Chennai Court May 1921 Judgments
The Honourable B. Rajarajeswara Sethupathi Avergal, Alias Muthuramalin ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-30-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Mad394; (1921)41MLJ474
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The plaintiff appellant is the present Rajah of Ramnad, the owner of an ancient Zamin-dary. He brought this suit to recover possession with mesne profits for 3 years before suit of the village of Nedunthulasi within the area of hisZamindari which village had been alienated in three ways in the years 1894 1895, and 1902 respectively in favour of the 1st defendant ('Kuppuswami Aiyar alias Naganatha Aiyar). Unless all these three transactions are set aside or are nullities it seems prima facie difficult to see how the plaintiff's suit in ejectment and for possession could succeed as each of the three transactions gives to the 1st defendant the right to hold possession of the village on the date of this suit, namely, 30-6-1913.2. The first transaction was the lease granted by the plaintiff's father, the then Rajah, in September 1894 under Ex. C. Under this deed, the 1st defendant was entitled to enjoy the village as lessee for 40 years till the 1st July 1934, that is, ...
Tag this Judgment!Sethupathi Avergal Vs. Kuppusami Iyer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-13-1921
Reported in: 68Ind.Cas.352
Sadasiva Iyer, J.1. The plaintiff appellant is the present Rajah of Ramnad, the owner of an ancient Zamindary. He brought this suit to recover possession with mesne profits for 3 years before suit of the village of Nedumthulasi within the area of his Zamindari which village had been alienated in three ways in the years 1894, 1895 and 1902 respectively in favour of the 1st defendant (Kuppusami Iyer alias Naganatha Iyer). Unless all these three transactions are set aside or are nullities it seems prima facie difficult to see how the plaintiff's salt in ejectment and for possession could succeed, as each of the three transactions gives to the 1st defendant the right to hold possession of the village on the date of this suit (namely, 30th June 1913).2. The first transaction was a lease granted by the plaintiff's father, the then Rajah, in September 1894 under Exhibit C. Under this deed, the 1st defendant was entitled to enjoy the village as lessee for 40 years till the 1st July 1934, that ...
Tag this Judgment!A.V. Balakrishna Menon, Official Receiver Vs. Thirunilai Grama Veerara ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-11-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Mad189; (1921)41MLJ334
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The first question in this case is whether an application by an Official Receiver to a court which had attached the property of an insolvent at the instance of a creditor, praying that the property may be treated as property vested in the Official Receiver and as therefore not available to the attaching creditor to satisfy exclusively his claim under the decree, whether such an application is a claim petition which falls within the class of claims and objections dealt with by Order 21, Rule 58 to 63, and under Order 38 Rule 8 (Claim preferred to property attached before judgment) or is an application sui juris not governed by those sections. In the case before us, the property was attached before judgment and the adjudicationvas after the attachment. It has now been settled in this Court by the Full Bench decision in Prasada Nayudu v. Virayya I.L.R. (1918) Mad. 849 overruling the decision in Ramanamma v. Kamaraju I.L.R. (1917) Mad. 23 , that, notwithstanding the ve...
Tag this Judgment!Achammal Vs. Narayanaswami Naicken (Dead) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-11-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Mad619; (1921)41MLJ429
1. The Second Appeal raises a question as to the construction of the will of the deceased Krishnappa Naicken, The learned Subordinate Judge has considered a great many cases which do not appear to us to have very much bearing on this will. On the other hand, he has not considered as closely as he might have done what was the meaning of the testator as expressed in the will.2. The testator had two wives and one of them had a daughter Mangammal. The will provides that after his death his two wives ought to take respectively the properties set out in Schedules I and II and enjoy them without alienating them. Then it goes on to say, 'After the death of these two wives, my daughter Mangammal shall take the abovenamed entire properties with all rights and enjoy the same.' One view of this will is that the properties in Schedule I were left to one widow for her life and the properties in schedule II to the other widow and that on the death of either of them the properties left to her should g...
Tag this Judgment!Subraminia Mudali Vs. Meenakshi Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-10-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Mad392; (1922)43MLJ194
1. The course of this litigation has been unfortunate, The dispute between the parties relates to 14 cents of land and is of a kind which is very common in connection with resurveys. Each party has some evidence of title to a particular extent and there is no room on the land to satisfy the claims of each. Some objection has been made to the lower appellate Court's judgment on the merits, but we do not think that any question of law has been raised; and with its decision on the question of fact we cannot interfere.2. The substantial argument here has been against the decision of the lower Courts that the suit was not barred, as the defendants contended it was with reference to Section 13 of Act IV of 1897. The language of the pleadings is important. The first defendant, in paragraph 6 of his written statement, referred generally to mistaken action on the part of the Survey authorities and to his own objection to their action at the time of the grant, of the final patta. In the end, pat...
Tag this Judgment!Arthur Malcolm Lloyd Vs. Kathleen Lloyd
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-10-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Mad230; (1921)41MLJ269
1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Mr-Justice Kumaraswami Sastri granting the petitioner, the divorced wife ot the respondent, alimony at the rate of Rs. 150 a month. The decree absolute was made on the 15th August 1905. The present application is made under Section 37 of the Indian Divorce Act which empowers the court on confirmation of any decree declaring a marriage to be dissolved to make an order for the payment of alimony. That section corresponded to Section 32 of the Matrimonial Causes Act of 1855 which has now been replaced by Section I(1) of the Matrimonial Causes Act of 1907. Both these Acts also contain similar language authorising an order of alimony to be made on any decree for dissolution or nullity of marriage. Now, much learned argument was addressed to us as to the meaning to be put upon the words 'on confirmation'. It was objected for the appellant that an order made 15 years after the decree for divorce had been made absolute could not possibly be regarded as m...
Tag this Judgment!Malli Chettiar Vs. Veeranna Tevan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-10-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Mad378; (1921)41MLJ470
Odgers, J.1. The short point for decision is whether a stipulation to pay compound interest from date of default at the same rate as the simple interest is a penalty within Section 74, Indian Contract Act.2. There is authority for saying that a stipulation for payment of compound interest at the same rate is not a penalty but that a stipulation for payment of compound interest at a higher rate is (See the cases collected in Pollock and Mulla's Contract Act 4th Edition page 435).3. As the Privy Council said in Sunder Koer v. Rai Sham Krishan (1906) I.L.R. 34 Cal. 150 compound interest is in itself perfectly legal, but compound interest at a rate exceeding the rate of interest on the principal moneys, being in excess of and outside the ordinary and usual stipulation, may well be regarded as in the nature of a penalty. And again at page 157 referring to the amended explanation to Section 74, Indian Contract Act their Lordships say ' The Indian Courts have invariably held that where the st...
Tag this Judgment!Ullattuthedi Choyi Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council (Th ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-10-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Mad409; (1921)41MLJ494
1. This is an appeal from the appellate judgment of the District Judge of Calicut reversing the judgment of the District Munsif and granting the plaintiff the Government a decree for ejectment without payment for improvements instead of a decree for ejecting defendant on payment for improvements.2. The District Judge has held that the lease sued on is a Crown grant within the meaning of the Crown Grants Act and in that conclusion, in our opinion, he was right. Under Section 3 of the Crown Grants Act of 1895 the grant is to ' take effect according to its tenor any, rule of law, statute or enactment of the legislature to the contrary notwithstanding.' In our opinion it is not possible to have clearer words than these. The grant in question contains a reservation of the right to terminate the tenancy on six months' notice, and there is an express covenant by the lessee to surrender. It is now said that he cannot be evicted until he has received compensation under the provisions of the Mal...
Tag this Judgment!The Secretary of State for India in Council Represented by the Collect ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-09-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Mad248; 67Ind.Cas.971; (1921)41MLJ278
1. We are unable to agree with the Subordinate Judge that assuming the office to be hereditary, the plaintiff has proved that he is the lawful successor by hereditary right. As the office cannot be enjoyed by several heirs in common, it follows in our opinion that succession must be by primogeniture, and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary we think that the succession must be by lineal primogeniture, that is, by descent to the eldest son and his son and that a grandson who is the son of an eldest son of the last officeholder is entitled to succeed in preference to a junior son, where the eldest son has predeceased hio father, or is incapable of succeeding owing to insanity or any similar reason. The appeal must be allowed and the suit dismissed with costs throughout....
Tag this Judgment!T.V. Tuljaram Row Vs. T.A. Ramachandra Row
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-09-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Mad484; (1921)41MLJ465
John Wallis, C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order of the learned Judge on the Original Side refusing to set aside a sale by the Official Referee under the orders of the Court made in a partnership suit for the purpose of realising the partnership assets and the main ground of objection taken is that there was no place of sale mentiened in the proclamation of sale.2. In Order 24A of the Original Side Rules which provides for proceedings before the Official Referee, under the head of sales by the Official Referee it is provided that, unless otherwise ordered, all sales by the Official Referee shall be by public auction, and in cases of immoveable property, shall be held at the premises. Under that rule, even though the property to be sold includes movables as well as immovables the sale must be held at the premises when the properties are sold as one lot. Even in such cases the duty of bringing in the sale proclamation falls upon the party who has the conduct of the sale. Unfortunately...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »