Chennai Court January 1894 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Linga Reddi Vs. P. Sama Row and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1894
Reported in: (1894)4MLJ143
Best, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal has arisen was instituted by one P. Sama Row (now 1st respondent) against Ranga Row, his son Janakirama (a minor) and brother Ragava Row (defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 respectively) as executants of the mortgage bond A (dated 10th July 1890), the other defendants in the suit being Linga Reddi (the present appellant) and three others holding prior mortgages over portions of the property mortgaged to plaintiff under A.2. Plaintiff's case was that of the Rs. 4,500 for which A was executed, Rs. 3,000 were left with him for redemption of the prior mortgages, and for payment to other creditors of defendants Nos. 1 to 3, but that his attempts to discharge the prior mortgage debts were frustrated by the machinations of the 4th defendant (now appellant) who induced defendants Nos. 1 to 3 to execute to himself on the 16th September 1890 a usufructuary mortgage of the property for Rupees 2,750 and to put him in possession of the property. Hence plaintiff'...
Palaniappa Chetti and anr. Vs. Periakaruppan Chetti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1894
Reported in: (1894)ILR17Mad262
1. We agree with the Judge that the document is not an account stated, but a promissory note or bond. The balance acknowledged to be due upon the memorandum of interest is referred to therein only as the consideration for the promise to pay it with interest within twelve months after date. It is the lex loci contractus that determines, the validity of a contract made in a foreign state. The document being executed in the Pudueotta territory, and no bond or promissory note being, according to the law of that state, operative for the purpose of creating any legal right unless it is registered, the suit cannot be supported as an action on the document.2. The only other question which arises for decision is whether the decree can be supported by treating the suit as one brought upon the consideration for the document. It is not necessary to decide for our present purpose whether it is a bond or promissory note. In either case it is not, in the absence of registration, a source of legal rig...
Sundararaja Ayyangar Vs. Pattanathusami Tevar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-16-1894
Reported in: (1894)ILR17Mad306
1. This was a suit upon a promissory note executed by fourth defendant as the guardian of his sister's sons, defendants 1 to 3 for Rs. 600, alleged to be due to plaintiff as remuneration for professional services rendered by plaintiff as vakil in criminal cases and proceedings. We agree with the Judge that the claim cannot be supported on the special contract evidenced by the promissory note. Sections 28 and 29 of the Legal Practitioners' Act require that such agreements should be in writing and filed in Court. It appears from the promissory note that it was executed for past services rendered under oral agreements with the fourth defendant.2. It has been held that this is no bar to a decree being passed for such reasonable remuneration as may be found due on the principle of quantum meruit. If, therefore, the fourth defendant should be held to have had authority to bind the minor defendants 1, 2, 3 by this contract, we should have considered it necessary to call for a distinct finding...
Nagamma Vs. Virabhadra
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-1894
Reported in: (1894)ILR17Mad392
1. We must follow the decision in Valu v. Ganga I.L.R. 7 Bom. 34 and Vishnu Shambhog v. Manjamma I.L.R. 9 Bom. 108 and hold that unchastity of a widow deprives her wholly of her right to maintenance. No text has been cited in favour of the theory that a bare maintenance can be allowed. The fact that there has been an agreement in our opinion makes no difference. It merely fixes the amount and the security. We must dismiss the appeal with costs....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›