Chennai Court April 1921 Judgments
N. K. M. Meyyappa Chetti Vs. V. K. M. Meyyappanchetti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Mad559; 66Ind.Cas.722
Oldfield, J.1. The order under appeal was passed on an application tinder Order XX Rule 97, Civil Procedure Code, by respondent, assignee of a decree in a suit in ejectment, for removal of the obstruction to delivery in execution, raised by appellant, second respondent in the lower Court, and his son, third respondent, now deceased, whom he represents. Appellant claimed the property in virtue of a purchase, valid, as he contends, against respondent, noth withstanding that it was pendente lite. We have to decide whether an appeal lies against the lower Court's order removing his obstruction and, if so, whether that order was right on the merits.2. Orders of removal are appealable, if passed under Order XXI, Rule 98, against the judgment debtor or an obstructor at his instigation, But the Utter description does not necessarily apply to a person, who, like appellant, merely relief on a title derived from the debtor, Such a person will, if his good faith is established, be maintained in po...
Tag this Judgment!Kondapalli Lakshminarasayya and anr. Vs. Kondapalli Venkatakrishnayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-14-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Mad119; 70Ind.Cas.355
1. Under the promissory note, Exhibit C, plaintiff and first defendant were both liable as sureties for one Sitaramamma. Without defendant's knowledge, the plaintiff discharged that liability by executing jointly with one Appalasami a promissory note, Exhibit E, to the original creditor's transferee. Plaintiff discharged this latter note and has now obtained a decree for contribution. We think this is quite wrong. When the creditor accepted Exhibit E, in discharge of Exhibit C, the principal debtor was discharged and under Section 134 of the Contract Act, the, sureties would be discharged from liability; plaintiff by undertaking with a third party to discharge the original debt cannot keep alive his original co-surety's liability; The debt under Exhibit E is quite a new transaction and first defendant who was ignorant of it, cannot be made 1 able without his consent. The case cited for respondent, Whiting v. Burke (1870) 10 Eq. 539 was decided on the special nature of the agreement bet...
Tag this Judgment!Balagurumurthy Chetty Vs. Ramakrishna Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Mad277; (1921)41MLJ267
1. Plaintiff, the transferee of a mortgage executed in favour of 37th defendant-appellant has obtained a decree against his transferor alone, it having bgen found that the mortgage itself is invalid for want of consideration. The conteniion for appellant (37th defendant) is that the transfer of a mortgage is not a sale of immoveable property within the meaning of Section 55, Transfer of Property Act, and reliance is placed on Samu Pathan v. Chidambara Odayan (1915) 29 M.L.J. 454. No doubt in that case the learned Judge, held that though it might be necessary to observe the formalities prescribed in Section 54 in transferring a mortgage, yet such transfer did not attract the provisions of Section 55. In order to make Section 54 applicable the transfer must be deemed to be a sale of immoveable property, and with respect, we are unable to see why it should not be treated as such a sale within the meaning of Section 55 also. In a recent case reported in Perutnal Animal v. Perumal Naicker, ...
Tag this Judgment!Gogula Venkanna Vs. Gogula Narasimham and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Mad234; 66Ind.Cas.10; (1921)41MLJ279
John Wallis, C.J.1. The defendant's appeal from the decree in this suit has already been dismissed. This is an appeal by the plff., the next reversioner, from the decree of the Temporary Subordinate Judge in so far as it refuses to make the widow accountable for wasting the moveable property of the husband which came to her hands and to make her brother, the Second defendant and 3rd defendant, his undivided brother accountable for so much of the corpus of the estate of the husband of the 1st defendant, the last male owner as has come to their hands. In the case of immoveable property the Hindu reversioner has 12 years to sue from the date of the widow's death under Article 141 of the Limitation Act, and it is therefore unnecessary to claim such reliefs as are sought in the present suit, 'but, as regards moveables his right to sue is governed hy Article 120 of the Limitation Act and the question when his right to sue accrues under that Article is in much the same position as it was with...
Tag this Judgment!Gopala Venkanna Vs. Gopala Narasimham and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-1921
Reported in: (1921)ILR44Mad984
John Wallis, C.J.1. The defendants' appeal from the decree in this suit has already been dismissed. This is an Appeal by the plaintiff, the next reversioner, from the decree of the Temporary Subordinate Judge in so far as it refuses to make the widow accountable for wasting the moveable property of the husband which came to her hands, and to make her brother, the second defendant, and the third defendant, his undivided brother, accountable for so much of the corpus of the estate of the husband of the first defendant, the last male owner, as has come to their hands. In the case of immoveable property, the Hindu reversioner has 12 years to sue from the date of the widow's death under Article 141 of the Limitation Act, and it is therefore unnecessary to claim such reliefs as are sought in the present suit, but as regards moveables, his right to sue is governed by Article 120 of the Limitation Act and the question when his right to sue accrues under that article is in much the same positio...
Tag this Judgment!Deputy Commissioner and Secretary to the Chief Commissioner of Income- ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Mad717; 70Ind.Cas.30
1. A preliminary objection has been taken to the hearing of this Reference that the order made by the learned Judge of the Original Side, under Section 45 of the Specific Relief Act, was made without jurisdiction and, therefore; that we should decline to hear the Reference, which has been made to us by the Board pursuant to that order under Section 51 of the Indian Income Tax Act. The Board did not appeal against that order, as they might have done, and as they did in the case of some other similar orders, and Section 51 empowers and requires them to make a Reference on the application of the assessee, unless they are satisfied that the application is frivolous, or that a Reference is unnecessary. They have made the Reference pursuant to the order, instead of appealing against it, and, in the circumstances, we think we are bound to dispose of it.2. We have heard the points fully stated on both sides and the question appears to resolve itself into this: Are the assessees entitled to the...
Tag this Judgment!Subramania Gurukkal Vs. Ammakkannu Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Mad595; (1921)41MLJ450
Sadasiva Ayer, J.1. Plaintiff is the appellant. He brought a suit for a declaration that the alienation made on the 11th June 1883 of the pLalnt properties by the plaintiff's father and grand-father in favour of the 1st defendant (the alienation having been by sale of the kudivaram interest in certain lands) was invalid in law. The lands were service inam granted by the Karvetnagaram Zamindar as emoluments for doing puja in a temple.2. One of the questions raised in the case was whether the kudivaram and the melvaram both constituted the maniyam or only the melvaram. In Muthu Goundan v. Perumal Aiyan : (1921)40MLJ429 the Full Bench decided in January of this year that there is a presumption in the case of grants of even inam lands (whether granted by the former ruling power or by a Zamjndar) that the grarjt was of both varams, I think that that opinion is binding upon us and I would therefore differing from the Lower Courts hold on this point that the grant was of both varams.3. Anothe...
Tag this Judgment!The Secretary of State for India in Council Vs. Syed Ahmad Badsha Baha ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-1921
Reported in: (1921)ILR44Mad778
John Wallis, C.J.1. The question is whether the plaintiff is estopped from bringing this suit against Government to recover the emoluments attached to the office of Mutawalli of the suit wakf, an office which he now alleges to be descendible by usage to the nearest qualified male heir of the last holder of the office, by reason of the dismissal of the previous suit instituted by him against his elder brother, the then first defendant, and that brother's son, the then second defendant, for a declaration that their father's will nominating such second defendant and the plaintiff's own son to succeed him in the office was invalid, and that the plaintiff by reason of his elder brother's insanity was entitled to succeed to the office and its emoluments and for an injunction restraining them from interfering with him. The suit was dismissed in Second Appeal by the High Court, which held that the plaintiff had clearly no title to the office and that the appeal had been rightly dismissed by th...
Tag this Judgment!Yeditha Bhupatiraju and anr. Vs. Bhavaraju Venkataratnam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-1921
Reported in: (1921)41MLJ512
Spencer, J.1. The question that comes for decision in these Civil Revision Petitions is whether two suits (O. S. Nos. 121 and 122 of 1916) instituted for the recovery of the rent or damages for the use and occupation of lands enjoyed by the defendants for three years before suit fall within the cognizance of a Revenue or a Civil Court. The initial presumption is in favour of the civil court having jurisdiction (See Seetharn Naidu v. Rami Naidu I.L.R. (1909) Mad. 208. The suits were instituted in a civil court and the onus lay on the defendants to show that that Court's jurisdiction was ousted by Section 189 of the Madras Estates Land Act, which reserves to Collectors the jurisdiction over suits and I applications of the nature specified in the schedules to the Act. In schedule A item No. 8 relates to suits by a landholder to recover arrears of rent under Section 77. There. fore the answer to the above question depends on the further question whether the plaintiffs are landholders, as t...
Tag this Judgment!Honourable the Rajah of Ramnad (Through His Authorised Dewan Rao Sahib ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-08-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Mad386; (1921)41MLJ495
Sadasiva Iyer, J.1. The defendant (the Raja of Raranad) who is a landholder under the Estates Land Act is the appellant before us. The plaintiff is a ryot under him and for Fasli 1323, i. e., 1913-14, the defendant tendered a patta to the plaintiff in which he charged the plaintiff with; a higher rent than the rent which the plaintiff had been till then paying for the land in his holding on the ground that Vanpayir crops were cultivated in that fasli for the first time with the help of a well which the plaintiff excavated in the land at an expense of Rs. 600 in 1912-13 after the Estates Land Act came into force. As the plaintiff paid only the usual dry rate and refused to pay the difference between the Vanpayir rate and the dry rate the defendant attached the lands. Hence the plaintiff brought the suit in the Collector's Court for raising the attachment as illegal contending that he was not bound to pay a higher rate for raising the Vanpayir crops as the improvements were effected at h...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »