Chennai Court March 1908 Judgments
Vellankondu Subbiah and ors. Vs. Malupeddi Venkataramiah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1908
Reported in: (1908)18MLJ347
1. This is a suit by one partner against two other partners upon a promissory note given by them, and the members of their respective joint families have also been joined as defendants. The District Judge has found that accounts between the partners were settled and a balance found due to the plaintiff, and that the partnership was thereupon dissolved and the promissory note given to the plaintiff for the amount of the balance. For the appellants it is contended that the evidence for the defence shows clearly that this was not so, and that the promissory note was given in repayment of an advance made by the plaintiff to the partnership with interest, and that at the time it was given the general accounts of the partnership had not been taken. If this be so, then it is contended that one partner cannot maintain a suit against the other partners upon a promissory note so given. We are unable to agree with this contention. No doubt the proper remedy of one partner against the other member...
Tag this Judgment!Audipuranam Pillay Vs. Gopalasamy Mudaly and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1908
Reported in: (1908)18MLJ259
ORDER1. The parties have not arrived at an agreement and we heard argument again as to the amount to be awarded as interest. We think, on consideration, that the usual Court rate of 6 per cent, should be allowed as interest on the principal from the date fixed for payment in the decree as the 16th June 1906 to the date of payment into Court, namely the 17th November 1906 and 6 per cent, on that sum from the 17th November to the date of payment. Parties will pay and receive proportionate costs throughout.2. There will be no costs in C.M.A. No, 26 which is dismissed in consequence of the decision in C.M.A. No. 25. In C.M.A. No. 25 costs will be calculated on the amount of the claim Rs. 30,000....
Tag this Judgment!Rangappa Naik Vs. Kamti Naik and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1908
Reported in: (1908)18MLJ309
1. After citing the Order of Reference the Chief Justice went on as follows:The document is not altogether easy to construe, but I read it as a release to the widow by the reversioners of their reversionary interest in consideration of the widow conveying to them her interest in a portion of the property. I do not think the document can be construed as extinguishing the whole of the widow's estate and unless the whole of the estate is extinguished, the surrender in my view of the law is not effective. This was expressly decided by the Privy Council in Behari Lal v. Madho Lal Ahir Gayaval I.L.R. (1891) C. 236 and I do not think this decision is affected by the judgment of the Privy Council in Bajrangi Singh v. Manokarnika Bakhsh Singh 12 C.W.N. 74. In Marudamuthu Nadan v. Srinivasa Pillai I.L.R. (1897) M. 128 the principle of the decision of the Privy Council in Behari Lal v. Madho Lal Ahir Gayawal I.L.R. (1891) C. 236 was applied by a Full Bench of this Court in a case where the widow ...
Tag this Judgment!Noothi Subbarayadu (Deceased) and ors. Vs. Dara Lingayya Garu Suryapra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1908
Reported in: (1908)18MLJ461
1. A preliminary objection is raised whether the appeal was filed on behalf of the plaintiff. The plaintiff was dead, and the pleader was not, therefore, entitled to act for him under the vakalatnama in his favor. This may be so. But, in the circumstances of the case, we treat the appeal as having been properly filed when the present appellants, the plaintiff's representatives, were made parties to the appeal, and we excuse the delay under S5 of the Limitation Act. On the merits, no question of law arises on the facts found, and we, therefore, dismiss the second appeal with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Subramaniya Othuvar Vs. Munusawmi Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-1908
Reported in: (1908)18MLJ249
Sankaran Nair, J.1. It is argued before me that the Munsif acted illegally and without jurisdiction in confirming the award when the arbitrator was a pleader who had drafted the plaint, a fact of which the petitioner was not aware before the award was made. The Munsif evidently did not think this was a sufficient reason, because he says that the pleader did not act for the plaintiff and that he is a respectable vakil of the High Court. I am not able to say that he acted illegally or without jurisdiction in coming to this conclusion. The Munsif may have been wrong on a question of law. But that is not a reason for this Court to interfere.2. A preliminary objection is also raised that no civil revision petition lies. I do not decide it.3. The petition is dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!thenappa Chettiar and anr. Vs. Marimuthu Nadan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1908
Reported in: (1908)18MLJ344
1. The plaintiffs are mortgagees of certain property including items Nos. 2 and 4. The 3rd and 4th defendants are prior mortgagees of those two items. The 3rd defendant sued on his mortgage in O.S. No. 2 of 1900, making 4th defendant a party but not the plaintiffs. The 3rd defendant himself purchased item No. 2 at the sale held under the decree obtained by him in his suit, and the 4th defendant purchased item No. 4 at the same sale, the plaintiffs have now to redeem the prior mortgages, and the present question is as to the conditions of redemption. The plaintiffs claim to proceed on the footing that the mortgages were enforced by the decree in O.S. No. 2 of 1900 and to take the account on that footing; the prior mortgagees claim payment on the footing that their mortgages are still existing. The practical question is one of the rate of interest to be paid on the mortgage money. In our opinion, the decision of the Privy Council in Umes Chunder Sircar v. Zahur Fatima I.L.R. (1839) C. 16...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›