12 days in December which were occupied in obtaining a copy of the decree. Deducting these 39 days, the appeal was presented on the 31st day, but January 11th was a Sunday and therefore under Section 4 Limitation Act, the appeal might be presented on the next working day, and was in time if so presented.3. It is argued for the 3rd respondent that the appellants were not entitled to deduct the 14th November seeing that copy stamps for the copy of the decree were called for on November 13th and were not furnished till the 15th.4. But that day (November 14th) has to be excluded under. Section 12(3) of the Limitation Act as one of the days requisite for obtaining a copy of. the judgm...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »