Chennai Court November 1913 Judgments
Malaya Pillai Nadan Vs. Venganan Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-1913
Reported in: AIR1914Mad100(1); 24Ind.Cas.764
Miller, J1. It is contended that this is a suit for an account and so not cognisable by a Small Cause Court. On the plaint the suit is not a suit for an account : but it has not been decided on the allegation in the plaint but on admission made by the defendant in the trial.2. The defendant admitted that he received 45 bags of chillies weighing 189 maunds and sold on the plaintiffs' behalf 39 bags containing 177 maunds and alleged that the diminution was due to drying. Even if the suit be taken to ho based on a claim for the price of 12 Maunds not remitted to the plaintiffs, it will not be a suit for an account.3. The claim was, therefore, cognizable by the Small Cause Court and on the admission of the defendant that less was sold than was delivered for sale, he had to show how he had disposed of the balance and the Subordinate Judge has disbelieved his explanation.4. I cannot interfere under Section 25 of the Small Cause Courts Act and I dismiss the petition with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Nallaboltu Bodi Naidu Alias Venkatappa Vs. Chengama Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-1913
Reported in: AIR1914Mad640(2); (1914)26MLJ9
1. So far as the rule at page 53 of the Civil Courts Guide made under Section 392 of the old Code of Civil Procedure requires the sanction of the District Judge for an inspection, it is clearly opposed to Order 18 Rule 18 of the present Code which makes inspection purely a matter of discretion of the Court. The rule seems to apply only to cases where both parties agree to the inspection and seems, to make no provision for payment of expenses in other cases or either to prohibit the payment of expenses in other cases, J, But it is open to the District Munsif, if he so desires, to make the inspection without charges and the District Judge's sanction is not required for that purpose. It is perhaps not necessary that I should set aside his order refusing to inspect, because that order will not prevent him from acceding to another application if one is made. But it is necessary to point out that as the law now stands the District Judge's sanction to make an inspection is not required and th...
Tag this Judgment!Ramanathan Chetty and ors. Minor by Guardian Alagammai Achi Vs. Kasi V ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-1913
Reported in: (1914)26MLJ275
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The facts have been set out in the judgment of my learned brother and it is unnecessary for me to repeat them. The petition put in by the 1st defendant's sons to set aside the Court auction sale is filed by them not on the ground that they are also parties to the decree (in which the sale was held), as represented by their father the 1st defendant, but as independent persons who owned shares in the property sold and who are entitled in consequence to file a petition under Order XXI, Rule 90 (old Section 311) to set aside the sale on the ground of material irregularity and consequent substantial injury. I agree with the lower Court in its conclusion that there was no material irregularity in publishing and conducting the sale except that the sale was conducted and concluded after the High Court's order of stay which is, of course a very material irregularity. No substantial injury is proved to have been caused by any such material irregularity. The property was esti...
Tag this Judgment!Ramanathan Chetty and Five ors. Vs. Arunachellam Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-1913
Reported in: AIR1914Mad261; (1915)ILR38Mad766
Sadasiva Ayyar, J.1. The facts have been set out in the judgment of my learned brother, and it is unnecessary for me Civil Miscellaneous Appeals Nos. 210 and 211 of 1911. to repeat them. The petition put in by the first defendant's sons to set aside the Court auction sale is filed by them not on the ground that they are also parties to the decree (in which the sale was held) as represented by their father, the first defendant, but as independent persons who owned shares in the property A sold and who are entitled in consequence to file a petition under Order XXI, Rule 90 (old, Section 311) to set aside the sale on the ground of material irregularity and consequent substantial injury. I agree with the Lower Court in its conclusion that there was no material irregularity in publishing and conducting the sale except that the sale was conducted and concluded after the High Court's order of stay (which is of course a very material irregularity). No substantial injury is proved to have been ...
Tag this Judgment!T.M. Ramaswamy Iyer Vs. G. Anapa Thia Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-1913
Reported in: 24Ind.Cas.709
Spencer, J1. We are not prepared to hold that the Subordinate Judge was not aware of the law as to burden of proof or of the legal presumptions, enacted in Section 118, clauses (a) and (g), of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, when he came to his conclusions, on the evidence let in on both sides, that Exhibit A was not supported by consideration and that the plaintiff was not a holder in due course.2. It is usually almost impossible to prove by direct evidence that a holder is not a holder in due course, and it is Only by the probabilities and the circumstances, the mutual positions of the plaintiff and the defendant and by the demeanour, of the witnesses who speak to the consideration for the endorsement to the holder, that a Court could arrive at a conclusion on that question of fact after, of course, giving due weight to the legal presumptions arising in the case.3. We think that this Court cannot interfere on a finding of fact simply because that finding rests on no positive ev...
