Chennai Court August 1921 Judgments
Sinnanan Chetty Vs. Sivakami Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Mad326(1); (1921)41MLJ501
1. This case has been argued before us by both sides on the footing that it is a case of a co-mortgagor redeeming Ihe whole mortgage and remaining in possession thereof and the other co-mortgagor bringing a suit to recover his share of the mortgaged property on payment of his share of the mortgage debt there being no other expenses of redemption. We are therefore relieved from considering whether that is the correct position on the facts of the case.2. Taking the case then as one by a mortgagor to recover from his co-mortgagor his share of the property mortgaged on payment of his share of the expenses of redemption it is clearly a case which falls under Section 95 of the Transfer of Property Act. That section gives a charge to the redeeming mortgagor against his co-mortgagor and nothing more.3. The question that has been raised here for decision is one of limitation. Appellant wants us to apply Article 148 to this suit but we think it is not possible on its wording to apply that articl...
Tag this Judgment!C. Kuppuswami Mudaliar and ors. Vs. Y. Subramaniyam Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1921
Reported in: (1921)41MLJ545
Oldfield, J.1. We have heard argument at considerable length on the facts and law involved in this appeal. But, as the majority of the issues raised will require consideration at the trial of the suit by the Lower Court, we enter on no detailed discussion of them.2. There is, we think, no doubt that the Lower Court had power to supersede 1st defendant, notwithstanding that he was appointed Manager by the temple Committee and was only removeable after regular enquiry. Such action was approved in Veeragava Thalha chariar v. Krishnaswatni Thatha chariar : (1910)20MLJ638 in similar circumstances against a trustee and manager, who was no doubt hereditary but who also would be removable only in the same way.3. As regards the facts we have been taken carefully through the history of 1st defendant's incumbency and in particular of the last ten days, during which the important Chithrai festival should have been celebrated, and in our opinion it is just and convenient in the interests of the pub...
Tag this Judgment!Vaithinatha Iyer (Dead) and ors. Vs. Govindaswami Odayar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Mad650; 67Ind.Cas.995; (1922)42MLJ551
1. This appeal arises out of the defendant's default in connection with a chit conducted by the plaintiff. The defendant was the successful bidder at the second auction held and afterwards paid the third, fourth and fifth instalments correctly. He defaulted in payment of the sixth instalment and the plaintiff is now attempting to recover the money on the bond, which on taking the prize at the second auction the defendant executed. The lower court has held that the terms of the Kararnama, Exh. A, are penal and not enforceable, and it has accordingly given relief to the defendant in a manner to be particularly explained with reference to the conditions, under which the chit was worked. Ex. A shows that the chit was to be in 12 instalments, the subscription for each being Rs. 1,000. The instalments were at intervals of six months. The total subscription for the first instalment went to the stake-holder and that for the last instalment went to any subscriber, who had not bid at any of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Vaddiparthi Narayanamurthy Vs. Cadimsetti Appalanarasimhulu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Mad517; (1921)41MLJ563
Oldfield, J.1. The terms of Ex. A, the mortgage we have to construe, are given in the judgment of my learned brother, which I have had the advantage of reading ; they need not be repeated. Shortly the mortgage is usufructuary with conditions barring redemption (1) within five years and (2) after twenty years from its date. If there were only the second of these conditions, the case would be covered by the decision of the Full Bench in Kandula Venkiah v. Donga Pallayya I.L.R. (1918) Mad. 589 the clog constituted by that condition on the equity of redemption being disregarded. The question is then whether, as defendants contend, the inclusion of the first condition deprives the document of its character as an usufructuary mortgage. As, we hold it does not do so, it is not necessary to consider whether the second condition must receive effect as, one of the terms of the mortgage with regard to Section 98 of the Transfer of Property Act.2. If the condition postponing repayment of the mortg...
Tag this Judgment!Anthaya Hegade and anr. Vs. Manjaiya Shetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Mad176; (1922)ILR65Mad84
1. The question for our decision in tins Second Appeal is whether the payment of the two instalments of the plaint bond made by the defendants to Rukmini Shettithi and Mahabala Hogade on 18th March 1914 and 17th February 1915, respectively, are valid against the plaintiff. The learned Subordinate Judge has found them to be not valid and has disallowed the plea of partial discharge based on them.2. The bond sued, on is a simple money bond payable by instalments and was executed by the defendants in the name of one Sinnappa Chetty. Now it has been found that Sinnappa Chetty was merely a name lender or benamidar for one Nagappa Hegade to whom the debt was really due. One Sankayya got a decree against in Original Suit No. 496 of 1909 and attached the: plaint debt in execution of his decree in 1913. Before that, the bond had been assigned by Sinnappa to Rukmini and Mahabala who are the persons to whom the payments in question here were made by the defendants and who are the children of Naga...
Tag this Judgment!Ponnalagu Konan and ors. Vs. Sinniah Odayan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Mad462; 70Ind.Cas.27
1. These second appeals arise from eight suits tried together by the District Munsif of Sivaganga. Plaintiffs sued to have their title declared to the suit lands and for an injunction to restrain defendants from disturbing their possession and, in the alternative, for ejectment, if possession was found to be with the defendants, on the footing that they were their yearly tenants. Possession having been found to be with the defendants, the suits have been treated as purely ejectment suits. Defendants pleaded, among other things not material now, that they had the kudivaram or permanent occupancy rights in the lands and were not liable to be ejected. The District Munsif found the occupancy right proved in three suits and dismissed them but decreed the rest. On appeal, the learned Subordinate Judge held that the existence of occupancy rights in the tenants was proved in all the cases and dismissed all the suits. The appeal to us is by the plaintiffs who represent the landlord's interest.2...
Tag this Judgment!T.C. Balakrishna Ayyar Vs. Pichamuthu Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Mad330; 70Ind.Cas.496
Ramesam, J.1. Following Assan Mahomed Sahibi v. Rahiman Sahib 55 Ind. Cas. 977 ) see also Tarapada Ghose v. Jagat Mohini Dasi 42 Ind. Cas. 751 I hold that the Subordinate Judge is right.2. The petition is dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!R.M.P. Palaniappa Chetty Vs. M.S.A.P.L. Palanippa Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1921
Reported in: 65Ind.Cas.403
1. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 282 of 1920 is an appeal against the order of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Ramnad directing the 1st defendant to pay a sum of Rs. 36,100 into Court, being made up as follows:(1) Rs. 56,250 being the income derived by the 1st defendant as Receiver daring the years 1914 to 1919;(2) Rs. 5,850 being the difference between the market price at the time of harvest as entered in the accounts and market rate at the time the paddy was actually sold.2. The 1st defendant was given credit for Rs. 21,000 on account of assessment paid by him during the said period of five years and a farther sum of Rs. 5,000 on account of establishment charges. It may be mentioned that the accounts of the Receiver have not been finally passed; but so far as they have been taken, the Subordinate Judge seems to be of opinion that the 1st defendant would be liable in any event to deposit this sum of Rs. 36,100 into Court, It is against this order that this appeal has bean preferr...
Tag this Judgment!Rajammal Iyer Vs. Krishnaswamy Aiyengar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Mad300; 70Ind.Cas.153
Krishnan, J.1. It is conceded for the respondent that the present suit is not one or an account, as the Subordinate Judge seems to have thought, as there is no question of accounting in this case. It was, however, suggested that the last clause of Article 31 of Schedule II of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, IX of 1887, will apply, but this suit is not for profits but only for money which plaintiff has been obliged to pay as profits to the decree-holder in Original Suit No. 47 of 1914, on the file of the District Munsif's Court of Tiruvalur, under the decree against him, as part of the damages, the price of the property lost by the vendor's title being defective, being the other part. The suit is really one for damages for breach of covenant for title and is clearly not excluded from the cognisance of the Small Cause Court. The order of the lower Court, in so far as it holds that the suit is not within its jurisdiction, cannot thus be supported.2. The lower Court has also purport...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›