Chennai Court February 1909 Judgments
Pasupaleti Achayemma Vs. Pabbamidi Papamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.850
1. We accept the finding, on this day for final of the Courts below and direct execution to proceed as prayed for in the execution application. The appellant will have her costs throughout....
Tag this Judgment!Yerukola Alias Penta Jogiah Vs. Mudiya Kamudu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.34
Abdur Rahim, J.1. I think the suit has been rightly dismissed as against the tenants, defendants Nos. 1 to 8, who have paid the rent claimed from them to defendant No. 9. to whom they executed Muchilika for Fasli 1310 as manager of the family which was joint at the time.2. But the Munsif was not right in dismissing the suit against defendants Nos. 9 and 10, the other members of the plaintiff's family which had been once joint but was divided when this action was instituted, on the ground that there has been misjoinder of causes of action and parties in claiming the relief sought against them in the same suit as against defendants Nos. 1 to 8, though the two claims are laid in the alternative. In my opinion, Section 28, Civil Procedure Code(Act XIV of 1882), is a sufficient answer to this objection and I am supported in this view by the principle of the decisions in Aiyathurai Ravuthan v. Santhu Meera Ravuthan 18 M.L.J. 238 Madan Mohun Lal v. Holloway 12 C.n 555 and Sham Singh v. Kishun...
Tag this Judgment!Nyapati Ranganadham Pantulu Vs. Nyapati Balarama Doss
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.1121a
1. The 1st plaintiff and his brother sold certain property to the first defendant. The 1st defendant instead of paying the consideration to the vendors agreed to pay the consideration to a creditor of the vendors. This agreement was in 1899. Up to 1902, the first defendant had not paid the creditor. The creditor brought a suit in 1902 and got a decree against the plaintiff. The plaintiff now sues to recover the consideration with interest. The question is whether the suit is maintainable; and on the facts above stated we are clearly of opinion that it is. The case is in essential on all fours with the case of Dorasinga, Tevar v. Arunachalam Chetti 23 M.k 441. We, therefore, dismiss this appeal with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Kuppusami Mudaliar Vs. Doraisami Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.1125
1. We are of opinion that the time was not of the essence of the stipulation that the bonds and decree should be transferred to the 1st plaintiff. We do not think that the mere fact that the first defendant was either to transfer the bonds, etc., in two months or pay the amounts due under them; shows that time was the essence of the contract. The cases to which we have been referred are cases of mercantile contracts in which prima facie time is of the essence of the contract. If the first defendant has, in fact, executed and produced in Court the necessary transfers as he alleges, we think the transfer should be accepted.2. We, therefore, reverse the order of the district Judge and remand the petition for disposal according to law. Costs will abide the event....
Tag this Judgment!Abbakke Vs. B. Krishnayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.1120
1. We think the order of the District Judge is right and that the decisions in Musaheb Zaman Khan v. Inayat-ul-lah 14 A.k 513 and Chandi Charan Roy Choudhri v. Ambika Charan Dutt 31 C.j 792 do not support the proposition which the appellant must establish if he wishes to succeed. Those cases do not lay down that where the question of personal liability of a mortgagor or his assignee was originally put directly in issue at the trial of the action and expressly adjudicated upon and negatived and the decree which is in accordance with such adjudication is allowed to stand as final, even in such a case the decree-holder finding the sale-proceeds of the mortgaged property to be insufficient to satisfy his dues can apply tinder Section 90, Transfer of Property Act, for an order for the sale of the property of the person whose personal liability for the debt he sought to establish in the suit but failed. We think the re opening of the question would be clearly barred under the above circumsta...
Tag this Judgment!Nayapati Ranganadham Pantulu Vs. Praguda Appala Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.621a
1. The 1st plaintiff and his brother sold certain property to 1st defendant. The 1st defendant instead of paying the consideration to the vendors agreed to pay the consideration to a creditor of the vendors. This agreement was in 1899. Up to 1902 the 1st defendant had not paid the creditor. The creditor brought a suit in 1902 and got a decree against the plaintiff. The plaintiff now sues to recover the consideration with interest. The question is whether the suit is maintainable, and on the facts above stated we are clearly of opinion that it is. The case is in essentials on all fours with the case of Dorasinga Tevar v. Arunacheam Chetti 23 M.k 441. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Arumuga Mudaliar Vs. Yogammal Boiammani Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.1126a
1. The case falls prima facie under Section 99 of the Transfer of Property Act, and no authority has been quoted in support of the proposition that the section does not apply when there is more than one mortgage.2. As to the argument that the sale has actually taken place and that there must be an application or suit to set the sale aside, we observe that the sale was only held on the condition that its confirmation depended upon the view taken by the District Judge. It was understood that the sale would be a nullity if the District Judge held that a sale was improper.3. The appeal is dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Subbaraya Rowthu Minda Nainar and Muthukumarasawmy Vs. Kuppusawmy Aiya ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1909
Reported in: (1911)ILR34Mad442
Arnold White, C.J.1. I agree with the conclusion at which my learned brother has arrived in his judgment, which I have had the advantage of reading.2. It seems to me, however, that the order of the Subordinate Judge may be supported on this short ground. The Nadara mortgaged to the respondents their mortgage interest under the decree which they (the Nadars) had obtained against the appellants. For the purpose of realizing their security the respondents brought a suit on the mortgage to them of the Nadars' mortgage interest in the mortgaged property. This mortgage interest under the decree obtained by the Nadars includes the right to sell the property in default of payment, It seems to me no order for the sale of the decree obtained by the Nadars against the appellants was necessary in order to enable the respondents to execute the decree which they had obtained and I do not think that either Section 273 of the Code of Civil Procedure or Section 184 of the Civil Rules of Practice applie...
Tag this Judgment!Muthu Karuppa Kothan Vs. A. Sitha Viriyan Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.644
1. The lower Courts have held that the present suit for possession is barred by the suit which was previously instituted by the same plaintiffs for mesne profits. Following the decisions in Gutta Saramma v. Maganti Raminedu 31 M.k 405, and Tirupati v. Narasimha 11 M.k 210, we are of opinion that the suit is not barred. It is unnecessary to decide whether there is any conflict between the decision in Tirupati v. Narasimha 11 M.k 210 and that in Venkoba v. Subbanna 11 M.k 151. The right to mesne profits may exist without any right to possession, and the cause of action sued on need not necessarily be one and the same. We set aside the decrees of the Courts be low, direct the Munsif to restore the suit to his file and proceed to dispose of it according to law. Costs will abide the result....
Tag this Judgment!Madurai Mudaly Vs. Masilamani Gramani
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.1124a
Munro, J.1. The suit lease was an agricultural lease and the Transfer of Property Act has no application. The case is, therefore, governed by Turuf Sahib v. Esuf Sahib 2 M.L.T. 270. The petition is dismissed with costs. ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »