Chennai Court June 1881 Judgments
Gurusami Chetti and ors. Vs. Samurti Chinna Mannar Chetti and Sadasiva ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-03-1881
Reported in: (1882)ILR5Mad37
Innes, J.1. These cases were heard on the 6th January. On the 8th we were prepared to give judgment, but we thought it desirable to hear argument upon a point which had been apparently overlooked. We accordingly heard Counsel again on the 15th March.2. The plaintiff in each case got a decree against Viraragava (the father of the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th defendants in the present suit), and, on proceeding to execute against some of the property assumed to be that of Viraragava, was met by a claim made by the present 2nd, 3rd, and 4th defendants--Viraragava's sons--on the property attached.3. Plaintiffs were eventually required to institute regular suits against the claimants and the attached property was released. Plaintiffs brought the suits 452 and 503 of 1878, out of which the appeals arise.4. The question in appeal in each case is whether the learned Judge was wrong in finding that the interest of 2nd, 3rd, and 4th defendants in the house No. 9, Armenian Street, is liable to be seized unde...
Tag this Judgment!Harry Vaningen Vs. Dhunna Lall Lallan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-03-1881
Reported in: (1882)ILR5Mad108
Innes, J.1. The questions in this appeal have relation to three promissory notes (Exhibits A, B, C) executed by defendant on the 1st November 1876, the 5th September 1877, and the 21st September 1877, respectively. The notes Exhibits A and C were executed in favour of Alfred Arathoon; but the note, Exhibit B was executed in favour of Augustus Arathoon and by him on the same day endorsed to Alfred Arathoon. The notes were all endorsed to the plaintiff long after their execution.2. The defence was that on the 21st February 1878 defendant had sold his business; carried on under the style of Taylor and Co., to Augustus Arathoon and Willoughby Van Ingen for and on behalf of themselves and of Alfred and Samuel Arathoon, and that it was one of the terms of the said sale that defendant should be discharged from the debts and liabilities then due from him in respect of the said business, and that these liabilities included the said promissory notes, which were then in the hands of Alfred and Au...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›