Chennai Court October 1924 Judgments
Ratnam Pillai Vs. Kamalambal Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad778; (1925)48MLJ213
Ramesam, J.1. The defendant is the appellant in this Second Appeal.2. The plaintiff is the heir of the original mortgagor. The defendant is the mortgagee. The mortgage was dated 14th December, 1912, and is evidenced by Ex. I.3. The first point argued for the appellant before me is that the plaintiff is not entitled to maintain the suit because she parted with the equity of redemption by the sale deed, dated 17th April, 1914, and therefore she is not entitled to redeem. He relies upon Dr. Ghose on The Law of Mortgages in India, page 253, where the case of Kinnaird v. Trollope 39 Ch D 636 is referred to. The case cited has nothing to do with the point now raised. On the other hand, the last sentence of Dr. Ghosh, it should be noted, says, 'But this right cannot be actively asserted, and is in this respect unlike the ordinary right to redeem which is, possessed by every mortgagor,' is against the appellant. It may be that a mortgagor who once parted with his right of redemption absolutely...
Tag this Judgment!Narra Sri Sailam by Mother and Guardian Venkamma Vs. Koganti Bhushayya ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad775; (1925)48MLJ280
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. This suit has been instituted by the plaintiff to enforce a mortgage executed by the 1st defendant. Subsequent to the date of the mortgage, the 1st defendant sold the second item of the properties mortgaged to Subbiah, the father of the 3rd defendant. The contest is now between the plaintiff and the 3rd defendant. The latter pleads that the plaintiff agreed to release the item purchased by Subbiah and to confine his mortgage right to the other properties mentioned in the deed of mortgage. The first question that has to be decided is, whether the plaintiff did agree to release the second item. The learned District Munsif found it somewhat difficult to decide this question on account of the fact that at least three conflicting versions were placed before Him. It is not necessary for me to refer at any length to the evidence on this part of the case. The learned Munsif has found that the plaintiff did agree to release the property. The oral evidence was meagre in th...
Tag this Judgment!Adinarayana and ors. Vs. Kalamalla Venkatasubbayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad752; 87Ind.Cas.46; (1925)48MLJ411
Ramesam, J.1. The defendants 1, 5 and 6 are the appellants in this case. The suit was brought by the plaintiff to eject the defendants from a house-site. The plaintiff obtained a patta from Government on the 29th March, 1917. Even at the time of the grant by Government, the defendants objected. The plaintiff went to a Criminal Court which dismissed the complaint on the ground that it is of a civil nature. The defendants pleaded that the suit site had been in the possession of themselves and their ancestors for a long time and the plaintiff could obtain no title to the suit land by the mere fact that Government issued patta in respect of that and that they did not trespass upon it recently. They also pleaded that a penalty was levied upon them by the Tahsildar for encroachment and that on appeal that encroachment fee was cancelled. The second issue in the case runs as follows : Whether the said grant is not binding on the defendants : whether the site belonged to them? In my opinion thi...
Tag this Judgment!Doraswami Iyer and ors. Vs. Thiruvengada Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad916
Devadoss, J.1. The only point argued in this second appeal is that the plaintiff ought to have applied to the Collector for the determination of the amount payable by the defendants under Section 27(4) of Act. II of 1894 before bringing the suit. The defendants are farmers of the melwaram due to the plaintiff, Under the terms of the lease as evidenced by patta Exhibit Is lessee undertook to pay the karnams. By a recent order, the Government undertook to pay the karnams and the pay of karnam was added to the peishkush of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has brought this suit for the purpose of recovering from the defendants the amount payable, by them towards the karnam's salary. He claims a rateable portion of the amount he is paying to the Government distributed over the several mittahs owned by him and also the amount actually paid by the defenants towards the karnam's salary. The District Munsif gave a decree in favour of the plaintiff for the amount claimed by the plaintiff as rateably...
Tag this Judgment!Avasarala Venkata Rao and ors. Vs. Avasarala Manga Rao and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-30-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1184; 87Ind.Cas.376; (1925)49MLJ71
Devadoss, J.1. Plaintiff and defendants 1 to 31 are the descendants of five brothers. The plaintiff represents one branch, defendants 1 to 6 another branch, defendants 7 to 9 the third branch, defendants 10 to 12 the, fourth branch and defendants 13 to 31 the fifth branch. The plaintiff's suit is for partition of his share of the family property. The plaint property was karnam service inam and was enfranchised in 1903 and inam title deeds were issued in 1904.2. Defendants 1 to 9 pleaded that 40 acres and odd were not joint family property and the plaintiff could not claim a share of it. Defendants 13 to 31 pleaded that 23 acres and odd were their separate property and the rest of the property, about 40 acres odd, was joint family property and they, as representing the fifth branch, were entitled to one-fifth share.3. The Subordinate Judge granted a preliminary decree for partition in favour of the plaintiff for one-fifth of the plaint property. Against that decree defendants 7, 8 and 9...
Tag this Judgment!T.S. Subbarao Vs. Appadurai Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-30-1924
Reported in: (1925)48MLJ142
Devadoss, J.1. The plaintiff sues for possession of the plaint property alleging that he is the usufructuary mortgagee from the 3rd defendant. Defendants 1 and 2 claim the property as theirs. Both the Courts have dismissed the plaintiff's suit on the ground that in a previous suit O.S. No. 89 of 1916 the plaintiff sued for similar reliefs; and a reference was made to arbitration in that suit and an award was made by the arbitrator, and therefore the present suit is barred by reason of that award. The contention of Mr. Venkatrama Aiyar for the appellant is that the award was passed on a reference by the Court without jurisdiction inasmuch as all the persons interested in the suit did not join in the submission, and therefore the award' does not stand in the way of his obtaining relief in this suit. The facts appear to be : the plaintiff sued for possession of the property against defendants 2 and 3 in Suit No. 89 of 1916 who are defendants 1 and 2 herein and his mortgagor was the 4th de...
Tag this Judgment!Pongiammal Vs. Kuttiyammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-30-1924
Reported in: (1925)48MLJ187
ORDERWallace, J.1. The question that arises in this Revision Petition is one of some difficulty. The counter-petitioner claimed maintenance from the petitioner under Section 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code before the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Gobichettipalayam. It was pleaded on the petitioner's behalf that he is insane and that therefore the Divisional Magistrate ought to have followed the procedure laid down in Chapter XXXIV of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Magistrate on 9th January 1924 on a petition by the petitioner's mother apparently held the petitioner to be insane and appointed the mother as his guardian ad litem, but, when the case came into Court on 24th January, 1924 the Magistrate considered from his own observation of the petitioner that he was not insane or incapable of understanding the proceedings. He then, without cancelling his order appointing the mother as the guardian ad litem, heard the case and passed an order that the counter-petitioner was entitled to...
Tag this Judgment!Appichi Goundan Vs. Kuthujammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-30-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad440
Wallace, J.1. The question that arises in this revision petition is one of some difficulty. The counter-petitioner claimed maintenance from the petitioner under Section 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Gopichettypalayam, It was pleaded on the petitioner's behalf that he is insane and that the Divisional Magistrate ought to have followed the procedure laid down in Chapter XXXIV of the Crim. Pro. Code. The Magistrate on 9-1-1924 on a petition by the mother apparently held the petitioner to be insane and appointed the mother as his guardian ad litem but when the case came into Court on 24-1-1924 the Magistrate considered from his own observation of the Petitioner that he was not insane or incapable of understanding the proceedings. He then without cancelling his order appointing the mother as the guardian ad-litem heard the case and passed an order that the counter-petitioner was entitled to separate maintenance. On the petitioner's behalf it is c...
Tag this Judgment!Velovolu Potharaju Vs. Matta Adiseshu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-30-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad578; 87Ind.Cas.391
1. There can be no doubt from 1st respondent's petition that the reason put forward by him for seeking review was the discovery of new and important matter, which was not within his knowledge, when the decree was passed. The Lower Appellate Court granted the review, because of its view that this discovered matter was new and important. This it had no power to do, without calling for strict proof of the allegation that the new matter was not within the knowledge of 1st respondent when the decree was passed and the Judge has not called for any proof at all.2. The 1st respondent argued that the Judge for himself decided that the most important matter was 'other sufficient reason,' within the meaning of Rule (1) of Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Judge does not say so; nor was there before him anything else, but the discovery of this new and important matter. To hold that in such a case the Judge can evade the requirements of Rule 4(2)(b) and absolve the applicant from his sta...
Tag this Judgment!T.S. Subba Rao Vs. Appadurai Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-30-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad621
Devadoss, J.1. The plaintiff sues for possession of the plaint property alleging that he is the usufructuary mortgagee from the 3rd defendant. Defendants 1 and 2 claim the property as theirs. Both the Courts have dismissed the plaintiff's suit on the ground that in a previous suit O.S. No. 89 of 1916 the plaintiff sued for similar reliefs: and a reference was made to arbitration in that suit and an award was made by the arbitrator, and therefore the present suit is barred by reason of that award. The contention of Mr. Venkatrama Aiyar for the appellant is that the award was passed on a reference by the Court without jurisdiction inasmuch as all the persons interested in the suit did not join in the submission, and therefore the award does not stand in the way of his obtaining relief in this suit. The facts appear to be; the plaintiff sued for possession of the property against defendants 2 and 3 in Suit No. 89 of 1916 who are defendants 1 and 2 herein and his mortgagor was the 4th defe...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »