Chennai Court April 1921 Judgments
Anakkaran Puthiavalappi Mussan Haji Vs. Thiyan Thavara Koran and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-1921
Reported in: (1921)41MLJ392
Oldfield, J.1. The Lower Appellate Court has so far decided the case against the plaintiff-appellant, because it answered in the affirmative the question whether a person holding under a lease granted before a suit is bound by the decision jigainst the lessor in that suit, although he is not a party to it. We cannot follow the Lower Appellate Court in this; and in fact the, only support adduced for its opinion is the question from an American author in Seshappaya v. Venkatramana Upadya I.L.R. (1899) Mad. 459. But the portion of that quotation at present material was not so for the purpose of the issue in that case and the learned Judges in fact, after observing that it was inconsistent with the principle of English, Irish and Indian Cases declined to decide as to its correctness. On the other hand, although no case Of tenancy has been shown to us, the principle applied to other cases of transfers in Sita Rant v. Amir Begum I.L.R(1886) . All 324 Jey Chandra Banerjee v. Sreenath Chatterj...
Tag this Judgment!Tadepalli Subba Rao Garu and ors. Vs. Sri Balusu Buchi Sarvarayudu and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-1921
Reported in: (1924)ILR47Mad7
John Wallis, C.J.1. These are appeals by the defendants from the preliminary decree and final decree in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants mortgagees who refused to restore the mortgaged property in spite of the mortgage debt having been deposited by the plaintiff under Section 88 of the Transfer of Property Act. The plaintiff is the assignee of three-fourths of the mortgagor's interest in item 1 and the mortgagees are also found to have become the owners of the equity of redemption in parts of the mortgaged property which were sold for arrears of revenue which had accrued on other property not the subject of the mortgage belonging to the heirs of the deceased mortgagor. The plaintiff impugned the revenue sales and also contended that the purchases were made benami for the mortgagors, but the Subordinate Judge found that the plaintiff had failed to establish his case on those points and I agree with my learned brother that in the argument on the Memorandum of Objections we ...
Tag this Judgment!Anakkaran Puthiyavallapal Mussan Haji Vs. Thiyan Thavara Koran and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Mad708; 65Ind.Cas.979
Oldfield, J.1. The lower Appellate Court has so for decided the case against the plaintiff-appellant, because it answered in the affirmative the question whether the person holding under a lease granted before a suit is bound by the decision against his lessor in that suit, although he is not a party to it. We cannot follow the lower Appellate Court in this; and in fact the only support adduced for its opinion is the quotation from an American author in Seshappaya v. Venkatramana Upadya 5 Ind. Cas. 732 . But the portion of that quotation at present material was not so for the purpose of the issue in that case and the learned Judges, in fact, after observing that it was inconsistent with the principle of English, Irish and Indian cases, declined to decide as to its correctness. On the other hand, although no case of tenancy has been shown to us, the principle applied to other cases of transfer in Sita Ram v. Amir Begnm 8 A. 3.4 , Joy Chandra Benerjee v. Steeneth Chutterjee 32 C. 377, Ab...
Tag this Judgment!Subbayyar and anr. Vs. the Firm of K.M. Subbarayalua Iyer and Son, Mad ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Mad474; (1921)41MLJ541
Spencer, J.1. The appellants, who belong to a trading family, contracted to purchase from the respondents, 'a similar firm, 50 bales of yarn manufactured by the Madura Mills and actually took delivery of 6 bales. Owing to a fall in prices in the market the appellants were unwilling to receive the remaining 44 bales on the terms agreed upon. The contract was thereupon cancelled on the condition that appellants paid Rs. 5,000 to the respondents to make good their losses upon their contract with the Mills. These Rs. 5,000 were included in a larger sum of Rs. 10,800 which represented the aggregate amount found to be owing by the appellants to the respondents on a settlement of accounts made on February 2nd 1919, and an unconditional promise to pay Rs. 10,800 to respondents order on demand was written in the appellant's ledger. (Ex. A.) kept by the respondents and was signed by the appellants.2. At the trial in the Sub Court the appellants sought to prove by oral evidence that there was a c...
Tag this Judgment!Kodali Kristnayya and ors. Vs. Kodali Guravayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Mad443; (1921)41MLJ503
Phillips, J.1. The defendant's appeal against the partition decree having been dismissed, it remains to consider the cross appeal filed by the plainiiffs. The subordinate Judge has found that at the time of the reunion, the 1st defendant brought into the common stock property worth Rs. 40 more than the 1st plaintiff's father arid he has in consequence given plaintiffs a decree for only 9/20 of the property instead of one half share. Even if he is right in law, the amount of the share has been wrongly calculated ; for if the 1st plaintiff's father contributed Rs. 400 and 1st defendant Rs. 440 out of the total Rs. 840, as has been found, the respective shares would be 10/21 and 11/21. However, we have now to consider whether there should be this unequal distribution of the property. It is contended for the plaintiffs that a reunion between the parties restores them to their original status and that when a partition is effected, the shares are the same as they would be at the original par...
