Chennai Court May 1891 Judgments
Ramaiyar Vs. Vedachela Mudallar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-08-1891
Reported in: (1896)6MLJ684
SMuthusami Aiyar, J.1. The first question referred for our decision is whether a suit to enforce the acceptance of a can be maintained in a Civil Court and I think it should be answered in the affirmative. So early as 1879, it was held By a Division Bench of this Court in Karim v. Muhammad Kadar I.L.R. (1879) M. 90 that the suit is cognizable by a Civil Court. In 1889, however, another Divisional Bench expressed a doubt in Narasimha v. Suryanarayana I.L.R. (1879) M. 481 as to whether the suit would lie in a Civil Court, in as much as the duty of accepting a patta and giving a muchilika was one imposed by statute, and a special remedy for enforcing it was prescribed by the same statute. It was, however, observed that the object of Act VIII of 1865 in requiring the exchange of patta and muchilika was to insure the existence of evidence of the terms of the holding, and as a landlord could, on a proper occasion arising, certainly maintain a declaratory suit, so, in such suit, he might obta...
Tag this Judgment!Paramasiva Tevan Vs. Krishna Aiyangar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-08-1891
Reported in: (1896)6MLJ776
1. As to the point that plaintiff's purchase being on behalf of the judgment-creditor was invalid being made without the permission of the court, the last clause of Section 294 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Act X of 1877, in force at the time of the purchase, as amended by Act XII of 1879, stood as in the corresponding section of the present code and clearly negatives in our opinion the view that not obtaining the permission of the court invalidates the purchase, and this opinion is in accordance with the decisions referred to by the District Judge.2. The objection that Vedanta Aiyangar's heirs were not made parties to the suit was we think rightly disallowed by the District Judge as taken too late.3. It is urged that appellant is entitled to compensation for improver ments. The District Munsif. disallowed the claim and though it way made a ground of appeal to the District Court it does not appear to have been urged in that court, nor do we sea any legal foundation for the claim.4. T...
Tag this Judgment!Paramasiva Vs. Krishna
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-08-1891
Reported in: (1891)ILR14Mad498
1. As to the point that plaintiff's purchase being on behalf of the judgment-creditor was invalid being made without the permission of the Court, the last clause of Section 294 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Act X of 1877, in force at the time of the purchase as amended by Act XII of 1879 stood as in the corresponding section of the present Code, and clearly negatives, in our opinion, the view that not obtaining the permission of the Court invalidates the purchase and this opinion is in accordance with the decisions referred to by the District Judge.2. The objection that Vedanta Ayyangar's heirs were not made parties to the suit was we think rightly disallowed by the District Judge as taken too late. It is urged that appellant is entitled to compensation for improvements. The District Munsif disallowed the claim, and though it was made a ground of appeal to the District Court, it does not appear to have been urged in that Court, nor do we see any legal foundation for the claim....
Tag this Judgment!Kannu Vs. Natesa and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-08-1891
Reported in: (1891)ILR14Mad477
1. The mortgage document provides that, in default of payment of the interest at 8 per cent, on the dates fixed for payment, interest at 9 per cent, shall be charged on the interest in arrears till payment and also the interest on the principal shall be raised from 8 per cent, to 9 per cent. This clearly shows that the true intention of the parties was to postpone the sale of the mortgaged property till the principal becomes due and to give the mortgagee on default of payment of interest only a right to the enhanced rate of interest on principal and on the arrears of interest. We agree with the lower Courts that plaintiff cannot bring the mortgaged property to sale for arrears of interest until the principal is due, and we think moreover that plaintiff is precluded by the terms of the document from suing for the interest before the principal is due and must content himself with the compensation which the mortgage document gives him for the default in payment of interest.2. The second a...
Tag this Judgment!Viraraghava and ors Vs. Parasurama
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-08-1891
Reported in: (1892)ILR15Mad372
ORDER1. These appeals and petitions arise out of the insolvency of one Mahomed Marakayar against whom decrees had been passed in several suits in the District Court of Coimbatore.2. The decree-holder, Parasurama Ayyar, in one of these suits (Original Suit No. 11 of 1886) obtained an order for sale of certain immoveable property of the judgment-debtor. Subsequent to the date of that order, but before sale, Mahomed Marakayar filed his petition in insolvency in the High Court and a vesting order was made.3. The Official Assignee opposed the sale, but the District Judge overruled his objections and allowed the sale. Before the sale under that order took place, Seshu Ayyar, the original appellant and petitioner in the present appeals and petitions, made a double application to the District Court in each of two suits in which he had obtained decrees against Mahomed Marakayar (Original Suits Nos. 18 and 29 of 1887).4. All four applications were filed on the same day. In two of these he applie...
Tag this Judgment!Shunmuga Chettiar Vs. Siva Chinnasami Naidu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-05-1891
Reported in: (1896)6MLJ697
1. This is a revision petition filed under Section 25 of Act IX of 1887. The petitioner is defendant and the counter-petitioners are plaintiffs in Small Cause Suit No. 811 of 1839, on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Kumbakonam. The suit was brought on a bond executed by defendant in plaintiffs' favour in August 1886, for passage money due by certain emigrants' who then proceeded from Tranquebar to Mauritius by the plaintiffs steamer. The bond was given as a collateral security for six hundies payable on demand which the defendant drew on certain persons living at Mauritius in favour of the plaintiffs' steamer agent. The plaintiff's case was that the hundis were presented for payment but not paid and that therefore the amount of the bond became due by the defendant. The defendent contended that the hundis were not: presented for payment, that he had no notice of their dishonor and that he was not liable under the bond. As regards the presentation of the hundis the Subordinate Judge...
Tag this Judgment!Chennappa Rai Vs. Ragunathaya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-05-1891
Reported in: (1896)6MLJ620
1. We are of opinion that the parties to the present suit fill the same character as regards both the subject matter of the claim and of the set-off. The debt which the plaintiff sues for, he seeks to recover as the heir and representative of his father, and the debt which the defendant pleads as a set-off is one which, according to him, the plaintiff is bound to pay as the heir and representative of his father. It ;may be that, if the debts due on the promissory note and the pledge bond are proved to be ancestral, which survived to the plaintiff on his father's death, and it appears further that he inherited no separate property from his father, and that the debt pleaded as a set-off is not one, which as a son he is bound to pay under Hindu Law, the set-off will have to be disallowed. But a distinction ought to be between the character in which a liability is sought to be enforced, and the conditions of the liability in that character. Section 111 premises two things as necessary to a...
Tag this Judgment!Shanmugam Vs. Chinnasami and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-05-1891
Reported in: (1891)ILR14Mad470
1. This is a revision petition filed under Section 25 of Act IX of 1887. The petitioner is defendant and the counter-petitioners are plaintiffs in Small Cause Suit No. 811 of 1889 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Kumbakonam. The suit was brought on a bond executed by defendant in plaintiffs' favour in August 1886 for passage money due by certain emigrants who then proceeded from Tranquebar to Mauritius by the plaintiffs' steamer. The bond was given as a collateral security for six hundies, payable on demand, which the defendant drew on certain persons living at Mauritius in favour of the plaintiffs' steamer agent. The plaintiffs' case was that the hundies were presented for payment but not paid, and that, therefore the amount of the bond became due by the defendant. The defendant contended that the hundies were not presented for payment; that he had no notice of their dishonour, and that he was not liable under the bond. As regards the presentment of the hundies the Subordinate ...
Tag this Judgment!Chennappa Vs. Raghunatha
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-05-1891
Reported in: (1892)ILR15Mad29
1. We are of opinion that the parties to the present suit fill the same character as regards both the subject-matter of the claim and of the set off. The debt which the plaintiff sues for he seeks to recover as the heir and representative of his father, and the debt which the defendant pleads as a setoff is one which, according to him, the plaintiff is bound to pay as the heir and representative of his father. It may be that if the debts due on the promissory note and the pledge-bond are proved to be ancestral which survived to the plaintiff on his father's death, and if it appears further that he inherited no separate property from his father, and that the debt pleaded as a set-off is not one which, as a son, he is bound to pay under Hindu law, the set-off will have to be disallowed. But a distinction ought to be made between the character in which a liability is sought to be enforced and the conditions of the liability in that character. Section 111 premises two things as necessary t...
Tag this Judgment!Venkaya Vs. Venkatappayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-05-1891
Reported in: (1892)ILR15Mad348
1. The first question we have to determine is one raised by the respondent whether any appeal lay from the decree and judgment of the District Munsif, which admittedly were in accordance with the award. It is laid down in Section 522 of the Code of Civil Procedure that no appeal shall lie from a decree passed in accordance with an award, except so far as the decree is in excess of, or not in accordance with, the award. It has been held that the effect of that Section is that it is not enough for the Appellate Court to satisfy itself as to the mere correspondence of the decree and the award, but that the Appellate Court must so far look behind the decree as to satisfy itself that the award is a legal award. If the Appellate Court is satisfied that an award has been properly and regularly arrived at by an arbitrator or arbitrators duly appointed, and that the decree is in accordance with the award, then, and then only, must the appeal be dismissed, Lachman Das v. Brijpal I.L.R. 6 All. 17...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »