Chennai Court November 1913 Judgments
Ramachariar Vs. Dorasami Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-1913
Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.605
1. The question in this case is whether the security bond, Exhibit C, is a mortgage within Section 58 or a charge within Section 100, of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The document recites an order of the Court made upon an application that the possession of certain immovable property should not be delivered over to the plaintiff and that the defendant in this suit should give security, and states that 'we have for a sum not exceeding Rs. 300 made the properties mentioned below security.' We are of opinion that this document does not transfer an interest in the property nor is there any existing or future debt or an engagement which might give rise to a pecuniary liability within the meaning of Section 58. There is surely an intention that if the defendant should be found entitled to any damages by the Court, the amount should be realized out of the specific property. We are of opinion, therefore, that the document, Exhibit C, merely creates a charge, and does not fall within Sect...
Tag this Judgment!Muthu Sastrigal Vs. Visvanatha Pandhara Sannadhi, Adhina Kartha of Sri ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-1913
Reported in: AIR1914Mad657(2); (1914)26MLJ19
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant in this Letters Patent Appeal. He sued on the strength of a letter which has been held to be inadmissible in evidence and his suit has been dismissed by all the Courts. I shall now briefly refer to the arguments advanced by his learned vakil and to some of the cases quoted during those arguments. In the cases in the foot note to Queen Empress v. Somasundara Chetti I.L.R. (1899) M. 155 and 157 and in Bharata Pisherodi v. Vasudevan Ndmbudri I.L.R. (1903) M. 1 relied on by him the documents themselves showed that they were not to be treated as vouchers or securities unless the persons to whom the letters were, sent gave loans as requested in the letters. As said in Bharata Pisherodi v. Vasudevan Nambudri I.L.R. (1903) M. 1 'There is no unconditional undertaking on the face of the document to pay the money'. In the present case the so called Varthamanam or letter says, 'Amount of cash borrowed of you by me is Rs. 350. I shall in two week'...
Tag this Judgment!Muthu Sastrigal Vs. Visvanatha Pandarasannadhi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-1913
Reported in: (1915)ILR38Mad660
Sadasiva Ayyar, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant in this Letters Patent Appeal. He sued on the strength of a letter which has been held to be inadmissible in evidence and his suit has been dismissed by all the Courts. I shall now briefly refer to the arguments advanced by his learned vakil and to some of the cases quoted during those arguments.2. In the cases in the foot-note to Queen-Empress v. Somasundaram Chetti I.L.R., (1900) Mad., 156 and 157, and in Bharata Pisharodi v. Vasudevan Nambudri I.L.R., (1904) Mad., 1, relied on by him the documents themselves showed that they were not to be treated as vouchers or securities unless the persons to whom the letters were sent gave loans as requested in the letters, As said in Bharata Pisharodi v. Vasudevan Nambudri I.L.R., (1904) Mad., 1, 'There is no unconditional undertaking on the face of the document to pay the money.' In the present case the so-called varthamanam or letter says, 'Amount of cash borrowed of you by me is Rs. 350. I s...
Tag this Judgment!The Guardian to the Property of the Minor Rajah of Karvetnagar Vs. Pan ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1913
Reported in: AIR1914Mad662; (1914)27MLJ238
1. In so far as the claim for Faslis 1317 and 1318 is concerned, the order of the District Judge remanding; the suit for disposal on its merits is correct. The Revenue Divisional Officer appears to have overlooked the fact that the defendant in his written statement not only disputed the correctness of the amount of rent claimed by the plaintiffs, but pleaded that in consequence of the plaintiffs failure to tender him a proper patta the suit was not maintainable. Whether this latter plea was valid or not (a point with which we shall deal later) the defendant was entitled to have it adjudicated on. Section 195 of the Madras Estates Land Act is no obstacle, for it merely enacts that the Collector shall, except for special reasons refuse to take cognisance of the plea that the amount claimed is in excess of the amount due and not of any Other plea which the ryots may raise against the maintainability of the suit. The Revenue Divisional Officer has in effect by decreeing the plaintiff's cl...
Tag this Judgment!Swaminatha Pillai Vs. Krishna Iyer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-1913
Reported in: (1915)28MLJ484
1. The plaintiff sues to recover the money due under a mortgage instrument executed by the 1st defendant in 1905. The amount was advanced to discharge a mortgage debt of Rs. 400 due to one Sivan Sivasami 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. 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.2. 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 first ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›