Court : Chennai
Decided on : Oct-12-1927
Reported in : AIR1929Mad16
Ananthakrishna Ayyar, J.1. The plaintiff's sued to redeem a mortgage. It was alleged that the deceased elder brother of the plaintiff usufructually mortgaged the suit land to the defendant for Rs. 50 on 29th July 1903 under Ex. 1. The defendant while admitting the mortgage pleaded that he became the absolute owner of the property by purchase on 29th October 1906, from plaintiffs 2 and 3 and that his possession subsequent to 1906 was as an absolute owner; and though the sale-deed Ex. 2 of 1906 was unregistered, his possession since 1906 was as absolute owner and that he had acquired absolute title by adverse possession for more than 12 years. The plaintiff's impugned Ex. 2 as a forged document, and the. District Munsif found that Ex. 2 was not genuine and accordingly decreed redemption. On appeal by the defendant the learned District Judge came to the conclusion on the evidence that Ex. 2 was genuine, that it was executed by plaintiff 2 and attested by plaintiff 3. Holding that Ex. 2 wa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Oct-12-1927
Reported in : 109Ind.Cas.795
Aaanthakrishna Aiyar, J.1. The plaintiffs sued to redeem a mortgage. It was alleged that the deceased elder brother of the plaintiffs usufructuarily mortgaged the suit land to the defendant for Rs. 50 on 29th July, 1903, under Ex. I. The defendant while admitting the mortgage pleaded that he became the absolute owner of the property by purchase on 29th October, 1906, from plaintiffs Nos. 2 and 3 and that his possession subsequent to 1908, was as an absolute owner, and though the sale-deed, Ex. II of 1906, was unregistered, his possession since 1906, was as absolute owner and that he had acquired absolute title by adverse possession for more than 12 years. The plaintiffs impugned Ex. II as a forged document, and the District Munsif found that Ex. II was not genuine and accordingly decreed redemption. On appeal by the defendant the learned District Judge came to the conclusion on the evidence that Ex. II was genuine, that it was executed by the 2nd plaintiff and attested by the 3rd plain...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : May-03-1927
Reported in : AIR1928Mad713
Phillips, Offg. C.J.1. All these appeals relate to the recovery of allowances payable out of the Kalahasti estate. Appeals Nos. 28, 39 and 387 are from O.S. No. 50 of 1916 and 58, 69 and 70 are from O.S. No. 86 of 1916 and all relate to the allowance payable to one Chennappa, the father of the plaintiff, in O.S. No. 86 of 1916; whereas the remaining appeals, Nos. 280, 288, 352 and 353, relate to an allowance granted to one Lakshmikantamma, widow of the Rajah Venkatappa, by his will in 1894. These latter will be dealt with after considering the first batch of appeals. One Venkatappa, Rajah of Kalahasti, died in 1881 leaving a will whereby he left the estate to his eldest son Muthu Venkaappa and granted allowances to his other sons. In 1890 the second son Timma filed a suit against Rajah Muthu Venkatappa for partition of the estate alleging that it was joint family property and not an impartible estate. This suit was compromised and a decree passed therein on 30th March 1893, whereby it ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-21-1927
Reported in : (1927)53MLJ131
Ramesam, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition arises out of a suit filed before the Village Panchayat Court of Bezwada to recover Rs. 21 and odd. The suit was based on two documents, Exhibits A and B, dated 2nd February and 13th January, 1923 respectively. The Panchayat Court found that these two documents ought to be stamped with a stamp of three annas each and collected Rs. 5-3-0 for each document, consisting of three annas for stamp and five rupees for penalty, and decreed the claim. There was a revision petition to the District Munsif's Court of Bezwada under Section 73 of the Village Courts Act (I of 1889) . The District Munsif held that the Village Court could not levy penalty in respect of a promissory note. He construed Exhibits A and B to be promissory notes and that the suit failed as it was based on unstamped promissory notes. He also held that the village panchayat exercised jurisdiction not vested by law or otherwise acted illegally, and reversed the decision of the Panchayat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Mar-09-1927
Reported in : AIR1927Mad898
Odgers, J.1. The former of these is a petition to raise the order of the learned Acting District Judge of Bellary and the latter to revise the order of the District Munsif of Bellary. They both relate to the same matter and have been argued together.2. The facts are as follows: O. S. No. 199 of 1916 was a suit on a mortgage executed to the respondent by the brother of the petitioners. The respondent obtained a decree. There was a sale in execution of the decree and the decreeholder bought the properties in execution, To this proceeding and suit the petitioners were not parties. They, the brothers of the mortgagor, obstructed the decree-holder when he came to take possession of the property alleged to have been included in the mortgage. On the petition of the mortgagee in E. A. No. 87 of 1918 the petitioners' obstruction was removed on the 4th April 1918 and he was placed in possession of all the lands and a claim order under Order 21, Rule 98, Civil P. C. was made thereon. The petition...
Tag this Judgment!