Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1911)21MLJ462
1. This is an appeal from the judgment of Krishnaswami Aiyar J. in C.R.P. No. 742 of 1908 in which the learned Judge confirmed the judgment of the District Munsif of Bezwada who dismissed the plaintiff's suit to recover the amount due to the plaintiff for the balance of purchase money due to him from the defendant for the sale of certain land. The plaintiff received from the defendant on the date of the sale an unstamped document which has been held by both the Munsif and by the learned judge to be a promissory note, and as the document could not consequently be acted on, the learned judge held that the suit was rightly dismissed, It is contended in this appeal that as the transaction of sale itself gave the plaintiff a complete cause of action he is entitled to a decree for the amount, apart from the promissory note. It is no doubt true that the sale entitled the plaintiff to the payment of the balance of purchase money, and the law gave him also a lien on the property for the amount....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1911)21MLJ508
1. The suit from which this appeal was preferred was instituted by the plaintiff as the manager of an undivided Hindu family to enforce payment of the amount due on a mortgage bond executed by defendants Nos. 1 to 15. The 16th defendant in whose name the bond stood is the eldest of the three sons of the plaintiff, and was brought in as a party on account of the plea of defendants Nos. 1 to 15 that the debt was due to him alone and not to his family. They also pleaded that they had paid to the 16th defendant, prior to the suit, a sum of Rs. 650 towards the interest due on the bond, and that, subsequent to the suit, they deposited the total amount due on the bond with the South Indian Bank, which amount the 16th defendant was at liberty to draw on executing a bond to indemnify them against any claims that might be made by the other members of his family. The 16th defendant also claimed the debt as his own and set up that the family became divided on the 17th December 1904. The Subordinat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1911)21MLJ585
1. In this case the plaintiffs and defendants Nos. 2 to 5 belonged to two houses, Pattanur Edam and Kiloth, and instituted the suit to recover certain lands from the 1st defendant and defendants Nos. 3 to 18.2. The two houses above mentioned and another house called Nayarkandi were divided branches of a tarwad Pattanur Yelangeri Edam. The Nayarkandi branch became extinct, according to the plaintiff, in 1898. The contesting defendants claimed the lands under a kanom from the Nayarkandi tarwad in 1893 and a sale which followed it in 1898, their case being that the properties belonged exclusively to their vendors. The plaintiffs' case, as stated in the plaint was that the lands claimed in the suit belonged to five temples whose names are given in paragraph No. 3 in the plaint. The temples themselves, it is stated, belonged to the Velangeri Edam tarwad. The plaint alleges that these lands being indivisible, it was agreed, at the partition of the original tarwad into three branches mentione...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1911)21MLJ460
1. In this case the District Munsif in his decree in O.S. No. 1116 of 1907 granted Rs. 100 to the defendant against the plaintiff as compensation for improper attachment of the defendant's moveable property before judgment. The plaintiff in his appeal against the decree objected to any compensation being awarded. The lower appellate court held that no appeal lay against the award of compensation, relying on the decision in Narasinga Bhakshi v. Govinda Bhakshi I.L.R. (1902) M. 62, and the learned judge, from whose judgment this appeal is preferred, affirmed that view. In our opinion the decision in Narasinga Bhakshi v. Govinda Bhakshi I.L.R. (1902) M. 62 is distinguishable from this case. There the appeal was one objecting to the amount awarded as compensation by the party to whom it was awarded, and the contention was that a larger amount should have been awarded. The appeal, therefore, was not against an award of compensation contained in the decree. In the present case, on the other ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1912)ILR35Mad578; 17Ind.Cas.233
1. The suit in this case was instituted by a Receiver appointed by the Subordinate Court of Negapatam in execution of the decree in Small Cause Suit No. 1210 of 1904 of that Court. The object of the suit was to recover certain goods, which were attached in execution of this small cause decree and of which the plaintiff was appointed Receiver, or the value of the goods. The application for the appointment of a Receiver was made on the 19th August 1907, (Exhibit D) and the order of appointment (Exhibit H) was passed on the 18th September 1907. The defendant was the purchaser of the goods from the judgment-debtor under a sale-deed, dated the 12th September 1904. He contended, inter alia, that the plaintiff had no authority to institute the suit as the order sanctioning the appointment of the Receiver was passed only on the 13th of September 1907, after the institution of the suit by the District Court of Tanjore, that the suit was barred by Section 241 of the Civil Procedure Code, and tha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 16Ind.Cas.626
1. In finding that the streets and sites are not the property of the temple. the District Judge, while discrediting the plaintiffs evidence, had not referred to evidence on the side of the defendants which shows that certain acts which may be evidence of ownership, had been done by the Dharmakartas of the Temple from time to time. It is necessary that this evidence should be considered.2. Again, if the property in the sub-soil of the streets is found to be in the temple, it is still possible that the streets are public streets; if they have been used by the public for the purpose of passing and repassing, that may be sufficient to raise the presumption of dedication of the street to the public for use as a highway. This aspect of the case has not been considered by either Court though it is necessary to consider it in deciding the 2nd issue.3. If it be decided that the streets are public streets, it is further necessary to decide whether the plaintiff by 30 years' possession has acquir...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1911)21MLJ439
1. We are unable to agree with the Magistrate that the accused in this case was justified in refusing to allow the 1st prosecution witness to leave the depot without the permission of Messrs. Binny & Co. No doubt the story told by the 1st prosecution witness as to the circumstances under which he went to the depot in the evening and remained there until nearly noon on the next day is one that cannot be believed.2. We think that he either was, or pretended to be, an intending emigrant, and went to the depot and was there treated as such, receiving meals and an advance of money. But these facts did not confer on Messers. Binny & Co., or their watchman, the accused, any power to prevent him from leaving the depot when he desired to do so. The accused was therefore guilty of wrongful restraint, but under extenuating circumstances as he, no doubt, thought he was justified by the orders of Messrs. Binny & Co., in refusing to let the 1st prosecution witness leave without the firm's permission...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 15Ind.Cas.688
1. We think that the facts found by the lower Court are that the sale in dispute was effected mostly for raising money to discharge family debts, the comparatively small balance being required to conveniently adjust the shares in a contemplated family partition which took place two days afterwards. We think that, in this state of the facts, the latter- object was also come under the expression 'family necessity' which would justify a sale by the managing member.2. We think the lower Appellate Court's conclusion is, therefore, correct and we dismiss the second appeal with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1911)21MLJ434
1. The 1st defendant, Mannarghat Nair, had in his possession the elephants - both tuskers - of the plaintiff and of defendants Nos. 5 to 14 (who represent the Mankada Kovilagam) which he had obtained from them for processional purposes in a temple. The Mankada elephant gored the plaintiff's elephant to death. The plaintiff brought this suit for damages. The Subordinate Judge found that the Mankada elephant was known by the defendants to be vicious and accordingly awarded damages against the 1st defendant and the Mankada Kovilagam. In appeal the Judge, Mr. Munro, held that the Mankada elephant is an animal ferae naturae and that it was therefore unnecessary to consider whether it was vicious or there was any negligence, and confirmed the decree of the Subordinate Judge.2. It is contended in appeal that this finding is not correct in law and in the absence of any negligence or knowledge on the part of the defendants of the vicious nature of the elephant, if it is vicious the defendants a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1912)ILR35Mad588
Abdur Rahim, J.1. The petitioner is the decree-holder in Original Suit No. 87 of 1908 on the file of the Principal District Munsif of Salem, Property of the judgment-debtors was attached in execution of another decree against them in Original Suit No. 35 of 1906 on the file of the District Court of Salem. It was sold by the District Court in execution of that decree. The purchaser made the deposit on the 11th September 1909 and the balance of the purchase money was paid into Court on the 29th September 1909. It must be taken having regard to the decision in Ramanathan Chettiar v. Subramania Sastrial I.L.R. (1908) Mad. 179, that the assets wore realised only on the 29th of September 1909 within the meaning of Section 295 of the old Code. There is no doubt a change in the corresponding provision of Section 73 of the present Code. But so far as the question before me is concerned the change in the language is immaterial. The purchase money becomes the asset of the judgment- debtor only wh...
Tag this Judgment!