Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1902)12MLJ128
Charles Arnold White, C.J.1. The question which has been referred in this case is whether, notwithstanding the institution, of a suit and the passing of a decree for redemption, a subsequent suit for redemption of the same mortgage can be brought when the decree in the former suit lifts not been executed. I take it that for the purposes of this reference the words 'when the decree in the former suit has not been executed' mean when the order provided for by Section 93 of the Transfer of Property Act for foreclosing the right to redeem, or for sale, as the case may be, has not been made.2. The view which has been generally adopted by this High Court, though the decisions are not altogether uniform, is that a second suit will lie. The Bombay and Allahabad High Court have held otherwise.3. The answer to the question appears to me to depend not upon whether or not at the time of the bringing of the second suit the relation of mortgagor and mortgagee subsists between the parties, but upon w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1902)ILR25Mad300
Arnold White, C.J.1. The question which has been referred in this case is whether, notwithstanding the institution of a suit and the passing of a. decree for redemption, a subsequent suit for redemption of the same mortgage can be brought when the decree in the former suit has not been executed. I take it that for the purposes of this reference the words 'when the decree in the former suit has not been executed' mean when the order provided for by Section 93 of the Transfer of Property Act for foreclosing the right to redeem, or for sale, as the case may be, has not been made.2. The view which has been generally adopted by this High Court, though the decisions are not altogether uniform, is that a second suit will lie. The Bombay and Allahabad High Courts have held otherwise.3. The answer to the question appears to me to depend-not upon whether or not at the time of the bringing of the second suit the relation of mortgagor and mortgagee subsists between the parties, but upon whether th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1902)12MLJ368
1. Plaintiff, as the assignee of a mortgage executed, by 1st defendant's father Kadir Lavvai, brought O.S. No. 540 of 1894 against Kadir Lavvai to enforce the mortgage by-sale. During the pendency of the suit and before the passing of the decree Kadir Lavvai died and the name of his son, the 1st defendant, was on plaintiff's application entered on the record as legal representative in place of the deceased defendant under Section 368 of the Civil Procedure Code. Subsequently on the 20th December 1899, a decree was passed ex parte against the 1st defendant as legal representative of the deceased defendant directing the sale of the mortgaged property. Plaintiff purchased the property at the sale held on the 7th September 1897, in execution of the decree and the sale was confirmed on the 8th November 1897. After obtaining the usual certificate of sale which purported to convey to the plaintiff the whole of the mortgaged property, as it must be assumed, as that of the deceased defendant, t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1902)ILR24All319
John Stanley, C.J.1. The question raised in this appeal is a narrow one, but it is none the less very important. It is whether or not, having regard to the provisions of Section 59 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, a mortgage to be effective must bear either the autograph signature of the mortgagor or his mark. The facts of the case are simple and undisputed. On the 25th of August, 1896, one Kukur Bind borrowed a sum of Rs. 381 from the plaintiffs on the security of a mortgage, which provided that the interest on the mortgage-debt should be payable annually, and in default of payment of interest the mortgagee should be entitled to possession of the mortgaged property. Default was made in payment of the second instalment of interest, and in consequence the plaintiffs instituted this suit for possession of the mortgaged property. The mortgagor is illiterate, and the signature to the mortgage was made by the scribe of the deed by the direction and in the presence of the mortgagor. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1903)13MLJ83
ORDERBhashyam Aiyangar, J.1. The Permanently Settled estate of Merangi in the district of Vizagapatam was registered in the Collector's office in the name of one Jagannatha Raz as its sole proprietor. A suit was brought for its partition by three of his co-parceners, including the present defendant, which was unsuccessfully resisted by Jagannatha Raz on the ground that it was an impartible estate. Both the Indian Courts and finally the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council by its decree in 1891, Sri Raja Satmcharla Jagannadha Razu v. Sri Raja Satrucharla Ramabhadra Razu I.L.R.R. 14 M. 237 held that the estate was partible and directed its partition into four equal shares.2. On the 23rd October 1893, the late Maharajah of Viziana-garam, the testator under whom the plaintiff claims, purchased from Jagannatha Raz his undivided one-fourth share in the estate which purchase became absolute in the events that followed. There was no delivery of possession to the purchaser and on the 5th May...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1904)ILR27Bom276
L.H. Jenkins, K.C.I.E. C.J.1. In the year 1898 certain improvements were projected in the City of Bombay, and an Act called the City of Bombay Improvement Act, 1898, was passed giving to a Board thereby constituted certain powers with a view to carry these improvements into effect.2. On the 25th September, 1902, there was published in the Bombay Government Gazette a declaration purporting to be in pursuance of the Act, stating that the Governor of Bombay in Council had sanctioned a street scheme made by the Trustees for the Improvement of the City of Bombay under the provisions of the Act (that being the style of the Board thereby constituted) and that certain lands, including those in suit, were 'needed to be acquired by the said Trustees for the purposes of executing the said street scheme' and were required for a public purpose.3. On the 27th November, 1902, the plaintiffs received notices addressed to Pandurang Nilaji, their deceased father, and also to each of them in the followin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1904)ILR31Cal106
Brett and Geidt, JJ.1. The present appeal is against an order passed under the Indian Companies Act, VI of 1882, and it is preferred under Section 169 of that Act. A rule was also granted on the opposite party to show cause why the order complained of should not be set aside. The appeal and the rule have been heard together and will be governed by this judgment.2. It seems that Purna Chandra Chakravarti, one of the depositors in the Dacca Loan Office Company, Limited, applied to the Civil Court under Section 131 of the Indian Companies Act for the winding up of this company. The ground on which he based his petition was that he was a depositor of more than Rs. 600 in the company; that hg had made a demand for Rs. 200, and that it had not been complied with within the time mentioned in the Act. He further stated that the company was in a very embarrassed state, that Rs. 83,000 due to the company had been barred lay limitation, and that Rs. 28,000 due to the depositors could not be paid ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1903)13MLJ412
1. In A.A.O. No. 111 of 1902.--This is a matter arising in execution of the decree in O.S. No. 74 of 1896 which was brought by the appellants against the respondents. The decree bears date the 10th November 1897 and the portion of the decree that is now sought to be executed runs as follows: 'That in default of the defendants or any of them paying the sum of Rs. 47,852 with further interest thereon at 7per cent. per annum from date of suit to date of payment on or before the 10th May 1898, the hypothecated property hereinafter described or a sufficient portion thereof be sold and that the proceeds of such sale, etc.' At the time of the passing of the said decree there was pending in the same court another suit No. 82 of 1896 which was brought by the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 against the appellants and in which they claimed Rs. 93,973-2-10 from the appellants. On the 27th November 1897 an application was made by respondents Nos. 1 to 3 (defendants) in O.S. No. 74 under Section 243, Civil ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1904)14MLJ37
S. Subrahmania Aiyar, Officiating C.J.1.The question raised in this case is indeed a very important one, though the amount in dispute is but a trifle--four annas and one pie--being the amount collected by Government from the appellant in connection with his having erected a platform and a shed over a portion of a path, by the side of which his house is situated in a village in the Kistna District. The effect of the findings by the Lower Court, I take to be that the owners of |the houses adjoining the path inclusive of the appellant, have only a right of way over it, the free-hold in the soil being vested in the Government.2. The point for determination is, whether the levy of the amount in question as land-revenue payable in respect of the site of the platform and the shed, is lawful. A levy of the kind under consideration is known in the language of Revenue Standing Orders as a ' prohibitory assessment.' That the practice of making such collections has been allowed to prevail so long ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1904)1MLJ105
S. Subrahmania Aiyar, Officiating C.J.1. The plaint mentioned mutts, Bhandarkare in South Canara and Bhimasetu in Mysore Territory, are two ancient mutts presided over by Swamis or ascetic heads of the Madhwa persuasion. The case of the plaintiff--a minor--is that the two mutts are dwandva or interdependent mutts, the Swami of each being entitled to appoint to the other, in the event of the Swami of either dying without having appointed and leaving a successor, or a vacancy otherwise occurring; that; he was appointed as the head of Bhandarkare Mutt by the present Swami of Bhimasetu Mutt on the death of one Vidyasamudra, who had been ordained and appointed by the 1st defendant the deceased Swami of Bhandarkare Mutt as his junior before he (the 1st defendant) became and was, on inquisition under Act XXXV of 1858, found to be a lunatic.2. The argument on the plaintiff's behalf in the appeal was that the 1st defendant as Swami was in the position of a trustee, that on his becoming a lunati...
Tag this Judgment!