Tag this Judgment!Saminatha Pillai Vs. Krishna Ayyar and Two ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1913
Reported in: (1915)ILR38Mad548
1. The plaintiff sues to recover the money due under a mortgage instrument executed by the first defendant in 1905. The amount was advanced to discharge a mortgage debt of Rs. 400 due to one Sivasami Sivan under a mortgage dated November 1901. The finding is that the mortgagor discharged that mortgage by paying the creditor Rs. 300 out of the amount received from the plaintiff and by the execution of a promissory note for Rs. 50, the balance Rs. 50 having been given up by the mortgagee.2. The appellant claims under a mortgage dated October 1903,. and contends that the plaintiff is not entitled to any priority on account of his discharge of the prior mortgage. His contention has been disallowed by the Lower Courts.3. It is argued before us in Second Appeal that though the entire mortgage debt has been discharged, as only Rs. 300 a portion of the mortgage debt was paid out of the money advanced by the plaintiff, and the balance Rs. 50 was paid by the mortgagor himself, he cannot claim a ...
Tag this Judgment!Chennama Shettit and ors. Vs. Krishnayya Setti and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1913
Reported in: 30Ind.Cas.832
1. The memorandum of objections was presented on the 16th March, the plaintiffs having been served with notice on the 13th February. The principle applicable to the calculation of the time, one month allowed by Order XLI, Rule 22, is that it shall be taken to extend up to and including the day before the corresponding date of the next month and we have not been shown authority for any special rule as regards February--March. Although, therefore, the 15th March was Sunday, the memorandum was presented out of time and must be dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!K. Seetharam Naidu and ors. Vs. K. Balakrishna Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1913
Reported in: AIR1914Mad388; 22Ind.Cas.638; (1914)26MLJ604
Wallis, J.1. This is a suit brought by the plaintiffs who are the sons of the 1st defendant to set aside alienations made by the 1st defendant and for partition. The properties in question are alleged by the plaintiff to have descended to the 1st defendant Balakrishna from his father Venkatasawmy. Venkatasawmy was the son of one Gantalamma, who according to the defendants, was a dancing woman and the evidence is that the whole family were known as Gantala people, that is to say, as descendants. One of the chief alienations attacked is a partition deed, Exhibit C,' entered into in 1893, shortly after Venkatasawmy's death between the 1st defendant and his sisters through whom some of the alienee-defendants claim. That deed shows that the 1st defendant Balakrishna and his sisters who according to the undisputed evidence, still continue to follow the profession of dancing women were all residing together in one house; and it recites that this woman Gantalamma, Venkatasawmy's mother, had ef...
Tag this Judgment!Annasami Sastrial and Four ors. Vs. A.S. Ramasami Sastrial and Two ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1913
Reported in: AIR1914Mad16; (1915)ILR38Mad553
Millar, J.1. The plaintiffs' father and the defendants' father were bound to maintain their mother. By a partition deed between them the defendants' father undertook to pay a certain-quantity of paddy to the plaintiffs' father: the consideration being, as I understand it (the petitioners have not chosen to have the deed translated and printed) that the plaintiffs' father was to maintain the lady. The Subordinate Judge finds that she was maintained by the plaintiffs' father and after him by the plaintiffs till her death; and though that finding is contested there is evidence to support it, and I must accept it.2. The question of law is whether the suit is cognizable by a Small Cause Court. It is contended that it is not cognizable as-being a suit relating to maintenance.3. It is no doubt a suit for what the defendants would have had to provide for the maintenance of their grand-mother if the plaintiffs had not done it; but the basis of the suit is the agreement between the plaintiffs' f...
Tag this Judgment!Sornalinga Mudaliyar Vs. Paitai Naiken Alias Pachaiyappa Naiken and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-1913
Reported in: (1914)26MLJ113
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The District Munsif is in error in holding that where several persons make a joint promise in consideration of money paid to some of them, the others are entitled to contend that, because no portion of the consideration was received by them, there was no legal consideration for their own joint promise. The consideration paid to any of the joint promisors is legally sufficient to support the promise of all the joint promisors.2. As regards the case of Sesha Aiyar v. Mangal Dossjee (1909) 20 M.L.J. 144 the learned judges seemed to have held that the single executant of a promissory note could show that there was no consideration for the only promise relied on, namely the promise by that single executant. If the learned judges intended to decide that a person who has made himself liable according to the tenor of the pronote could prove that he and the promisee agreed centemporaneously that he should not be held liable. I respectfully differ from that view, as it is op...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »