Chennai Court April 1901 Judgments
Seshachala Naickar Vs. Varada Chariar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1901
Reported in: (1902)ILR25Mad55
1. This is an appeal by the defendant against the decree of Mr. Justice Shephard directing the defendant to pay, with future interest to the plaintiff, the sum of Rs. 7,345 being the amount claimed in the plaint as the balance of the amount of consideration for a sale-deed, dated 19th May 1894, executed by the plaintiff in favour of defendant.2. The only ground on which this appeal is preferred is that the suit is barred by limitation.3. The consideration for the sale of the house and other properties comprised in the sale-deed was Rs. 10,000 and the plaint sets forth that part-payments amounting to Rs. 2,655 were, subsequent to the execution of the sale-deed and delivery of the property, made by the defendant from time to time, the last of such part-payments having been made on 9th September 1897.4. The suit was brought for the recovery of the balance, viz., Rs. 7,345, and it is stated in paragraph 5 of the plaint that the cause of action arose on 9th September 1897, the date of such ...
Tag this Judgment!imbichunni Nayar Vs. Lalji Ram Doss Sait and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1901
Reported in: (1901)ILR24Mad560
1. This is a petition which ought to have been presented under the provisions of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act and not under Section 622 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. The facts are not clearly stated, but apart from what is stated in the surety's petition, which is not verified, it appears that the insolvency petition was filed in due time, and that it was on a subsequent occasion that the judgment-debtor failed to appear when called upon. On these facts, following Koylash Chandra Shaha v. Christophoridi I.L.R. 15 Calc. 171 and Dwarkadas Parshotamdas v. Isabhai Daudkhan I.L.R. 19 Bom. 210 we must hold that the surety could not be held liable. We must set aside the order of the lower Court, Costs of this petition must be paid by the first respondent....
Tag this Judgment!Bhujanga Rao Vs. Venkanna and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1901
Reported in: (1901)ILR24Mad558
1. Having regard to the express language of Section 69 of the Rent Recovery Act, we cannot say that the Judge was at liberty to excuse the delay in presenting the appeal. If he could have done so, we should have difficulty in holding that the affidavit disclosed sufficient grounds.2. We dismiss this appeal with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Ramachandra Padayachi Vs. Kondayya Chetti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-1901
Reported in: (1901)ILR24Mad555
1. In this case the second defendant became divided from his family in January 1898. Prior to this data the first defendant (father of second defendant) entered into a contract as managing member of an undivided family by which he undertook that in the event of a shortfall taking place in respect of a consignment of indigo made by the first defendant through the plain till, he (first defendant) would pay to the plaintiff the amount of the shortfall. The pecuniary liability which the plaintiff seeks to enforce in the present suit arises under a contract entered into before partition. The plaint does not allege a cause of action entitling the plaintiff to a personal decree against the second defendant in respect of such liability, and Mr. Krishnamachari on behalf of the respondent concedes he is not entitled to a personal decree as against him. In our opinion the plaintiff is entitled to judgment as against the second defendant in respect of this liability, but the second defendant's lia...
Tag this Judgment!Kuppusami Chetti Vs. Rathnavelu Chetti and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-1901
Reported in: (1901)ILR24Mad511
1. The question whether the order appealed against is a judgment within the meaning of the Letters Patent must be considered with reference to the circumstances as they stood when the order was made. It is an order requiring the appellant, as receiver, to advance a sum of money to one of the parties to the suit for her defence. Ordinarily, when money is so advanced provision is ultimately made for it in the decree. If the plaintiff succeeds in a suit, the money which he has been required to advance for the defence conducted on behalf of a minor defendant is recoverable as part of the costs of plaintiff. On the face of the order it is an order to make an advance of money which in a certain event will be recoverable. In that sense it is not a final order and does not finally determine any right or question between the parties. We cannot distinguish the present order from an order for stay of execution or for giving security for costs. In R. v. R. I.L.R. 14 Mad. 88 it was not necessary to...
Tag this Judgment!Manavikraman Ettan Thamburan Vs. Ammu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1901
Reported in: (1901)ILR24Mad471
Arnold White, C.J.1. The question in this case is whether certain immoveable property which had been mortgaged was purchased by the appellant within the meaning of Article 134 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1877. Article 134 re-produces Section 5 of Act XIV of 1859 in so far as that section applies to immoveable property, whilst Article 133 re-produces it in so far as it applies to moveable property. The section is an expansion of Section 25 of the English Act which is an exception engrafted upon Section 24 of that Act.2. The point arises in this way. In 1864 A mortgaged certain lands to B for Rs. 750. In 1881 by an instrument which recites that the lands in question were the jenmam properties of B. B. mortgaged these lands to G for Rs. 5,000. A brings a redemption suit. C contends that A is bound to redeem C's mortgage before he can recover possession of the property. C does not sat up an absolute title. He admits A's right to possession on payment of C's mortgage, but he says that, as...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnan Nayar Vs. Ittinan Nayar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1901
Reported in: (1901)ILR24Mad637
1. It is impossible to support the order. Either the order was wholly illegal for want of jurisdiction in the Court, or, if the security was legally taken, the obligation was discharged by the death of the judgment-debtor. In our opinion the Courts had no jurisdiction to enforce the obligation as a decree, and therefore, treating the appeal as a petition under Section 622 of the Coda of Civil Procedure, we set aside the orders of the Courts below. The respondent must pay the petitioner's cost throughout....
Tag this Judgment!Ramaswami Pattar Vs. Chinnan Asari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-1901
Reported in: (1901)11MLJ132
Shephard, J.1. The facts which are imperfectly stated in the judgment of the Subordinate Judge are as follows: On the 3lsb July 1872, an instrument of mortgage was executed by Appavu Pillai and his son in favour of Samu Aiyar. According to that instrument the mortgagors delivered over to the mortgagee 'for the interest on the sum of Rs. 100 (then advanced) the possession of the land'--and the instrument concludes with the following covenant made in favour of the mortgagee:If we assign our right over these properties to any one, the 'land delivered possession of to you for appropriating the interest 'shall be assigned to you alone, and it shall not be assigned to any-'body else. When we assign the land, we shall receive 50 fanams' more from you, and then we shall assign the land for these two amounts together. 2. On the 25th July 1873, Appavu and his family sold their interest in the land to Vedanayakam. Before July 1893, Vedanayakam's interest was sold in execution of a decree against ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramasami Pattar Vs. Chinnan Asari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-1901
Reported in: (1901)ILR24Mad449
Shephard, J.1. The facts, which are imperfectly stated in the judgment of the Subordinate Judge, are as follows: [His Lordship set out the facts as above, and proceeded:] Except for the covenant above set out the defendants, who are representatives in interest of the mortgagee, clearly have no answer to the suit and must submit to be redeemed.2. As between the mortgagor Appavu and his mortgagee, Samu, the only question which could arise would be whether the covenant was invalid as being made in restriction of Appavu's right of redemption or for any other reason. Samu's right was to have Appavu's interest in the property conveyed to him in 1873, when he meditated selling it to Vedanayakam. If the covenant is to be read as giving a right which was to subsist for all time and even after the redemption of the mortgage by Appavu, then I am of opinion that the covenant would be invalid because it would be a clog on the equity of redemption in the sense that Appavu would not have bean able to...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›