Chennai Court October 1925 Judgments
Sooppiadath Ahmad Vs. Irimbantakath Manha Mammad Kunhi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad643
1. The plaintiff-appellant brings this suit for the recovery of an elephant and also certain documents in the possession of the defendants. The defendants are the children and the wives of one Moossankutty, the deceased younger brother of the plaintiff. The plaintiff bases his claim as karnavan of the tavazhi consisting of the children of one Asya, the mother of the plaintiff and Moossankutty and it is alleged that Moossankutty bought this elephant out of tavazhi property and consequently the karnavan is now entitled to possession. As regards the documents it is said that they relate to tavazhi property and that the plaintiff is the proper custodian.2. The first argument advanced in appeal is with reference to the procedure adopted in the lower Court. The Subordinate Judge stated that the nature of certain properties situated in Chandranalloor was not in issue in the suit and he would not allow any further questions to be asked as to whether they were tavazhi properties or not. It is n...
Tag this Judgment!T.K. Lakshmana Iyer Vs. Sankarapandian Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-1925
Reported in: 93Ind.Cas.276
Spencer, J.1. I agree with my learned brothers construction of the document (Ex. V) which is before us. As observed by him this is a very extraordinary document because, if it purported to be an absolute sale and if it purported to pass the rights of a full owner, there was no occasion to recite the transferor's enjoyment of the land under, mortgages and sub-mortgages which had not been redeemed. For the respondents two cases to which I was a party have been cited, Kannusami Thanjirayan v. Muthusami Pillai (1) and Venku. Shettithi v. Rama Chandrayya 22 L.W. 885, The principle upon which those suits were decided was that if a defendant in possession of immoveable property puts forward a defiance of limitation under Art. 134 against a suit for redemption, there is no onus on him to first prove that he obtained a transfer in good faith of that property, or, as stated in Kannusami Thanjirayan v. Muthusami Pillai. 38 Ind. Cas. 194. 'it was not incumbent on the purchaser to prove that he had...
Tag this Judgment!Sagi Venkatasubbayya Vs. Sagi Kotamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-1925
Reported in: 95Ind.Cas.222; (1926)50MLJ369
Ramesam, J.1. The facts of this second appeal may be briefly stated as follows: The following pedigree shows the relationship of the parties: VenkambhotluSankayya Kamayya.Atchayya(d)M Viswanadhan, Sarabhaiah (died Appiah adoptedKotamma D.1 before Atchayya) to Atcha yya in D,2 M 1870. d, 1876, Veukamma (d).Peramma Rangamma Appayya (d) D, 3. D. 4, M Sitamma.2. When Atchayya died in 1867 he left his widow Kotamma (2nd defendant) and two daughters, the 3rd and 4th defendants. In 1870 the widow Kotamma adopted Appiah the youngest brother of 1st defendant. This Appiah died in 1876 leaving a widow Sitamma. The family possessed about 160 acres of land. Sitamma was allotted 16 acres of land in Miriyala for her maintenance. The 2nd defendant was also given a definite plot of 18 acres and 17 cents in Voppicherla village for her life (as admitted by her in her deposition) for her maintenance. (vide paragraph 4 of the District judge's judgment where the plaintiff's version on this point was found t...
Tag this Judgment!Mulugu Chengayya Vs. Aruvela Devasanamba Garu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-09-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad406; (1926)50MLJ145
1. The question in this appeal is whether the plaintiff's share was sold by the 6th defendant to the 1st defendant under sale deeds, Exs. VII and III. The contention of Mr. Somayya for the appellant is that the 6th defendant sold the property as his and that he did not sell the property as the manager of the joint Hindu family and therefore he could not have validly conveyed the share of the plaintiff. He places great reliance upon the evidence of P.W. 3, the son of the 1st; defendant. In his evidence he stated that it was believed at the time of the sale that the plaintiff had been adopted into another family. From this the appellant wants us to infer that the 6th defendant sold only his share of the family property. The circumstances are these: The plaintiff and the 6th defendant are brothers. The property of the family was sold for paying off the debts of their father and in the documents there is no mention that the right of the 6th defendant alone was sold. No doubt there is no me...
Tag this Judgment!Pattannayya Vs. Pattayya Alias Krishnayya Shanbhaga
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-09-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad453; (1926)50MLJ215
Devadoss, J.1. The only question in this appeal is whether the decree-holders' application for execution is barred by limitation. The facts are briefly these: The respondents herein obtained a decree in O.S. No. 77 of 1903 on 28th September, 1903. It is admitted that the application for execution in R.E.P. No. 323 of 1915 on 11th March, 1915, was within time. The Court ordered delivery of the properties to the decree-holders on 21st July, 1915. Third persons objected to the delivery. The objection was removed and item 3 was delivered to them on 27th March, 1916, and the Court passed an order on that day: 'The 3rd item was delivered to the petitioners and the petition was recorded.' A suit was filed by the obstructors and a temporary injunction was granted against the delivery of item 2. The suit was ultimately dismissed on 18th December, 1916 and consequently the temporary injunction ceased to be in force from that date. The respondents filed an execution application on 3rd September, ...
Tag this Judgment!Mulugu Chengayya Vs. Aruvelu Devasanambagaru and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-09-1925
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.720
1. The question in this appeal is whether the plaintiff's share was sold by the 6th defendant to the 1st defendant under sale-deeds Exs. VII and III. The contention of Mr. Somayya for the appellant is that the 6th defendant sold the property as his and that he did not sell the property as the manager of the joint Hindu family and, therefore, he could not have validly conveyed the share of the plaintiff. He places great reliance upon the evidence of P.W. No. 3, the son of the 1st defendant. In his evidence he stated that it was believed at the time of the sale that the plaintiff had been adopted into another family. From this the appellant wants us to infer that the 6th defendant sold only his share of the family property. The circumstances are these. The plaintiff and the 6th defendant are brothers. The property of the family was sold for paying off: the debts of their father and in the documents there is no mention that the right of the 6th defendant alone was sold. No doubt there is ...
Tag this Judgment!Pattamayya Vs. Pattamayya Alias Krishnayya Shanbhuga and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-09-1925
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.782
Devadoss, J.1. The only question id this appeal is whether the decree-holer's application for execution is barred by limitation. The facts are briefly these: The respondents herein obtained a decree in O.S. No. 77 of 1903 on 28th September 1903. It is admitted that the application for execution in R.E.P. No. 323 of 191-5 on 11th March 1915 was within time. The Court ordered delivery of the properties to the decree-holders on 21st July 1915 Third persons objected to the delivery. The abjection was removed and item No. 3 was delivered to them on 27th March 1916 and the Court passed an order on that day the 3rd item was delivered to the petitioners and the petition was recorded.' A suit was filed by the obstructors and a temporary injunction was granted against the delivery of item No. 2. The suit was ultimately dismissed on 10th December 1916 and consequently the temporary injunction ceased to be in force from that date. The respondent filed an execution application on 3rd September 1921...
Tag this Judgment!P.S. Kesavalu Naicker Vs. the Corporation of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-09-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad381; 92Ind.Cas.1053; (1926)50MLJ301
Phillips, J.1. In this case the facts are as follows: The defendant's uncle, Muthuswami Naicker, put up the building 'in suit 48 years ago, on the roadside land in the Pantheon Road, for the purpose of selling aerated waters and ice. The building is a pucca masonry one and the plaintiff, Corporation of Madras, now wishes to eject the defendant, to whom the property was given by his uncle about 1908. The defendant obtained lease deeds for this property in 1908, 1911 and 1914 for a period of three years each. At the end of the last lease, the Corporation proposed to sell the right to occupy the building and site at auction and notice was issued on 18th April 1917; (Ex. IV). The defendant protested against this by a Lawyer's notice (Ex. II) and put in a petition (Ex. Ill) on 30th April 1917. As a result of this, a fresh lease for one year was granted to the defendant and this was renewed for a second year in 1918 for the year 1918 1919. When the new. Municipal Act was passed, the Corporat...
Tag this Judgment!N.K. Govindan Nayar Vs. Kanhirathotikayil Ithaletty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad764; (1926)50MLJ493
ORDERJackson, J.1. The petitioner applies for review of my judgment in Civil Revision Petition No. 30 of 1925.1. Most of the grounds set forth in his application are clearly unsustainable. There is no error on the face of the judgment and the best proof that my previous judgment Was based on no misapprehension of the argument and vitiated by no omission of material points lies in the fact that at the second hearing no fresh argument and no fresh points have been adduced. What happened was that the learned vakil built up an argument on behalf of petitioner which appeared to me to be well founded, but lacking the coping stone. Appraised of this defect by my judgment, he has searched the Reports and has found what was previously wanting. The first question is, whether in these circumstances this Court should allow a review.2. As pointed out by the Judicial Committee in Chhaju Ram v. Neki (1922) 43 MLJ 332, Rule 1 of Order 47 must be read as in itself definitive of the limits within which ...
Tag this Judgment!Natesa Pathar Vs. Ganapathi Subbu Pathar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-1925
Reported in: 94Ind.Cas.68
Charles Gordon Spencer, J.1. The plaintiffs brought this suit for partition of their 4/5th shares in the plaint properties which form the ancestral properties of themselves and their father, the 4th defendant. The 1st defendant brought a money suit against the 4th defendant in S.C.S. No. 1165 of 1908 on the file of the Kumbakonam Sub-Court and attached the defendants' properties and purchased them in Court-auction subject to a usufructuary mortgage in favour of Swaminadha Pathar upon which Rs. 1,000 were due. The only question for decision in this case is whether the 1st defendant in the suit, purchased the interest of the 4th defendant only or that of all his sons also. Both the lower Courts have decided in favour of the former alternative and have given the plaintiffs a decree for partition of their 4/5th share. Whether what the purchaser got at the Court sale was the entire family property or only the 4th defendant's share therein is a mixed question of law and fact. It has been so ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »