Chennai Court November 1910 Judgments
Thaith Ottathil Kutte Ammu Vs. Purushotam Doss Raggi Seth
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-1910
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ526
1. The suit is upon a pro-note which is executed by the 1st defendant in his name. The 2nd defendant is sought to be made liable on the ground that he was a partner with the 1st defendant and that the debt was borrowed for the purpose of the partnership. The District Judge has given a decree against both the defendants. But we are unable to agree with him as regards the liability of the 2nd defendant. It is a well known rule of law that in the case of a negotiable instrument, the signature of one person in his own name cannot justify a decree against another person although the debt might have been borrowed for the benefit of both or although both the persons might have been trading in partnership and the debt was borrowed for the purpose of the partnership. The decisions to which our attention has been drawn by Mr. Rosario - Somasundaram v. Krishnamurthi (1907) 17 M.L.J. 126 and Subba Narayana Vathiar v. Ramasami Iyer I. L. R. (1906) M. 88 - are clear authorities in support of this po...
Tag this Judgment!Ramaswami Chetty Vs. Ponna Padayachi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-1910
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ397
Abdur Rahim, J.1. This appeal is by the 12th defendant in a suit, the object, of which was to have it declared that certain lands (marked Nos. 3 and 4 on the plan) belong to the plaintiff and were not liable to be sold in execution of a decree obtained by the 12th defendant against the 1st defendant in Original Suit No. 292 of 1898 on a simple mortgage bond executed by the latter in favour of the former in 1890. The Munsif found, on the question of the plaintiff's title, that the lands which were originally the joint property of the 1st and 8th defendants and their two brothers, Chinnathambi and Muthukaunu, fell to the share of the two latter at a partition effected between them about 24 years before the institution of the suit and long prior to the mortgage by the 1st defendant to the 12th defendant. The District Judge's finding on this point, such as it is, cannot be said to be satisfactory, but he has dismissed the appeal preferred by the 12th defendant against the decree of the Mun...
Tag this Judgment!Ramasami Chetti Vs. Ponna Padayachi and Fifteen ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-1910
Reported in: (1913)ILR36Mad97
Abdur Rahim, J.1. This appeal is by the 12th defendant in a suit, the object of which was to have it declared that certain lands (marked 3 and 4 on the plan) belong to the plaintiffs and were not liable to be sold in execution of a decree obtained by the 12th defendant, against the 1st; defendant in Original Suit No. 292 of 1898 on a simple mortgage bond executed by the latter in favour of the former in 1890, The Munsif found, on the question of the plaintiffs' title, that the lands, which were originally the joint property of the 1st and 8th defendants and their two brothers, Chinnatambi and Muthukannu, fell to the share of the two latter at a partition effected between them about 24 years before the institution of the suit and long prior to the mortgage by the 1st defendant to the 12th defendant. The District Judge's finding on this point, such as it is, cannot be said to be satisfactory, but he has dismissed the appeal preferred by the 12th defendant against the decree of the Munsif...
Tag this Judgment!Ramasawmi Chetti Vs. Ponna Padayachi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-1910
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.28
Abdur Rahim, J.1. This appeal is by the 12th defendant in a suit, the object of which was to have it declared that certain lands (marked Nos. 3 and 4 on the plan) belong to the plaintiffs and were not liable to be sold in execution of a decree obtained by the 12th defendant against the 1st defendant in Original Suit No. 232 of 1898 on a simple mortgage bond executed by the latter in favour of the former in 1890. The Munsif found, on the question of the plaintiff's title, that the lands, which were originally the joint property of the 1st and 8th defendants and their two brothers, Chinnathambi and Muthukannu, fell to the share of the two latter at a partition effected between them about 24 years before the institution of the suit and long prior to the mortgage by the 1st defendant to the 12th defendant. The District Judge's finding on this point, such as it is, cannot be said to be satisfactory, but he has dismissed the appeal preferred by the 12th defendant against the decree of the Mu...
Tag this Judgment!Dwarka Doss Govardhana Doss and anr. Vs. Chirakala Krishnaiya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1910
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ457
1. The liability of the principal debtor in this case arises in respect of each loan on the date of the loan. Article 57 of the second schedule to the Indian Limitation Act XV of 1877 would clearly apply if the suit were brought against him on the footing of the loan. It cannot apply to the suit against the surety. He becomes liable on his contract of guarantee and not by the mere fact of the loan. It extends to each loan as soon as it is made and he is liable to be proceeded against as soon as default is made by the principal debtor. The default occurred at once. Time runs as against the surety from each date of default which is the date of each loan. We hold that Article 65 of the second schedule to Act XV of 1877 applies and that the suit is barred under that article. We answer the questions accordingly....
Tag this Judgment!Dwarkadoss Govardhana Doss and anr. Vs. Chivakala Krishnaiya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1910
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.204
1. The liability of the principal debtor in this case arises in respect of each loan on the date of the loan. Article 57 of the second Schedule to the Indian Limitation Act, XV of 1877, would clearly apply if the suit were brought against him on the footing of the loan. It cannot apply to the suit against the surety. He becomes liable on his contract of guarantee and not by the mere fact of the loan. It extends to each loan as soon as it is made and he is liable to be proceeded against as soon as default is made by the principal debtor. The default occurred at once. Time runs against the surety from each date of default which is the date of each loan. We hold that Article 65 of the second Schedule to Act XV of 1877 applies and that the suit is barred under that article. We answer the questions accordingly....
Tag this Judgment!Subramania Pillai and anr. Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Cou ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1910
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ132
1 The plaintiffs in the suit opt of which these appeals arise are the trustses of the Kuthalanathaswami temple of Courtallam, the defendant being the Secrtary of State for India. The plaintiffs sue to establish their title to about three acres of land lying immediately to the south of what are admittedly the temple premises, demarcated as S. No. 482 of Courtallum village. The land sued for is valueless for cultivation purposes but its importance lies in the fact that it contains the famous Courtallum water-fall and bathing pool, and sundry mantapams and sacred sites adjacent thereto. The plaintiff claim the site in virtue of immemorial possession as part of the temple precincts and also by adverse possession for more than the statutory period. The defendant denies that there has been any exclusive or adverse possession of any portion of the disputed site on the part of the plaintiffs, and further pleads that by virtue of its inclusion in block No. Ill of the Tenkasi reserved forest in ...
Tag this Judgment!Karunakara Menon and ors. Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Coun ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1910
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ407
1. The plaintiff obtained a decree for possession of the suit land against Marakarut Veerankutty's son Cheriya on the basis of a Kanom Kychit. When she attempted to take possession, she was resisted by the village officials on behalf of the Government. She then put in M.P. No. 150 of 1906 making the Secretary of State for India the counter-petitioner and asked that the property might be put in her possession, removing the obstruction of the counter-petitioner. The District Munsif, holding that there was evidence that the Government was in possession, directed under Section 331 of the Code of Civil Procedure that the claim should be numbered and registered as a suit between the decree-holder as plaintiff and the Government as defendant. The written statement put in on behalf of the defendant alleged that the land in dispute was a portion of a public Thodu belonging to Government which was filled up and converted into paddy land, that the land was assessed and a pattah granted in Fasli 1...
Tag this Judgment!Gorakala Kanakayya Vs. Janardhana Padbi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-1910
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ31
Charles Arnold White, Kt., C.J.1. The question which has been is referred to us is 'where an appeal from a decree in ejectment passed under the old law is heard after the date of the commencement of Madras Act I of 1908, the defendant being a ryot in possession of ryoti land on such date, is he entitled to claim a right of occupancy under Section 6, Clause (1) of the Act notwithstanding the original decree?' The question really resolves itself into a very narrow one - the meaning of 'final decree' in Section 3(7) of the Act. It is of course perfectly clear that the word 'now' in Section 6(1) refers to the date of the commencement of the Act. Under Section 6(1) a ryot who at the date of the commencement of the Act is in possession of ryoti land which is not old waste has a permanent right of occupancy. 'Old waste' is defined in Section 3(7). By the last paragraph of this sub-section a technical meaning is given to 'old waste' as including ryoti land in respect of which before the passin...
Tag this Judgment!Kunmetta Chinnarappa Vs. Kona Thimma Reddi, a Second Grade Pleader of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1910
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ559
Charles Arnold White, Kt., C.J.1. In this case certain charges of misconduct were preferred under the legal Practitioners Act, 1879, against one Kona Thimma Reddi, a Second Grade Pleader of Gooty.2. The matter came before us on a report by the District Judge under Section 14 of the Act.3. Before this Court the pleader was called upon to answer the charges:(1) A charge of trading in the name of his minor son for his own benefit.(2) A charge founded upon an order made by the Deputy Magistrate, Gooty, directing the pleader to furnish security under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.3. As regards the 3rd charge the order to furnish security was set aside by the District Magistrate. In these circumstances I an not prepared to say that any case of misconduct has been made out against the pleader in respect of this charge.4. As regards the 2nd charge, I am of opinion that the evidence does not establish that the circumstances connected with the institution and conduct of the crimi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »