Chennai Court April 1923 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Parvati Ammal Vs. Govindaraja and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-1923
Reported in: 76Ind.Cas.896
1. This second appeal is argued mainly with reference to the property covered by sale-deed Exhibit B. That sale was made after the Suit No. 13 of 1915 (on the file of the Court of the Temporary Subordinate Judge of Madura) to enforce a mortgage on the property by its sale had been instituted. The question that arises is whether the doctrine of lis pendens applies to the sale m question and whether it should be held to have been subject to the result of the mortgage-decree. The learned Subordinate judge has answered this question in the negative relying on the ruling in Upendra Chandra Singh v. Mohri Lal Marwari 31.C.745. We are unable to concur in that view. That ruling is inconsistent with the ruling of the Privy Council in Faiyaz Husain Khan v. Munshi Prag Narain 29 A. 339 : 11 C.W.N. 561 : 4 A.L.J. 344 : 5 Cri. L.J. 563 : 17 M.L.J. 263 : 9 Bom. L. R. 656 : 2 M.L.T. 191 : 10 O.C. 314 : 34 I.A. 102 and has not been followed even in Calcutta. See Tinoodhan Chatterjee v. Trilokya. Saran...
Bera Chandramma (Wife of Lachanna) Vs. Chandram Naganna and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad94; 75Ind.Cas.170; (1923)45MLJ228
Coleridge, J.1. The suit is in ejectment. The plaintiff was a purchaser in Court-auction in O.S. No. 627 of 1911 of the suit property and he got possession; but the defendants, who were tenants, refused to execute a lease and claimed occupancy rights from seven persons who, they said, were the Inamdars. The suit lands were nautch Inam lands, and the Inam was enfranchised in the name of Maddila Gangayya and Maddila Basayya by Ex. C in 1864. Adeyya and Chellayya were two members of the families of these two original Inamdars, and they mortgaged the property as theirs and the decree under which the sale took place was against them.2. The lower Courts have found that these two were members of a dancing girl family of which there were nine members living and the District Munsif, on remand for a finding, held that Adeyya and Chellayya were entitled only to 5/9ths, that this was all they had power to mortgage and that this was all the plaintiff could recover. The lower appellate Court accepte...
Sundara Ramanujam Naidu Vs. Sivalingam Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad360; (1923)45MLJ431
Krishnan, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition arises from a suit brought by plaintiff to enforce specific performance of a contract to sell a shop by directing the defendant to deliver a proper sale-deed to him on his paying the price into Court and for recovery of possession of the property. The question that arises for decision is what is the proper value of this suit for purposes of jurisdiction. Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act makes the value for Court fees and for jurisdiction the same in such suits. We have therefore to see under what provision or provisions of the Court Fees Act the suit has to be valued. The District Munsif held that it was one for recovery of possession and should be valued under Section 7, Clause V(e) of the Act and as that value was over Rs. 3,000, the pecuniary limit of his jurisdiction, he returned the plaint to be presented to the proper Court. On appeal the Subordinate Judge upheld that view and hence the revision to us by the plaintiff.2. Plaintiff c...
Garudappa Peria Thiruvadi Ayyangar and anr. Vs. Pokutti Janaki and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1923
Reported in: (1923)45MLJ693
Krishnan, J.1. My learned brother has set out the facts of the case in his judgment which he is about to deliver and they need not therefore be repeated. I agree with him that the Second Appeal fails but for reasons somewhat different from his.2. It seems to me clear that if a person buys property over which he has a mortgage himself and the mortgage in consequence becomes discharged by merger or by the terms of the sale deed he can nevertheless use that mortgage as a shield against any puisne incumbrancer who attempts to enforce his claim against the property, unless his intention to extinguish the mortgage is clear otherwise. That is the principle of Section 101 of the Transfer of Property Act. The buyer cannot be credited with the intention of altogether extinguishing his mortgage for all purposes when it is found to be to his benefit to keep it alive, merely because in the deed of purchase a part of the purchase money is treated as going in discharge, of his mortgage. Whether the p...
P. Thimmayya Vs. P. Siddappa
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1923
Reported in: AIR1925Mad63
1. The first point taken is that, on the date of suit, the plaintiff had no title to the property, as two of the daughters of the original owner, Thimmayya, were alive and they were entitled to the property in spite of the relinquishment of their rights in favour of Nagamma. It is contended that their relinquishment did not involve the loss of their right to take by survivorship to Nagamma. This would really depend upon the nature and extent of the relinquishment. If they expressly relinquished their right to take the estate after the death of Nagamma, they could not, in our opinion take it subsequently on the ground of survivorship, but it will pass to the heirs of Thinomayya as if all the daughters were dead, that is in this case to the daughters sons, the plaintiff and Hanumanthu.2. Here, however, there is no deed of relinquishment and it is not possible on the facts to say positively whether the relinquishment involved the loss of right to enjoy the property on Nagamma's death.3. W...
Mannem Seshadri Reddi Vs. Putta Venkata Reddy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad709; 76Ind.Cas.809
1. We think the lower Appellate Court's order can be justified by reference to Section 146 of the Civil Procedure Code. In accordance with the dictum of Sesbagiri Iyer, J., in Sitatamaswamy v. Dulla Lakshmi Narasamma 48 Ind. Cas. 840 : 41 M. 500 : 8 L.W. 21 the words 'claiming under' in that section are wide enough to cover even cases of devolution mentioned in Order XXII, Rule 10.2. It is urged that, here, the respondent-petitioner is a transferee of property concerned in the decree which be desires to execute, not of that decree itself. We do not think the distinction substantial. For we cannot understand how one person can be claiming under another in respect of property, when he does not claim under hint equally in respect of the decree dealing with the property. Taking this view, we dismiss the appeal against appellate order with costs....
Pendekkallu Thimmayya Vs. Pendekkallu Siddappa
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1923
Reported in: 75Ind.Cas.112
1. The first point taken is that, on the date of suit, the plaintiff had no title to the property, as two of the daughters or the original owner, Timmayya, were alive and they were entitled to the property in spite of the relinquishment of their rights in favour of Nagamma. It is contended that their relinquishment did not involve the loss of their right to take by survivorship to Nagamma. This would really depend upon the nature and extent of the relinquishment. If they expressly relinquished their right to take the estate after the death of Nagamma, they could not, in our opinion take it subsequently on the ground of survivorship, but it will pass to the heirs of Timmayya as if all the daughters were dead, that is, in this case, to the daughters' sons, the plaintiff and Hanumanthu.2. Here, however, there is no deed of relinquishment and it is not possible on the facts to say positively whether the relinquishment involved the loss of right to enjoy the property on Nagamma's death.3. W...
Garudappa Peria Thiruvadi Ayyangar and anr. Vs. Pookutti Janaki and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad103; 75Ind.Cas.1016
Krishnan, J.1. My learned brother has set out the facts of the case in his judgment which he is about to deliver and they need not, therefore, be repeated. I agree with him that the second appeal fails but for reasons somewhat different from his.2. It seems to me clear that if a person buys property over which he has a mortgage himself and the mortgage in consequence becomes discharged by merger or by the terms of the sale-deed, he can never the less, use that mortgage as a shield against any puisne incumbrancer who attempts to enforce his claim against the property, unless his intention to extinguish the mortgage is clear otherwise. That is the principle of Section 101 of the Transfer of Property Act. The buyer cannot be credited with the intention of altogether extinguishing his mortgage for all purposes when it is found to be to his benefit to keep it alive, merely because in the deed of purchase a part of the purchase-money is treated as going in discharge of his mortgage. Whether ...
A.D. Narayana Sa Vs. Balaguruswami Nadar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-1923
Reported in: (1923)45MLJ385
Kumaraswami Sastriar, J.1. This is an application by the Receivers for an order that they may be permitted to remove from the Vyasarpady Buildings, copper stills, vats, copper pipes and other old furniture and documents and papers belonging to the Madras Estate and now lying in the Vyasarpady Distillery Buildings which were sold in auction on the 21st of December, 1922 in execution of the decree in the suit.2. The plaintiff in this suit A.D. Narayana Sa obtained a simple money decree against the defendants to whose estate the petitioners Messrs Eraser & Ross have been appointed Receivers. The decree was for over Rs. 2,69,000 and in execution the property known as the Distillery Buildings at Vyasarpady was attached and sold. What was sold was only the Distillery Buildings and the proclamation describes the property to be sold as follws : 'Distillery Buildings, Door No. 3, Brighton Road, Barracks, Peramboor, Madras, bearing Re-survey Number etc.' These buildings were originally used as a...
A.D. Narayana Sah Vs. Balaguruswamy Nadar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-1923
Reported in: 75Ind.Cas.838
Kumaraswamy Sastriar, J.1. This is an application by the Receivers for an order that they may be permitted to remove from the Vyasarpady Buildings, copper stills, vats, copper pipes and other old furniture and documents and papers belonging to the Nadars' estate and now lying in the Vyasarpady Distillery Buildings which were sold in auction on the 21st of December 1922 in execution of the decree in he suit.2. The plaintiff in this suit, A.D. Narayana Sah obtained a simple money-decree against the defendants to whose estate the petititioners, Messrs. Fraser and Ross, have been appointed Receivers. The decree was for over Rs. 2,69,000 and in execution the property known as the Distillery Buildings at Vyasarpady was attached and sold. What was sold was only the Distillery Buildings and the proclamation describes the property to be sold as follows: 'Distillery Buildings, Door No. 3, Brighton Road Barracks, Peramboor, Madras, bearing Re-Survey Number, etc.' These buildings were originally u...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »