Chennai Court November 1907 Judgments
C. Venkatasubbiah Chetty Vs. T. Govindarajulu Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-1907
Reported in: (1908)18MLJ1
1. The plaintiff alleges that the 1st and 2nd defendants were partners and that they borrowed from the plaintiff the amount for which the bond was given.2. The bond was signed by the first defendant only. We are unable to agree with the learned judge that it was not open to the plaintiff to give evidence of circumstances which went to show that the first defendant signed the bond on his own behalf and as the agent of his partner, the second defendant (assuming-the first and second defendants were partners.) The law is thus laid down in Lindley on Partnership, Edition 7 on page 207: 'If therefore a partner only enters into written contract the question whether the contract is confined to him or whether it extends to him and his co-partners, cannot be determined simply by the terms of the contract. For, supposing a contract to be entered into by one partner in his own name only, still if in fact he was acting as the agent of the firm, his co-partners will be in the position of undisclose...
Tag this Judgment!Saravana Pillai and ors. Vs. T. Sesha Reddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-1907
Reported in: (1908)18MLJ34
1. We are unable to agree with the judgment in Kristna Reddi v. Srinivasa Reddi M.H.C.R. 174 if it is to be regarded, as would seem to have been the view of the learned judges by whom the present order of reference was made, as a decision to the effect that, when there has been a failure by the lower appellate Court to comply with the requirements of Section 574 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the only course open to this Court in second appeal is to send back the case to the judge who heard the appeal, and that, when this is impracticable, no further action can be taken.2. We are of opinion that the proper form of order is that which, in recent years, has, we believe, been almost invariably adopted by this Court, namely, an order setting aside the decree and remanding the case to the lower appellate Court to be disposed of according to law - see, for instance, the orders in Kunhi Marakkar Haji v. Kutti Umma I.L.R. (1897) M. 496 and Sitarama Sastrulu v. Suryanarayana Sastrulu I.L.R. (1...
Tag this Judgment!M. Tuppan Nambudri Vs. V.P. Chinna Pari Kutti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-1907
Reported in: (1908)18MLJ31
1. The material conditions in the kanom now in question may be summarised as follows: In consideration of an advance of Rs. 795-8-0 the mortgagee is to hold possession, for 12 years, of land yielding a pattam of 80 paras of paddy and Rs. 40 and is to pay a purappad of 12 paras of paddy and 12 fanams and 50 cocoanut leaves 'having deducted interest and Government revenue.'2. The revenue having been increased at the recent settlement, the question is whether the difference between the old and the new is to be paid by the mortgagee or by the mortgagor.3. It is conceded that the provisions of Section 76 of the Transfer of Property Act are to be applied to this case, but contended that the kanom 'contains a contract to the contrary' within the meaning of that section so as to relieve the mortgagee of the payment of any taxes which were not payable at the commencement of the period covered by the kanom.4. Mr. Anantakrishnaiyar's argument amounted to this: The pattam and the purappad are fixe...
Tag this Judgment!Mani Bai, an Infant by Her Next Friend Rukmani Bai Vs. Lodd Govind Dos ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-1907
Reported in: (1908)18MLJ155
1. In this case an order has been made requiring the next friend of a female infant plaintiff to give security for the costs of the suit. It is not contended that the order can be supported unless there is jurisdiction to make the order under Section 380 of the Code of Civil Procedure. We do not think the words 'such plaintiff' in the second paragraph of the section can be construed as applying to the infant plaintiff's next friend, and there is no evidence in the present case that the plaintiff does not possess sufficient immoveable property within British India. Assuming, however, that the Court would have jurisdiction to make the order if satisfied that the next friend 'did not possess sufficient immoveable property,' we are of opinion that the order should not have been made in the present case. We agree with the decision in Bai Porebai v. Devji Meghji I.L.R. (1898) B. 100 that in the case of infant plaintiffs, unless the circumstances are exceptional the English practice, under wh...
Tag this Judgment!Kamakshi Pillai and anr. Vs. Ramasamy Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-1907
Reported in: (1908)18MLJ14
1. In Pachiappa Achari v. Poojali Seenan I.L.R. (1905) M 557 it was held that an application for execution, though not in accordance with law, may be held to save limitation if it contains an application for the issue of a notice under Section 248 of the Code of Civil Procedure in a case in which a notice is necessary in order to enable execution to proceed. That case was followed by a Bench of this Court in C.M.S.A. No. 87 of 1905 and the same view was taken in Gopal Chunder Manna v. Gosina Das Kalay I.L.R. (1898) C. 594.2. Following these decisions, we think that inasmuch as a notice was in the present case a necessary preliminary to execution and the defective application for execution contained an application for notice, we must hold that the application of the 27th March 1902 saves the bar of limitation.3. The order of the District Judge is reversed and that of the Court of first instance restored with costs here and in the lower appellate Court....
Tag this Judgment!Narayana Mudali Vs. Raghavammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-1907
Reported in: (1908)18MLJ462
1. In this case the plaintiff obtained a submortgage of the 2nd defendant's interest-under a usufructuary mortgage from the 1st defendant of the 12th September.1892. He sued on this sub-mortgage in O.S. No. 6 of 1897 on thee file of the District Munsif s Court of Chingleput and on appeal obtained a decree for the sale of the mortgaged property as well as a personal decree. In execution, the land mortgaged to the 2nd defendant under the mortgage of the 12th September 1892 was put up for sale and purchased by the plaintiff and he obtained possession, but was dispossessed under Section 335 of the Civil Procedure Code at the instance of the 1st defendant who alleged that the mortgage had been redeemed. The plaintiff now seeks to recover possession and the District Judge has dismissed his suit on the ground that the plaintiff has failed to prove the sub-mortgage in this suit. The genuineness of the sub-mortgage is not a matter which concerns the 1st defendant. The plaintiff has obtained a d...
Tag this Judgment!Musthan Rowthar Vs. Natharsa Rowthar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1907
Reported in: (1908)18MLJ541a
Wallis, J.1. The District Munsif adjourned the case under Section 156 of the Civil Procedure Code, and under the same section ordered the defendant to pay the costs of the adjournment. The fact that the defendant did not pay the costs did not entitle the District Munsif to give judgment for the plaintiff without hearing the evidence. The order of the adjournment passed by him was not conditional, and he has no jurisdiction under Section 156 to pass an order conditional upon payment of costs such as is provided in Section 373 of the Civil Procedure Code. I set aside the decree, and direct the District Munsif to restore the case to his file and dispose of it according to law. Costs will abide....
Tag this Judgment!Sellammal Vs. Velappa Naicker and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1907
Reported in: (1908)18MLJ157
1. Having heard arguments on both sides we think that the appellant was not prejudiced by the refusal of the District Judge to accede to her request for adjournment. There is no reason to disturb the order for the appointment of a receiver and we dismiss the appeal No. 177 with costs.2. As regards the memorandum of objections we think that Section 590 of the Civil Procedure Code makes applicable the procedure of Section 561 to appeals from orders and the memorandum of objections will lie - vide Kausalia v. Gulab Kuar I.L.R (1899) A. 297. Objection is taken to the District Judge's order allowing a maintenance allowance to the appellant. The appellant is not entitled to any allowance for her maintenance and the order must be set aside.3. The memorandum of objections is allowed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Vadlamannati Venkataramiah Pantulu Vs. Sri Rajah Venkatarangiah Appa R ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-1907
Reported in: (1908)18MLJ37
1. In this case the Subordinate Judge of Kistna at Ellore dismissed the plaintiff's suit without taking evidence apparently on the ground that on the admitted facts, the plaintiff had no cause of action. The suit was brought to recover damages for the wrongful attachment of the plaintiff's crops for arrears of rent and the plaintiffs alleged that they were the persons to whom the tender of pattah ought to have been made because the rights of the previous tenants had been transferred to them before the beginning of the fasli, and that they had frequently called upon the defendant to tender a pattah to them. The defendant pleaded that there had been a good tender to the previous tenants, and whilst not denying the alleged transfer nor averring that there was any dispute about it, pleaded in paragraph 6 of the written statement, that the plaintiffs in answer apparently to an application for a pattah, had been informed that on production of the sale certificates and other instruments of tr...
Tag this Judgment!Neblakanta Thuruvambu Vs. K.S. Ananthanarayana Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-1907
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.724
1. Having regard to the circumstances of the family, which is a comparatively well-to-do one, I think it must be held that a karnavan who engages a tutor far the purpose of teaching the English language, on terms as to remuneration such as are found here, to the members of the family, is acting within his authority and makes a contract binding upon his successors. In this view, I hold that the decision of the lower Court, which undoubtedly finds that there was such a contract by the former karnavan, is one binding upon the succeeding karnavans and that the debt thus due is payable out of the assets of the family. The petition is dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›