Tag this Judgment!Thacharakavil Manavikraman Tirumalpad Raja Avergal Vs. Noor Mahomed Sa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Mad349; 66Ind.Cas.48; (1921)41MLJ265
1. The Subordinate Judge has dismissed plaintiff's suit to recover possession oif lands leased to 1st defendant on the ground that the notice given by plaintiff was not an adequate notice under Section 106 of-the Transfer of Property Act. The learned Subordinate Judge has, howover, omitted all consideration of Section 111, Transfer of Property Act, and it appears to us that the notice Ex. B was a sufficient compliance with that section. Vide Sivarama Iyer v. Alagappa Chetty (1915) 2 L.W. 946 . By that notice he unequivocally expressed the intention to determine the lease on the ground of forfeiture. On this ground he is entitled to a decree for possession. It is further argued that plaintiff need pay no compensation and that 1st defendant is not entitled to remove his buildings after the expiry of the tenancy. The terms of the tenancy comprised in Exs. A and I expressly preclude all compensation, for 1st defendant agreed that none should be claimed. The Subordinate Judge has found that...
Tag this Judgment!M. Naga Rajah Vs. Deva Raja Karnanthaya Bellala
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-1921
Reported in: 67Ind.Cas.84; (1921)41MLJ340
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The plaintiff is the appelf lant. He brought this suit for maintenance against his brother, the defendant on the ground that both parties belonged to an Aliyasanthana family and that the defendant was in possession of the family properties as Yejman of the family and failed to give him maintenance. The defendant contended that he was not in possession of any property as Yejman of the family but only of certain properties as the person appointed by the Kulur Magane community to the Pattam of Kulur Bidu. The second issue raised was 'whether the suit properties belong to the Aliyasanthana family of which the defendant is Yejman or to Kulur Bidu Pattam as alleged by the defendant.2. At the trial, the plaintiff seems to have argued that, though the properties belonged to the Kulur Bidu Pattam, the Pattam itself belonged to the family, and hence the properties also belonged to the family ; and for this contention he relied upon the Vyavasta Patra, Ex. A, dated 1899; exec...
Tag this Judgment!Bal Naicken Vs. Achama Naicken
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Mad285; (1921)41MLJ295
1. It is true that it has been pointed out in several cases that while there is a presumption that a person is dead when he or she has not been Heard of for seven years, there is no presumption as to the particular date on which he or she died (Vide, Lord Dentnan, CJ.) in Nepean v. Doe 2 M. and W. 894, 150 E.R. 1021, Giffard, L.J. jn In Re Phene's Trusts 5 Ch. A. 139 at p. 143 and Venkaia Hanumanulu Garu v. Lachchamma : (1904)14MLJ464 and the burden of proving the actual date of death lies on the person who has to bring his suit after the death of the person who is unheard of, and within a particular period after the death. But these remarks appty only when the point of time at which the death has to be placed falls necessarily within the seven years. (Vide the above cases and Halsbury's Laws of England, Vol. 13, page 500, paragraph 692) or necessarily beyond the seven years, Veeramma v. Chenna Reddi I.L.R. (1912) Mad. 440. With great deference to the learned Judges who decided the cas...
Tag this Judgment!Killi Latchamma and anr. Vs. Killi Appanna and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Mad710; (1921)41MLJ386
Phillips, J.1. The plaintiffs in this suit are the sons of two brothers and the defendants 1 and 2 are widow and daughter respectively of another brother named Musalayya. These brothers were divided and Musalayya after adopting one Poluvadu died. Poluvadu also died and his widow remarried. The 1st defendant his adoptive mother obtained possession of the estate of her son. The plaintiffs sue as the reversioners of the deceased Poluvadu and ask for a declaration that Poluvadu's adoption was valid, that they are the reversionary heirs and that an alienation made by the 1st defendant is not binding upon them. The lower courts have found that the alienation was valid because it was an alienation of property forming the 1st defendant's stridhanam but they have granted the declarations as prayed for.2. It is now contended for the defendants (appellants) that, inasmuch as the substantial relief asked for, namely, the declaration that the alienation is invalid, cannot be granted, the plaintiffs...
Tag this Judgment!Subramania Chetty Vs. Chidambara Mudali
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-1921
Reported in: (1921)41MLJ459
Sadasiva Ayer, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant, He sued on a mortgage bond of May 1913 executed by defendants 1 to 3 for themselves and the minor members of their family) the third defendant acting as guardian of his younger brother, the fourth defendant, Who was then a minor though he had attained majority on the date of this suit.2. The only question in this appeal is whether the fourth defendant's orte-sixth share in the mortgaged properties is also liable to be sold for the plff's debt. The facts are that defts. 1 to 3 purchased for their family in March 1913 under Ex. B for Rs. 10,000 lands in a neighbouring Village. They seem to have had no money irt cash on hand to pay the purchase-money, and in order to pay up Rs. 4,000 of that Rs. 10,000 they borrowed the said sura of Rs. 4,000. from the plff. under Ex. A on the mortgage of their ancestral properties, (the pLalnt properties). The question is whether the managing members including the elder brother (the father of the 4th de...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »