Chennai Court March 1910 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Velayuthan Chetti and ors. Vs. Pillaiyar Chetti and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1910
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.287
1. We think the City Judge is right in holding that the evidence in support of the plaintiff's case is unworthy of credence If Subraya Chetty had been carrying on a lucrative business in partnership with his father-in-law the 1st defendant, there would have been some sort of accounts forthcoming and the 1st plaintiff who lived in the same house would have been able to give some particulars of the alleged business; further it is difficult to believe that Subraya Chetty should have waited till the day he died to settle accounts with his partner or that he should have been in a position in the very last hours of his life to calculate exactly how much he had saved in the course of several years preceding his death without the help of any account book or notes. Nor can we say that the Judge is wrong in not accepting the story regarding Exhibit A, the draft pro-note. We think the reason he gives for not acting upon the evidence of Nagalinga Chetty and Kesvalu are such as naturally occur to o...
G. Narasimhulu Chetti and anr. Vs. K. Sundara Chariar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1910
Reported in: (1910)20MLJ479
Arnold White, Kt., C.J.1. The first question which arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the evidence establishes that Mr. Devarajulu Naidu had authority to sell the house in question on behalf of the defendants-an authority to sell either at the price for which he purported to sell it or the best price that could be obtained or at any proper price. In other words, does the evidence establish that he had a general authority to sell the house without a further reference to his clients or principals on whose behalf he purported to be acting Then there is the further question, which is to a great extent a question of law, as to whether, assuming that the evidence does establish that Mr. Devarajulu Naidu had authority to sell on behalf of certain principals, he had by virtue of that general authority also an authority to receive the purchase money on behalf of the principals so as to bind the principals by that receipt.2. With regard to that second question, I will dispose of ...
Kandaswamy Pillai Vs. Avayambal Alias Thangaohi Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1910
Reported in: (1911)ILR34Mad167
1. The plaintiff was the defendant's agent under a power of attorney, the original of exhibit G, He sues for the recovery of payments made by him for the expenses of certain litigations conducted by him on behalf of the defendant. The last of such payments was on the 6th of March 1901. The suit was instituted on the 4th April 1906. The Courts below have held the suit barred under Article 61 of the Limitation Act. The appellant contends in the first place that Article 116 applies. That relates to suit for a compensation for breach of a contract in writing registered. There is no promise in the power of attorney to pay the plaintiff for advances made by him on account of his principal. Section 222 of the Contract Act provides that the employer of an agent is bound to indemnify him against the consequences of all lawful acts done by such agent in exercise of the authority conferred upon him. Illustrations (a) and (6) to that section show the expenses incurred by the agent on behalf of the...
Kandaswami Pillai Vs. Avayambal Alias Thangachi Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.399; (1910)20MLJ989
1. The plaintiff was the defendant's agent under a power-of-attorney, the original of Exhibit G. He sues for the recovery of payments made by him for the expenses of certain litigations conducted by him, on behalf of the defendant. The last of such payments was on the 6th of March 1901. The suit was instituted on the 4th April 1906. The Courts below have held the suit barred under Article 61 of the Limitation Act. The appellant contends in the first place that Article 116 applies. That relates to a suit for compensation for breach of a contract in writing registered. There is no promise in the power-of-attorney to pay the plaintiff for advances made by him on account of his principal. Section 222 of the Contract Act provides that the employer of an agent is bound to indemnify him against the consequences, of all lawful acts done by such agent in exercise of the authority conferred upon him Illustrations (a) and (b) to that Section show that expenses incurred by the agent on behalf of t...
Kamalathammal Vs. Krishna Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1910
Reported in: (1910)20MLJ781
1. The suit is by the widow of an archaka to recover the office and the lands which appertained to the office from defendants Nos. 1 and 2. The office and the lands were alienated by the plaintiff's husband under Exhibit I in 1893 to the 1st defendant. It is found by the District Judge on appeal that the lands have been in the 1st defendant's possession for mote than 12 years. As regards the office he says possession passed at the same time. He does not, however, find who held possession of the office since 1897.2. The Munsif held that since 1897 the 2nd defendant performed the duties of the office. Mr. Ramachendra Iyer argues, applying Article 124, Schedule II, Indian Limitation Act, that as the 1st defendant enjoyed the emoluments he must be deemed to have held the office as well. This we are unable to agree to. Article 124 deals with a suit for possession of a hereditary office. That means the suit is against the holder of the office. The third column says that the time runs from th...
K.R. Nilakandan Nambudripad and anr. Vs. P.K. Sankaran Nambiar and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1910
Reported in: (1910)20MLJ949
1. The suit is by two Uralers to redeem a kanom. The 1st defendant pleads a renewal by the Uralers. The plaintiffs impeach the validity of the renewal on the ground that the 1st plaintiff was not consulted. But the 1st plaintiff was not an Uralan at the time of the renewal. His karnavan was the Uralan. But the plaintiffs contend that he was a lunatic and that the 1st plaintiff was by operation of law the Uralan in his place. The observations of Subrahmanya Aiyar and Bashyam Iyengar JJ. in Vidhyapurna Tirthaswami v. Vidhyanidhi Tirthaswami I. L. R. (1904) M. 435 are against this view. Lunacy does not divest the estate already vested or the right of management, though it may be a ground for removal of the lunatic from the office of trustee which is hereditary. The 1st plaintiff not being a trustee at the time of the renewal, the renewal cannot be deemed to be invalid because he was not consulted.2. It is now urged for the first time in second appeal that the 2nd plaintiff has not signed ...
The Official Assignee of Madras Vs. U. Krishna Bhatta
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1910
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ127
Miller, J.1. Krishna Bhatta had Rs. 1500 on fixed deposit with Messrs. Arbuthnot and Co. from the 17th October 1905 to the 17th October 1906; no interest should be payable unless the deposit was renewed. He sent up his deposit receipt in due course for repayment of the money but before repayment was made Messrs. Arbuthnot and Co. failed. It is argued on behalf of Krishna Bhatta that from and after the 17th October 1906 the money was held by Messrs. Arbuthnot & Co. in a fiduciary capacity. I am unable to find anything in the contract as disclosed by the evidence to indicate that the relation of banker and customer came to an end on the 17th October 1906. As I understand it, after that date the money remained as a deposit but bearing no interest till renewal, the reason being that the bankers were not willing to pay interest at 5 p.c. on loans repayable by them on demand though they would do so on loans for a fixed term. And I cannot see that the demand for repayment makes any difference...
The Official Assignee of Madras Vs. Melapparangavur Sarvajana Sahaya N ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1910
Reported in: (1911)ILR34Mad125
Miller, J.1. In this case we do not know what were the contents of the letters which accompanied the remittances in May, July and September. But from Exhibit B-2 we find that all the remittances were held by Arbuthnot & Co. in suspense on the claimants account. The question is whether they held them as bankers or not. I take it from the affidavit that negotiations were proceeding as to the final disposal by way of investment with Arbuthnot & Co. of all the remittances, and from exhibit A that the claimant's intention if he could do so on his terms was to place all the money on fixed deposit. There is this difference between this case and Official Assignee of Madras v. Smith (1909) I.L.R. 32 Mad. 68 that in that case there was no question of settling terms. The money was to be placed in fixed deposit as soon as a second remittance was received. But I think this makes no real difference. I cannot accept the arguments for the respondent that the money was not held as money of the bankers ...
The Official Assignee of Madras (and as Such the Assignee of the Prope ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1910
Reported in: (1913)ILR36Mad499
Miller, J.1. This is a somewhat peculiar case. The Madras Railway Company remitted money to Messrs. Arbuthnot & Co., to the credit of the claimant, Rajam Ayyar. Arbuthnot & Co. informed Rajam Ayyar, who was not one of their customers, that this had been done and asked for his instructions. But before be could instruct them they suspended payment. Now it seems to me that m this case the principle enunciated in The Official Assignee of Madras v. Smith I.L.R. (1909) Mad. 68 is not applicable. The Madras Railway clearly did not intend Messrs. Arbuthnot & Co. to use the money as their bankers, and Arbuthnot & Co., it seems to me could not possibly have done so. They were not the bankers of the Railway Company and the money remitted was not an advance to them by the Railway Company; it was money due to and in course of remittance to a third party and Messrs. Arbuthnot & Co. did not treat the money as money lodged with them as bankers. In their letter to Raj am Ayyar they suggest that if he d...
The Official Assignee of Madras Vs. the Society for Promoting Christia ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.240
Miller, J.1. This case is also on all fours with Lupprian's case (L.P. Appeal No. 138.) Here as theie, the bankers promised to buy securities for the customer and failed to do so before they suspended payment, but here as there I find nothing to suggest that the purchase was not to be made out of the funds of the Bank or that any transfer of funds was effected to any kind of trust account.2. I would, therefore, allow the appeal with costs throughout.Munro, J.3. For the reasons given in my judgment in L.P. Appeal No. 138 of 1909. I agree to the proposed order.Abdur Rahim, J.4. I concur....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »