Chennai Court April 1913 Judgments
Sitharama Chetty and anr. Vs. Cotha Krishnasami Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1913
Reported in: 24Ind.Cas.507; (1913)25MLJ264
Arnold White, C.J.1. The first question for consideration in this appeal is whether Wallis J.'s finding on the question of estoppel is right.2. The circumstances in which the question has arisen are these:--On the 12th December 1904 there was an agreement (Exhibit B) between the plaintiff and the defendants under which the plaintiff leased to the defendants his interest in a certain business for an amount which had been fixed by the arbitrators. On the same date, for the consideration specified in, Exhibit B the defendants executed in the plaintiff's favor a promissory note for Rs. 30,000 payable by monthly instalments up to April 1906.3. In August 1906 the plaintiff instituted a suit against the defendants in which he asked that the release (Exhibit B) should be set aside on the ground that it had been obtained by fraud. He declined to accept instalments under the pronote after April 1906. Fourteen instalments have not been paid. The plaintiff's suit was dismissed. On appeal the appel...
Tag this Judgment!K. Tiruvangadial Vs. R. Chinnaswamian and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1913
Reported in: 24Ind.Cas.617; (1914)26MLJ364
Wallis, J.1. I think that as regards the claim to rateable distribution this ease is governed by the decision of the Appellate Court in Original Suit Appeal No. 22 of 1909 (unreported). In that case there were numerous attachments from the Small Cause Court of a fund in Court and I directed the first attaching creditor in point of time to be paid in full and disallowed a claim for rateable distribution by the other attaching creditors. The Appellate Court affirmed this order merely remarking that : The fact that a fund is attached by a Court does not constitute the fund assets held by that Court within the meaning of Section 73.' I hold, therefore, that the first attaching creditor is entitled to be paid in full out of the fund. The fund in Court consists of the surplus sale-proceeds payable to the defendant-mortgagor after sale under a mortgage decree. The money was paid into Court by the auctioneers on 27th March 1913 and was subsequently attached at the instance of the present appli...
Tag this Judgment!Muthukrishna Aiyar and ors. Vs. Veera Raghava Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1913
Reported in: (1913)25MLJ356
Arnold White, C.J.1. Under Exhibit A the defendants mortgaged to the plaintiff a house and a promissory note which had been executed to the defendants by a third party as security for money owing by the defendants to the plaintiffs. The promissory note was not endorsed to the plaintiffs. It became time barred, and the question is whether on the taking of accounts the plaintiffs should be debited with the amount due on the note. It was not suggested that the plaintiffs could sue on the note- It was contended that the note was evidence of a pre-existing debt due by the 3rd party to the defendants, that that debt was by the mortgagee assigned to the plaintiffs and that the plaintiffs being the parties who were entitled to sue for the assigned debt were under an obligation to the defendants to do so before the right to recover the debt became barred by limitation. The promissory note refers to a pre-existing debt due by the 3rd party to the defendants, but I have had some doubt whether on ...
Tag this Judgment!Muthukrishnier and Three ors. Vs. Veeraraghava Iyer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1913
Reported in: (1915)ILR38Mad297
Charles Arnold White, Kt., C.J.1. Under Exhibit A the defendants mortgaged to the plaintiffs a house and a promissory note which had been executed to the defendants, by a third party as security for money owing by the defendants to the plaintiffs. The promissory note was not endorsed to the plaintiffs. It became time-barred, and the question is whether on the taking of accounts the plaintiffs should be debited with the amount due on the note. It was not suggested that the plaintiffs could sue on the note. It was contended that the note was evidence of a pre-existing debt due by the third party to the defendants, that debt was by the mortgage assigned to the plaintiffs, and that the plaintiffs being the parties who were entitled to sue for the assigned debt were under an obligation to the defendants, to do so before the right to recover the debt became barred by limitation. The promissory note refers to a pre-existing debt due by the third party to the defendants, but I have had some do...
Tag this Judgment!Kocherla Seetamma Vs. Pillala Venkatramayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-1913
Reported in: (1913)25MLJ410
1. We entirely agree with the findings of the learned District Judge and the reasons he has given for them. The appellant's case as to the date of Ankamma's death is entirely unsupported by any credible evidence. We dismiss the appeal with costs.2. The question argued in the Memorandum of objections is whether a claim for past mesne profits could be validly transferred having regard to Clause (e) of Section 6 of the Transfer of Property Act. We are of opinion that the Lower Court is right in holding that it cannot be; Shy am Ghand Kundoo v. The Land Mortgage Bank of India I.L.R. (1883) C. 695 and Pragi Lal v. Fatechand I.L.R. (1882) A, 207 support this view. The recent decision of this court in Varahaswami v. Ramachandra Raju : (1913)24MLJ298 after the amendment of Clause (e) of Section 6 of the Transfer of Property Act is to the same effect. See also Abu Mahomed v. S.C. Chunder I.L.R. (1908) C. 345 The respondents refer to King v. Victoria Insurance Company (1896) A.C. 250 But the cas...
Tag this Judgment!Tangirala Chiranjivi, Being Minor by His Mother and Next Friend Lakshm ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-1913
Reported in: 25Ind.Cas.283; (1914)27MLJ179
1. The District Judge does not seem to have appreciated the real questions arising or decision in the case. The lands in question were admittedly; granted to certain Vritikars for reciting the Vedasin a temple. The Inam title deed, Exhibit A, was granted to the Vritikars, It does not appear that the temple had any right of property in the lands-The inam being a conditional one granted by a Zamindar and confirmed by the British Government the right of resumption would be in Government. The trustees did not state how they had any right to take possession of the lands. Again, the Judge seems to have assumed that the trustees had the right to dismiss the Vritikars. We express no opinion on the question whether in the case of such a grant the trustees would have such a right. But the matter was one which should have been tried and could not be decided on any assumption, Again, the District Judge has assumed that a minor, a female and a person unlearned in the Vedas would lose the right to t...
Tag this Judgment!Vardarajulu Chettiar Vs. Pattra Narayanasami Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1913
Reported in: (1913)24MLJ693
1. This is a reference made by the District Judge of Tanjore under Order 46 Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Code. The question referred is whether a certain suit for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 143-11-09 is of a small cause nature entertainable by the Subordinate Judge's Court of Kumbakonam in the exercise of its small cause jurisdiction, or one which should be dealt with as a regular suit by the District Munsif's Court of Tiruvalur. The plaint was first presented in the Subordinate Judge's Court of Kumbakonam, but was returned by it on the ground that it was substantially a suit for an account and therefore not cognizable by a Small Cause Court. It was then presented to the District Munsif of Tiruvalur, who again returned it on the ground that the claim was cognizable by a Small Cause Court.2. The plaintiff is a trader. The substantial allegations in the plaint are that the defendants bought cloths from the plaintiff and made payments for them which exceeded the value of the cloths by ...
Tag this Judgment!The Receiver of the Nidadavole and Medur Estates Vs. K. Suraparazu and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1913
Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.449
1. We think the words 'all suits, appeals and other proceedings under this Act,' in Section 192 of the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908, may be construed as including the institution of a suit by the presentation of a plaint. The result is that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure apply to the presentation of a plaint in a suit under the Estates Land Act. Under Section 121 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the rules in the first Schedule have effect as if enacted in the body of the Act. Order IV, Rule 1, provides that every suit shall be instituted by presenting a plaint to the Court or such officer as it appoints in this behalf. It is, therefore, open to the Collector to appoint an officer to whom plaints may be presented, but this, we understand, has not been done.2. It is clear that Rule 14 of the Civil Rules of Practice does not apply to proceedings before a Revenue Court, and we cannot accept the contention that, when the plaintiff sought to present his plaint in this case, th...
Tag this Judgment!P. Balamba Vs. K. Krishnayya and 3 ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-1913
Reported in: (1914)ILR37Mad483
Sankaran Nair, J.1. The first defendant is the daughter, and defendants Now. 2 and 3 are the sons, of one deceased Venkataratnam, who insured his life for Rs. 2,000 which the Insurance Office agreed to pay to his wife and children. The plaintiff got a decree against Venkataratnam and he claims the insurance money towards the decree, including the Rs. 400 that fell to the first defendant.2. The first question for decision is whether the money insured is protected by the Married Women's Property Act (III of 1874) or whether it is a part of the estate of the deceased. The Judge, following the decision in Oriental Government Security Life Assurance, Ltd., v. Vanteddu Ammiraju I.L.R. (1912) Mad. 162 as he was bound to do, held that the Act did not apply. This is an appeal from that decision.3. It is argued before us that that judgment ought not to be followed, and that the Act is applicable to cases like the one before us. Section 6 of Act III of 1874 runs thus:A policy of insurance effecte...
Tag this Judgment!Muthiah Chetti and Three ors. Vs. Suppan Servai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-10-1913
Reported in: (1915)ILR38Mad291
Tyabji, J.1. The only question that has been argued before us in this appeal is whether the registration of the document referred to in the plaint is invalid, because of its not having been duly presented for registration 'within thirty days after the passing' of such a decree as is mentioned in Section 77 of the Registration Act. If that provision means that the document must be presented within thirty days of the judgment being pronounced, then the presentation of the document is invalid and, on the authority of Raya Raghoba Kamat v. Annapurana Bai (1873) 10 B.H.C.R., 98, the alleged registration is also invalid and of no effect. But the lower courts hold that in this connection the words 'passing a decree' must be taken to mean something different from pronouncing judgment. The learned District Munsif refers in his judgment to the Civil Procedure Code, order XX, Rule 7, which provides that the decree shall bear the data on which the judgment is pronounced, but on a consideration of ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »