Chennai Court November 1905 Judgments
M.A.R.A.R. Saminathan Chettiar and ors. Vs. T.R. Swamiappa Naicker and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1905
Reported in: (1906)16MLJ133
1. Their Lordships after dealing with the other questions in the case thus dealt with the question the rate of interest to be allowed in the decree - ED.2. The result is that the amount due to the second defendant, the first mortgagee by the first defendant was Rs. 1,37,115 on the 24th August 1897. He is entitled to recover this sum with interest at 12 per cent, per annum with annual rests from the said date. The amount due to the plaintiff, the subsequent mortgagee, by the 1st defendant was Rs. 20,452 on the 1st February 1897. He is entitled to recover this sum with interest at 12 per cent, per annum with annual rests from the said date. The contract rate of interest at 12 per cent, will run up to the date of payment if payment is made before the date fixed in our decree for redemption by the 1st defendant, viz., the 1st of June 1906 and otherwise up to that date. Subsequent to that date the principal amounts mentioned above will carry interest at 6 per cent, till date of actual payme...
Tag this Judgment!Mylan Vs. Annavi Madan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1905
Reported in: (1906)16MLJ99
1. The decision of the learned Judge cannot in our opinion, be upheld. The Subordinate Judge has found that the defendants put the plaintiff in possession of certain land a month after the execution of the promissory note of the 8th July 1897 and that the plaintiff and the defendants agreed that the plaintiff was to take the possession of this land as interest on the amount due to him under the promissory note. Under this agreement the plaintiff remained in possession of the land and enjoyed the produce as interest up till August 1902. The facts being as we have stated, we are of opinion that there was a payment of interest as such sufficient to satisfy the requirements of Section 20 of the Indian Limitation Act. Such a payment need not be in money. We follow the view taken by this Court in the case of Kullipara Pullamma v. Maddulu Tatayya I.L.R. (1896) 19 M. 340, where it was held referring to the decisions in Amos v. Smith I.H. & C. 238, Maber v. Maber L.R. 2 Ex. 153 and Hart v. Nash...
Tag this Judgment!Tirumalapalli Sriramulu Vs. Ryali Dalayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1905
Reported in: (1906)16MLJ54
1. Plaintiff sued to recover from the defendant Rs. 72-6-5 (Rs. 55-0-0 principal and Bs. 17-6-5 interest).2. It was alleged in the plaint that the defendant obtained a decree against the plaintiff for Es. 69-11-0 on 16th December 1897 in S.C.S. No. 684 of 1897, that in February 1901, an agreement was entered into between himself and the defendant to the effect that Rs. 55-0-0 were to be paid in full satisfaction of the decree debt and the balance was to be foregone and that defendant should certify full satisfaction of the decree to the Court, soon after the payment of the said sum of Rs. 55 by the plaintiff. It was further stated in the plaint, that the plaintiff paid the sum of Rs. 55 at once, but the defendant did not certify satisfaction of the decree as agreed to; on the contrary he applied for execution of the decree on 23 November 1903 and a notice under Section 248, was received by the plaintiff on 3rd December 1903 and that the cause of action for this suit arose on that date....
Tag this Judgment!Thiruvengadathiengar and ors. Vs. Vaidinatha Ayyar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1905
Reported in: (1906)ILR29Mad303
1. It has been urged here that no appeal lay to the Subordinate Judge from the order of the District Munsif directing the award to be filed. The decision, however, of the Pull Bench of this Court in Ponnusami Mudali v. Mandisundara Mudali I.L.R. Mad. 255 removes any doubt that there might be as to this. It is there held, following the decision of the Privy Council in Ghulam Jilani v. Muhammad Hussain L.R. 29 IndAp 51 that an order made on an application to file an award under Section 525 of the Civil Procedure Code would seem to be a decree within the meaning of that expression as defined by the Civil Procedure Code. It is therefore clear that when an application is made to a Court to file au award, an order granting the prayer and an order refusing the prayer are both decrees. We must hold that there was an appeal to the Subordinate Judge. The Subordinate Judge has found that the award has determined a matter not referred to arbitration. If this can be shown to be the case it follows ...
Tag this Judgment!Lakshumi Ammal Vs. Seerangathammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1905
Reported in: (1906)ILR29Mad310
1. We think that the District Judge is in error in refusing to entertain the petition on the ground that it is not admitted that the alleged lunatic is possessed of any property If that were a sufficient reason the jurisdiction of the Court could be ousted in every case by the respondent simply refusing to admit that the lunatic has any property. No doubt it is necessary as a pre-requisite to the Court taking action that the Court should be satisfied that the alleged lunatic has property.2. The petitioner alleges that the lunatic has property, and the respondent denies it. Obviously it is necessary for the District Judge to enquire, it may be summarily, and to decide whether or not the lunatic has property, and in case he decides in the affirmative the District Judge should proceed to take further action in accordance with law.3. We set aside the order of the District Judge with costs and remand the petition for disposal according to law....
Tag this Judgment!Chinna Kaliappa Gounden and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1905
Reported in: (1906)16MLJ79
Charles Arnold White, Kt., C.J.1. The general question argued before us in this cause was whether it was open to a magistrate to re-hear a complaint which was been dismissed by an order under section 203 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the order of dismissal not having been set aside by a higher court.2. In support of the view that the magistrate had no such power, it was urged that a power to re-hear or revise, like aright of appeal, was the creature of statute, and that in the absence of express statutory provisions conferring such power, the power did not exist. I am not prepared to accept this proposition. It seems to me that the question whether there is a power to re-hear must be determined with reference to the enactments which create and regulate the jurisdiction of the magistrate. The Code confers upon a magistrate jurisdiction to enquire into an alleged offence. Prima facie, therefore, such jurisdiction exists in the case of an alleged offence. It must be held to exist unless...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Chinna Kaliappa Gounden and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1905
Reported in: (1906)ILR29Mad126
Arnold White, C.J.1. The general question argued before us in this case was whether it was open to a Magistrate to hear a complaint which has been dismissed by an order under Section 203 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the order of dismissal not having been set aside by a higher Court.2. In support of the view that the Magistrate had no such power, it was urged that a power to rehear or revise, like a right of appeal, was the creature of statute and that, in the absence of express statutory provisions conferring such power, the power did not exist. I am not prepared to accept this proposition. It seems to me that the question whether there is a power to rehear must be determined with reference to the enactments which create and regulate the jurisdiction of the Magistrate. The Code confers upon a Magistrate jurisdiction to enquire into an alleged offence. Prime facie, therefore, such jurisdiction exists in the case of an alleged offence. It must be held to exist unless it appears that s...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Ayyar and ors. Vs. Muthukumarsawmiya Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1905
Reported in: (1906)ILR29Mad217
1. Ramalingam Pillai, the deceased father of the plaintiff, a minor, obtained from the first defendant on the 21st June 1896, a bond for Rs. 5,000 on the hypothecation of certain lauds, to which the first defendant and the two sons of his deceased brother, members of a joint family, were entitled, the debt being recited to be one binding on all the members subsequent to the mortgage, the first defendant became by purchase from one of his nephews entitled to a two-thirds share in the joint property instead of to one-half as originally. Of the other defendants, the second to the seventh inclusive, are impleaded as persons entitled to the equity of redemption in some or other of the properties hypothecated to the plaintiff, they having acquired such interest in Court sales held in execution of decrees against the first defendant, and the eighth and the ninth defendants are holders of prior mortgages on the properties comprised in the plaintiff's mortgage. In the present suit the plaintiff...
Tag this Judgment!Mothiar Mira Taragan Vs. Ahmatti Ahmed Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1905
Reported in: (1906)ILR29Mad232
1. We think that the learned Judge is in error in holding that the money deposited in Court by the mortgagor for payment to the mortgagee under Section 83 of the Transfer of Property Act was the property of the mortgagee and liable to be attached by a creditor of the latter, even though the mortgagee had not complied with the conditions prescribed by that section as conditions precedent to his drawing the money out of Court. Those conditions are that, he should put in a verified petition stating his willingness to accept the money, so deposited, in full discharge of the amount due under the mortgage, and should deposit the mortgage deed in Court.2. The case of Dal Singh v. Pitam Singh I.L.R. 25 All. 179 is exactly in point, and we agree with the observation of the learned Judges in that case that to hold otherwise might lead to great injustice, as it, fact, has done in the present case.3. We set aside the order of the learned Judge with costs. We also set aside the decree of the Subord...
Tag this Judgment!Venkata Narasimha Appa Row Vs. Rangayya Appa Row and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-1905
Reported in: (1906)16MLJ178
Davies, J.1. These appeals, and the suit out of which they arise, relate to the right to the permanently settled estates of Nidadavole and Medur in the Kistna and Godavari Districts.2. The following genealogical tree shows the relationship of the several members of the family. Narayya Appa Row (1) |Vankata Narasimha Ramachandra Narasimha Appa Row (2) Appa Row (3) Appa Row (4) | | |Narayya Appa Sobhanadri | Row (5) Appa Row (6) | | | | | | Simhadri Narayya Venkatari | Appa Row (7) Appa Row (8) Appa Row (9) | | | Parthasartadhi | Appa Row (16) | | | | | | |Narayan Ranhgyya Venkata Narasimha Vinkatadri Simhadri VenkatramayyaAppa Row Appa Row Appa Row (12) Appa Row (13) Appa Row (14) Appa Row (15) (10) (11) (dead) (dead) (dead) (dead) | Narayya Appa Row (17) given away in adoption.3. The three brothers, Venkatanarasimha (2), Ramachendra (3), and Narasimha (4) were divided. The last admitted male owner of Nidadavole estate was Narayya Appa Row (5) who died in 1864, leaving behind him as ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »