Court : Chennai
Reported in : 164Ind.Cas.806
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. The appeal raises a question of some importance. The plaintiffs The National Bank of New York obtained a decree on June 19, 1934, in the High Court at Rangoon for about Rs. 25,000 against two defendants, with first of whom alone we are concerned. The 1st defendant is described in the plaint as 'R. M P.M. Chettiar firm carrying on business at No. 84, Mogul Street, Rangoon.' In execution of the decree the plaintiff bank attached certain properties, which on their own showing belong to the four minors (the appellants before us) constituting a joint undivided Hindu family. The Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore, in whose Court the decree was being executed, disallowed the objections preferred on behalf of the minors and made an order allowing execution. The objection, which is material for the present purpose, has been raised in the following form:The suit and the proceedings that ended in the said ex parte decree and the proceedings in the execution taken out after th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1936Mad910; (1936)71MLJ651
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The purchaser from the plaintiff who was made a supplemental respondent in the lower appellate Court is the appellant in this second appeal.2. The facts of the case are stated clearly in the judgments of the Courts below and need not be re-stated in detail. For the purposes of this second appeal which raises only one point, the only facts relevant are these : The plaintiff sued for contribution from the third item of the property, the owner of which is the second defendant who had purchased it from the first defendant. Items 1 and 2, along with the third and some other items, were subject to a first mortgage. Some of these items were subject to a second mortgage also. We are not concerned with the second mortgage or with items other than items 1, 2 and 3 in this second appeal. Plaintiff's father became the purchaser of items 1 and 2 in execution of a small cause decree in S.C. No. 84 of 1902 and after him the plaintiff came into possession of the same. The first def...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1936Mad988
King, J.1. The suit out of which this Second Appeal arises (O.S. No. 630 of 1926, District Munsif, Guntur) was brought by plaintiff against the widow of his brother Venkayya to recover possession of certain items of property which according to him belonged jointly to Venkayya and himself and are now his by right of survivorship. In defence the widow contended that there had been a partition between the brothers about 20 years before the suit at which the principal item of property in suit, a house, fell to her husband's share. This defence has been held by both Courts below to be barred by the rule of res judicata. The former litigation began with O.S. No. 1557 of 1920, filed by plaintiff against Venkayya, to recover possession of this house. Plaintiff's case was that there was a partition. in 1910 between himself, Venkayya, and another brother Subbisetti at which the house fell to Subbisetti's share and was subsequently sold by him to plaintiff. Venkayya, while admitting that Subbiset...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1936Mad714; 164Ind.Cas.845; (1936)71MLJ307
1. This is an appeal from the refusal of Mockett, J., to accede to an application by the appellant for leave to be brought on the record as a party plaintiff in C.S. No. 114 of 1926. The application is made pursuant to the provisions of Order XXII, Rule 10 (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The claim in the suit is upon a judgment and decree obtained in the High Court of Hyderabad against the defendant, and the grounds of this application are that the appellant is the assignee of the plaintiff's rights against the defendant in the suit which it is alleged he obtained, not from the plaintiff but from the plaintiff's assignee, and that his position has been so recognised by the Courts in Hyderabad. It is necessary to consider the history of the litigation in order to appreciate the position correctly and, in so doing we will assume the accuracy of the facts which have been, placed before us. The original debt was incurred in 1877 which incidentally was before the defendant was born. On ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1937Mad213
King, J.1. This appeal relates to certain property held by the defendant under a marupat of 1889 executed by his predecessor-in-title in favour of the plaintiff. In 1913 plaintiff granted a melcharth over the same property. In 1915 a suit for eviction was filed by both plaintiff and melcharthdar in which a decree was passed in favour of the latter on 12th January 1916, that if within three years he paid into Court the value of defendant's improvements the defendant should surrender possession of the property to him. Such payment was never made and defendant remained in possession. In 1929 the present suit was filed by plaintiff, the jenmi, to evict the defendant and the main question in issue was whether this suit was barred by reason of the previous decree. The first Court held that the suit was barred, but on appeal the learned District Judge of North Malabar held that it was not, and the usual preliminary decree for payment of the value of improvements has been passed. Defendant app...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1936)71MLJ749
Varadachariar, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in which though the pecuniary interests directly involved are small, some interesting questions arise for decision. There is a puntha or public pathway (marked S. No. 260) in Surya Rowpetta, a part of the plaintiff's Zamindari. The defendant is the Municipal Council of Cocanada, in whom this puntha is now vested. Up to 1919 it would appear to have vested in the Taluk Board of Cocanada by whom it was transferred to the defendant municipality, in 1919 or 1920. The point for decision is, what are the rights of the plaintiff and the defendant in respect of the palmyra trees growing on this bit of land. Neither the plaint nor the written statement suggests that these trees were planted by the plaintiff or the defendant or the Taluk Board. P.W. 3 says : 'I do not know who planted them'. Presumably they were spontaneous growths and I deal with the matter on this assumption.2. One contention on behalf of the plaintiff and one on behalf of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1937)1MLJ507
Pandrang Row, J.1. This is an appeal from the decree of the City Civil Judge, Madras, dated 2nd February, 1935, in O.S. No. 783 of 1934 a suit for ejecting the defendants and for recovery of possession of the plaint property. According to the plaintiff the site on which the plaint superstructure stands belonged to one Abdul Huq and the defendants were the tenants of the site who had put up the suit superstructure thereon and were paying a rent of Rs. 1-13-0 per month. The plaintiff purchased the site from Abdul Huq on 15th October, 1934. Some months earlier in execution of a decree of the Small Causes Court the superstructure belonging to the defendants had been sold and purchased by the plaintiff himself on 5th May, 1934. The plaintiff therefore claimed to be the owner of the house as well as the site and on the strength of this title to the house and the site he claimed to recover possession of both. The superstructure was purchased by the plaintiff on 5th May, 1934, and immediately ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1936Mad919
Varadachariar, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in which though the pecuniary interests directly involved are small, some interesting questions arise for decision. There is a puntha or public pathway (marked S. No. 260) in Surya Rowpetta, a part of the plaintiff's zamindari. The defendant is the Municipal Council of Cocanada, in whom this puntha is now vested. Up to 1919 it would appear to have vested in the Taluk Board of Cocanada by whom it was transferred to the defendant Municipality in 1919 or 1920. The point for decision is, what are the rights of the plaintiff and the defendant in respect of the palmyra trees growing on this bit of land. Neither the plaint nor the written statement suggests that these trees were planted by the plaintiff or the defendant or the Taluk Board, P.W. 3 says: 'I do not know who planted them.' Presumably they were spontaneous growths and I deal with the matter on this assumption.2. One contention on behalf of the plaintiff and one on behalf of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 165Ind.Cas.780
Varadachariar, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in which though the pecuniary interests directly involved are small, some interesting questions arise for decision. There is a pwitha or public pathway (marked 8. No. 260) in Surya Rewpetta, a part of the plaintiff's zemindari. The defendant is the Municipal Council of Cocanada, in whom this puntha is now vested up to 1919 it would appear to have vested in the Taluq Board of Cocanada by whom it was transferred to the defendant Municipality, in 1919 or 1920. The point for decision is, what are the rights of the plaintiff and the defendant in respect of the Palmyra trees growing on this bit of land. Neither the plaint nor the written statement suggests that these trees were planted by the plaintiff of the defendant or the Taluq Board, P.W. No. 3 says 'I do not know who planted them.' Presumably they were spontaneous growths and I deal with the matter on this assumption.2. One contention on behalf of the plaintiff and one on behalf of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1937Mad648; 172Ind.Cas.254
Pandrang Row, J.1. This is an appeal from the decree of the City Civil Judge, Madras, dated February 2, 1935, in O.S. No. 783 of 1934, a suit for ejecting the defendants and for recovery of possession of the plaint property. According to the plaintiff the site on which the plaint superstructure stands, belonged to one Abdul Huq and the defendants were the tenants of the site who had put up the suit superstructure thereon and were paying a rent of Re. 1-13-0 per month. The plaintiff purchased the site from Abdul Huq on October 15, 1934. Some months earlier in execution of a decree of the Small Cause Court, the superstructure belonging to the defendants had been sold and purchased by the plaintiff himself on May 5, 1934. The plaintiff, therefore, claimed to be the owner of the house as well as the site and on the strength of. this title to the house and the site he claimed to recover possession of both. The superstructure was purchased by the plaintiff on May. 5, 1934, and immediately th...
Tag this Judgment!