Chennai Court January 1915 Judgments
M. Karunakara Menon and anr. Vs. M. Krishna Menon and Four ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1915
Reported in: (1916)ILR39Mad429
Seshagiri Ayyar, J.1. It is with considerable hesitation that we have come to the conclusion that the learned Judge's order is wrong. It has to be noticed that the provision in Order XXI, Rule 89, is in the nature of an indulgence to the judgment-debtors Before the sale takes place, he has every opportunity of avoiding it by satisfying the decree. Practically a locus paenitentiae is given him after the conclusion of the sale to retain his property if he complies with certain conditions. Consequently Courts are bound to see that the provisions of law in this respect are very strictly conformed to. In this case we are not satisfied that the judgment-debtors have complied with the requirements of the law. Under Rule 89, the judgment-debtor should deposit the money due under the proclamation of sale minus the amount 'which may since the date of such proclamation of sale, have been received by the decree-holder.'2. Mr. Ramachandra Ayyar argues that monies deposited by the fourteenth defenda...
Tag this Judgment!Hope Prudhomme and Co. Vs. M. Earnest Louis Max, by His Duly Constitut ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad830; 29Ind.Cas.575a
1. This is an appeal from the judgment of the Chief Justice, then Mr. Justice Wallis, sitting on the original side. The suit was brought by Monsiour Max, a merchant living in Marseilles, against Messrs. Hope Frudhomme and Co. for damages for breach of two contracts to supply groundnuts. The contracts were admitted by the defendants, who claim to have been entitled to avoid them as they were procured by fraud and misrepresentation. The sole issue settled was whether the plaintiff made certain representation and, if so, whether the representation was false and whether the defendants were entitled to cancel the contract. The representation alleged in the written statement was that the plaintiff stated as a fact that he was sufficiently known to the National Bank of India here and that his drafts will be promptly discounted without banker's credit. The learned Judge found that there was no misrepresentation and that even if there was, the consent of the defendants to the contract was not c...
Tag this Judgment!T. Venkata Subba Reddi Vs. Bagiammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-1915
Reported in: (1916)ILR39Mad419
Spencer, J.1. In this case the separate properties of two owners were mortgaged to secure a single debt of Rs. 1,800. One of the mortgagors, Arunachala Mudali, paid up Rs. 1,631-14-0 and the mortgagee sought in this suit to recover the whole of the balance from the mortgaged properties in the possession of the other mortgagor. The lower Courts refused to allow the plaintiff to recover more than what the property he proceeded against was rateably liable for.2. The questions for our decision are: (1) whether there was in law an existinguishment of the mortgagee's lien over Arunachala Mudali's property, so as to preclude the plaintiff from recovering the whole of the balance due under the mortgage in this suit and the defendant from obtaining a contribution from Arunachala Mudali in a separate suit in proportion to the value his property bears to the whole debt secured by the mortgagee after deducting the amount already paid to the mortgagee; and (2) whether assuming that it was understoo...
Tag this Judgment!Thuvoor Venkatasubba Reddy Vs. Bagiammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad229; 29Ind.Cas.113
Spencer, J.1. In this case the separate properties of two owners were mortgaged to secure a single debt of Rs. 1,800. One of the mortgagors, Arunachala Mudali, paid up Rs. 1,631-14-0 and the mortgagee sought in this suit to recover the whole of the balance from mortgaged properties in the possession of the other mortgagor. The lower Courts refused to allow the plaintiff to recover more than what the property he proceeded against was rateably liable for.2. The questions for our decision are, (1) whether there was in law an extinguishment of the mortgagee's lien over Arunachala Mudali's property, so as to preclude the plaintiff from recovering the whole of the balance due under the mortgage in this suit and the defendant from obtaining a Contribution from Arunachala Mudali in a separate suit in proportion to the value his property bears to the whole debt secured by the mortgage, after deducting the amount already paid to the mortgagee; 11 C.P 258 whether assuming that it was understood b...
Tag this Judgment!Chilamakurti Naganna and ors. Vs. Kavipurapu Rama Row
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad597; 28Ind.Cas.836
1. It is found that the village in which the suit lauds lie is not a part of an estate under the meaning of Section 3(2) of the Madras Estates Land Act: so that enactment will not apply.2. Dealing with the case under the ordinary-law no reason has been shown for differing from the view of the District Judge that plaintiff was entitled to evict defendants. It is found that plaintiff has been in possesion of the suit lands since 1866 and has let defendants into possession as his tenants. The fact that the land was classed as village site, though not used for building purposes, will not affect plaintiffs right to evict in such circumstances.2. The second appeals are dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Arunagiri Mudaliar Vs. Kuppusami Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad1080; 29Ind.Cas.124
Spencer, J.1. It is clear in my opinion that when the plaintiff purchased the cultivable lands by his sale-deed, Exhibit F, on 9th May 1901, he took them subject to all the incidental liabilities which attached to them by reason of their having been previously mortgaged under the simple mortgage (Exhibit A) of 3rd February 1900 along with the house and house site of defendants No. 1 and 2. In fact the sale-deed expressly stated that the debt secured by the simple mortgage was to stand, thus bringing the case within the first exception to Section 101 of the Transfer of Property Act. I am unable to read into these words an implied meaning that they referred to the simple mortgage standing not on the lands described in the sale deed, but on other property not therein specified. If the parties intended to convey a different meaning by the words used by them, then I can only say that they did not express their meaning properly. There are no words in the document stating expressly or by impl...
Tag this Judgment!thekkamannengath Raman Alias Kochu Poduval Vs. Kakkasseri Pazhiyot Man ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-1915
Reported in: AIR1915Mad1215; (1915)28MLJ184
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. These two second appeals have arisen out of a suit brought by the Jenmi mortgagor to redeem Kanom mortgage. Various complicated questions chiefly relating (a) to the details of the properties mortgaged, (6) to the michavaram payable by the mortgageetenant (c) to the damages, if any, due to the mortgagee on account of the mortgagee's inability to get possession of some of the mortgaged properties and (d) to the compensation, if any, payable from trees of spontaneous growth to the mortgagee have to be dealt with in these two second appeals, one of which is by the plaintiff and the other by the 1st defendant's legal representatives. These questions might be thus stated in detail:1. (a) Was the tank situated in the item 7 marked in the commissioner's plan (and described in the mortgage document Exhibit A as the boundary Mark between items 6 and 7 of that deed) included in the mortgage demise?(b) Has the Lower Appellate Court wrongly given a decree for the redemption of...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Achath Sankaran Nair
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad1143(2); 29Ind.Cas.586a
1. The case in Kara Nayar v. Ramappa 17 M.P 267 merely decided that a request for return (of those title-deeds which the mortgagee was bound to return before he takes out the money from Court) accompanying a tender made under Section 83 of Act IV of 1882, was not a condition vitiating the tender.2. In the present case, the appellant insisted on a return of certain title-deeds which he was not entitled to a return of, as a condition of the tender and 'refused to pay the money until he had recovered the documents and possession of the property' (paragraph 3 of the District Judge's judgment). Section 55 of the Transfer of Property Act does not apply, as rightly decided by the District Judge.3. I dismiss the second appeal....
Tag this Judgment!Avasarala Venkata Hanumantha Rao Vs. Avasarala Achanna
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-1915
Reported in: (1915)28MLJ123
ORDERSpencer, J.1. I am of opinion that a Revenue Officer preparing a record of rights under Sections 164 to 167 of the Madras Estates Land Act is only discharging an executive function of Government and is not a Court within the meaning of Section 467 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. In Muhammad Subhanullah v. The Secretary of State for India in Council I.L.R. (1904) A. 382 it was held that a settlement officer preparing a record of rights was not a Court but was simply an executive officer acting in his executive capacity.3. In Nasarulla Mia v. Amiruddi (1905) 3 C.L.J. 133 and in Kurban Ali v. Jqfar Ali I.L.R.(1901) c. the power of a Revenue Officer disposing of an objection under Section 103-A of the Bengal Tenancy Act which corresponds closely in wording to Section 166 of the Madras Estates Land Act were considered and it was held that the legal effect of proceedings taken under the section was that the Revenue Officer's order was not a Judicial Order, was not open to appeal a...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: A.V. Hanumantha Rao and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-1915
Reported in: (1916)ILR39Mad414
Spencer, J.1. I am of opinion that a Revenue officer preparing a record of rights under Sections 164 to 167 of the Madras Estates Land Act is only discharging an executive function of Government and is not a Court within the meaning of Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. In Muhammad Subhanullah v. The Secretary of State for India in Council I.L.R. (1904) All. 382, it was held that a settlement officer preparing a record of rights was not a Court but was simply an executive officer acting in his executive capacity. In Nasarulla Mia v. Amiruddi (1906) 3 C.L.J. 133 and Kurban Ali v. Jafar Ali I.L.R. (1901) Calc. 471, the powers of a Revenue officer disposing of an objection under Section 103-A of the Bengal Tenancy Act which corresponds closely in wording to Section 166 of the Madras Estates Land Act were considered, and it was held that the legal effect of proceedings taken under this section was that the Revenue officer's order was not a judicial order, was not open to appe...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »