Chennai Court December 1912 Judgments
T.R. Narasimma Murthi Sastri Brought in Place of Ramasami Pillai Vs. A ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1912
Reported in: (1913)24MLJ91
1. This is a suit on a negotiable promissory note executed by the two defendants in the plaintiff's favour payable on demand. The plaintiff obtained a decree against both the defendants in the Munsif's Court and the decree has been confirmed on appeal preferred by the 2nd defendant. The 2nd defendant contested his liability on the ground that although he executed the note as a principal jointly with the 1st defendant it was agreed at the the time of the execution that he should be regarded only as a surety for the 1st defendant for whose sole benefit it was executed and he was relieved from liability inasmuch as the plaintiff gave time to the 1st defendant for payment by receiving interest from him in advance for 5 months and also varied the contract by agreeing to receive the debt from him in small instalments. The Lower Courts have held that this agreement supposing it to be true would not relieve the second defendant from liability expressly contracted by him as principal debtor. It...
Tag this Judgment!Sangamma Naick and ors. Vs. Emperor and
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1912
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.401
ORDERMiller, J.1. There was clear evidence against 1st accused who is dead, and the order against him will not be set aside.2. There is, no doubt, some evidence against some of the other accused persons and perhaps against all, but it is not strong in any case, and I find it impossible to ascertain from the District Magistrate's order what, he considers, is proved as against any particular person.3. The order of the Court of first instance is at least as much lacking in precision. The Magistrate, accepting the prosecution witnesses as trustworthy, says that they depose that all the accused collect in the 1st accused's house and are maintained by him, and to meet other expenses he levied kaval fees. If that is all there is, obviously it is no evidence sufficient to make out any of the charges against any but the 1st accused. There is, however, other evidence of a somewhat vague nature that the 1st accused used the others for purposes of committing crimes and I take it that it is on this...
Tag this Judgment!T.R. Narasimhamurthi Sastry Brought in Place of Ramaswami Pillai Vs. A ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1912
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.696
1. This is a suit on a negotiable promissory-note executed by the two defendants in the plaintiff's favour payable on demand. The plaintiff obtained a decree against both the defendants in the Munsif's Court and the decree has been confirmed on appeal preferred by the 2nd defendant. The 2nd defendant contested his liability on the ground that although he executed the note as a principal jointly with the 1st defendant, it was agreed at the time of the execution that he should be regarded only as a surety for the 1st defendant for whose sole benefit it was executed and he was relieved from liability inasmuch as the plaintiff gave time to the 1st defendant for payment by receiving interest from him in advance for five months and also varied the contract by agreeing to receive the debt from him in small instalments. The lower Courts have held that this agreement, supposing it to be true, would not relieve the 2nd defendant from liability expressly contracted by him as principal debtor. It ...
Tag this Judgment!Kuppusamy Aiyar Vs. Regmah Boi Ammani and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1912
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.730; (1913)24MLJ190
1. A preliminary decree was passed on the 15th January 1910 in a suit by a mortgagee declaring the amount payable to him and in default of payment directing the sale of the mortgaged property. The appellant filed an appeal on the 27th June against that decree. On the 15th August, before that appeal was heard, the final decree for sale was passed and the Subordinate Judge has held, following certain Calcutta and Allahabad decisions, Mackenzie v. Narasingh Sahai 10 C.L.J. 113 Kuria Mal v. Bishambar Das 7 A.L.J. 210 and Narain Das v. Balgobind 8 A.L.J. 604 that the defendant not having appealed against the final decree, his appeal from this preliminary decree is not sustainable. This is an appeal from that decision. The appellant relies upon the decisions in Lakshmi v. Maru Devi 21 M.L.J. 1063 and Ramien v. Veerappudian 22 M.L.J. 217. In addition to the cases cited, the first respondent's Pleader also relies upon the case of Akhtar Husain Khan v. Tasaduk Husain 10 A.L.J. 19. It is not den...
Tag this Judgment!Oraivukandiyil Parkum Elavana Tholan and anr. Vs. Palankandi Kunhikutt ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1912
Reported in: (1913)24MLJ93
1. Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 are the petitioners before us. The suit was brought by the plaintiffs for recovery of lands leased to the Defendant's Karnavan. The defendants claimed the value of improvements. The lease was made in 1885, that is before the first Malabar Tenants Improvements Act came into force in January 1886. The Marupat provided for certain rates of compensation to be paid in respect of cocoanut trees, areca, jack trees and pepper vines to be planted by the tenants. The Munsif following the Full Bench case of Randipurayil Kunhisore v. Narothi Kunhi Kannnan I.L.R. (1907) M. 1 held that the contract between the parties governed the rate of compensation to be allowed to the defendants and decreed compensation according to the rates provided for in the marupat, Exhibitit A. His judgment was pronounced on the 28th October 1910. After he pronounced judgment there was reported Sriman Vikraman v. Ananda Patter I.L.R. (1910) M. 61, the decision of a Division Bench of this Court wh...
Tag this Judgment!Mannava Annapurnamma, Legal Representative of Mannava Chelamarazu (Dec ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1912
Reported in: 19Ind.Cas.12; (1913)24MLJ333
ORDER1. The promissory note, Exhibit (B), was executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the two plaintiffs described therein as minors and the 2nd defendant who was not a minor. The suit was brought by the two plaintiffs, one of whom the 2nd plaintiff is even now a minor. The question for decision is whether the suit is barred by limitation. It is contended on behalf of the 1st defendant that the 2nd defendant was entitled to receive the amount due under the pro-note and give a full discharge of the entire debt without the concurrence of the two plaintiffs and time therefore ran against all the plaintiffs who were not accordingly entitled to any extension of time under section 7 of the Limitation Act. In support of this contention, the decision in Barber Maran v. Ramana Goundan I.L.R. (1897) M. 461, is relied upon. In that case, it was held that a payment made to one of two persons jointly entitled under a mortgage bond, who was not an agent of the other, is a valid discharge of the e...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Raja Venkata Rangayya Appa Rao Bahadur, Zamindar of Kapilaswarapur ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1912
Reported in: 19Ind.Cas.227; (1913)24MLJ680
1. The appellant is one of the Nuzvid Zamindars whose judicial history will be found in Raja Venkata Bow v. Court of WardsI.L.R. (1878) M. 128 and Sri Raja Venkatanarasimha Appa Row v. Sri Baja Rang ay ya Appa Bow, and othersI.L.R. (1905)M. 437. The Zamindar alleged that the defendant, the Secretary of State, constructed in 1863 the Ellore canal to carry the anicut water through the Zamindari and thereby obstructed the flow of water into one of his tanks Voddu cheruva from his other three tanks, and since that time, the Government have been supplying him with water free of charge for the cultivation of his lands about 507 acres 14 cents, which depended on these tanks for their irrigation from 1889 they allowed supply free of charge only for 427 acres, 91 cents, and on his appeal from such redaction it was still further reduced to 202 acres 67 cents. He prays for declaration of his right to the supply of water as before and for certain reliefs consequential on such declaration. The Gove...
Tag this Judgment!Doraisami Sirumadan and anr. Vs. Nondisami Saluvan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1912
Reported in: (1913)25MLJ312
Arnold White, C.J.1. I have read the judgment of Sankaran Nair J. and I agree. The Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed with costs.Sankaran Nair, J.2. The properties in suit belonged to the plaintiff's father who died in 1895. The plaintiffs are his only heirs and during their minority their mother as their guardian sold the properties to the defendants. The plaintiffs now seek to recover possession of them. The instrument of sale was executed in November 1895. At the date of the institution of the suit the 1st plaintiff was 23 years old and the 2nd plaintiff 20. The plaintiff's case is that the suit is not barred by limitation as it was brought within 3 years of the 2nd plaintiff's attaining majority and as the 1st plaintiff could not give a valid discharge without the concurrence of the 2nd plaintiff. Both the lower courts dismissed the suit on the ground that it was barred by limitation following the decision in Vigneswar v. Bapayya I.L.R. (1892) M. 436 The learned Judges of this cour...
Tag this Judgment!Doraisami Serumadan and anr. Vs. Nondisami Saluvan and Four ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1912
Reported in: (1915)ILR38Mad118
White, C.J.1. I have read the judgment of Sankaran Nair, J., White, C.J. and I agree.2. The Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed with costs.Sankaran Nair, J.3. The properties in suit belonged to the plaintiffs' father who died in 1895. The plaintiffs are his only heirs and during their minority their mother as their guardian sold the properties to the defendants. The plaintiffs now seek to recover possession of them. The instrument of sale was executed in November 1895. At the date of the institution of the suit the first plaintiff was 23 years old and the second plaintiff 20. The plaintiffs' case is that the suit is not barred by limitation as it was brought within three years of the second plaintiff's attaining majority and as the first plaintiff could not give a valid discharge without the concurrence of the second plaintiff. Both the lower Courts dismissed the suit on the ground that it was barred by limitation following the decision in Vigneswara v. Bapayya (1893) 16 Mad. 436. The l...
Tag this Judgment!M. Annapurnamma [Legal Representative of M. Chelamarazu] Vs. U. Akkayy ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1912
Reported in: (1913)ILR36Mad544
Charles Arnold White, C.J.1. The question raised in the Order of Reference was considered by this Court in the judgment to which I was a party in the case of Ramasami v. Muniyandi : (1910)20MLJ709 . I adhere to the view expressed in that judgment. Section 38 of the Contract Act provides that, where the promisor has made an offer of performance and the offer has been refused, the promisor is not responsible for non-performance. The last paragraph of the section provides that an offer to one of several joint-promisees has the same legal consequences as an offer to all of them. It provides in effect that all the joint-promisees get the benefit of the legal consequences, whatever those consequences may be, of an offer, or a tender, to one of them. The section does not deal with the legal consequences of an accepted tender, or of an accepted offer of performance, but with the legal consequences where a tender or offer has been made and the tender or offer has not been accepted. No doubt the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »