Chennai Court September 1907 Judgments
Arunachala Pillai Alias Masilamani Pillai Vs. Sampurna Thachi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1907
Reported in: (1914)27MLJ485
1. The appellant and his grandfather were members of a joint family and the grandfather had a third wife who had borne him three daughters; Ex. I is an alienation by the grandfather of a portion of the family properties in favor of the 3rd wife reserving the income to himself for life, and is expressed in the deed to be made out of the grandfather's share and excluding the plaintiff's share. The properties covered by Exhibit I were worth about Rs. 3,000 and the remaining properties which are now in the possession of the plaintiff are worth Rs. 7,000 or 8,000. According to the finding of both the lower Courts the deed Ex. I was executed by the grandfather with the consent both of the mother and the maternal uncle of the plaintiff who was then a minor. There has been a good deal of argument before us as to whether Ex. I itself effects a partition between the grandfather and the plaintiff, but in our opinion it is unnecessary to consider this question. It is clear that it was open to the ...
Tag this Judgment!Srinivasa Pillai Vs. Minor Kannan by His Mother and Guardian Venkatamm ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-1907
Reported in: (1913)24MLJ296
Miller, J.1. I think the District Munsif is wrong and that there is here an endorsement in full. The endorsement runs 'This note has been made over to so and so on 31st March' and is signed by the payee and the note so endorsed was delivered to the indorsee. The only question is whether in the absence of a direct request to pay, the indorsement can operate as a negotiation. It seems to me that if it contains what is equivalent to a direction to pay to the endorsee, though it may not contain actual words of direction, it will contain a direction to pay within the meaning of Section 16 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. I think the endorsement in the present case can be construed as a direction to pay the amount of the note to the person named in it, and is an endorsement in full (compare the cases noted in Bigelow on Bills, Edition of 1893, p. 69.)2. The District Munsif's decree must therefore be set aside and the suit remanded for disposal.3. Costs will abide the results....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›