Chennai Court April 1916 Judgments
Vodiana Kamayya and anr. Vs. Gudisa Mamayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-1916
Reported in: (1917)32MLJ484
John Wallis, C.J.1. In this case, where the defendant had conveyed his property benami to the plaintiff for the purpose of effecting a fraud on his creditors and the fraud had been effected, the Subordinate Judge has decided that he cannot set up the benami character of the transaction by way of defence in a suit by the plaintiff for possession under the conveyance. This was expressly ruled by Jenkins, C.J. and Beaman, J. in Sidlingappa v. Hirasa I.L.R. (1907) B. 405 following Doe de Roberts v. Roberts (1819) 2 B, & Ald. 367. I do not think the learned Judges who decided Prole v. Wiggins (1836) 3 Bing. N.C. 230 intended to question this decision. It appears to be in accordance with the principles laid down by Lord Bldon in the earlier case of Brackenbury v. Brackenbury (1820) 2 Jac & W. 391. Both cases were referred to by Lord Hatherly in Green v. Bateman (1872) L.R. 5 H.L. 597 but it was thought unnecessary to consider the principle they laid down or the manner in which it had been ap...
Tag this Judgment!Madala Madavarayudu Vs. Tanikalla Subbamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-1916
Reported in: (1916)31MLJ222
1. The property in dispute belonged to Adanki Naganna.. He first mortgaged it to the father of defendants 3 and 4 and subsequently to the plaintiff. The father of defendants 3 and 4 brought a suit on his mortgage against Naganna the mort-gagor (Suit No. 4.86 of 1897). Plaintiff was not a party to that suit. During the pendency of the suit Naganna died. The suit was continued against one Suryanarayanamurthy, the divided brother's son of the deceased Naganna. The 1st defendant is the daughter of Naganna. But she was not made a party to the suit after her father's death. A decree was obtained by the father of defendants 3 and 4 against Suryanarayanamurthy and in execution of that decree the equity of redemption in the property was purchased by the father of defendants 3 and 4. The 7th defendant's deceased father purchased it from the father of defendants 3 and 4 and has been in possession. The case for the plaintiff is that the decree obtained in the previous suit did not bind the 1st def...
Tag this Judgment!Frederick Edmed Hooper Vs. King-emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-1916
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.497; (1916)31MLJ178
John Wills, C.J.1. The accused in these cases has been convicted by the Chief Presidency Magistrate on two charges of contravening the Royal Proclamation of the 9bh September 1914 against trading with the enemy by obtaining and attempting to obtain at Madras goods from an enemy and from an enemy country, offences punishable under Section 3 of the Commercial Intercourse with Enemies Ordinance VI of 1914 as continued and amended by Acts I and XIV of 1915. He has been discharged by the Presidency Magistrate on a complaint of further contravening the said Ordinance by conspiring at Madras with one other to obtain goods from a firm in Germany. The accused has appealed against the convictions and the Grown Prosecutor has filed a revision petition against the order of discharge. Though the illegality of trading with the enemy was established in the eighteenth century by the decisions of the Prize Court administering the Law of Nations which are collected by Sir William Scott (afterwards Lord ...
Tag this Judgment!Bollapragada Ramamurthy Trading Under the Name and Style of Bollapraga ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-1916
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.575; (1916)31MLJ231
1. Plaintiff is the appellant. He sued in 1912 to recover damages for breach of a contract of which performance was due before 20th September 1906 and relied upon a letter dated 20th September 1909 to save a bar of limitation. Both the lower Courts dismissed the. plaintiff's suit on the ground that the letter does not contain an acknowledgment of liability suffi-cient to bring the case within Section 19 of the Limitation Act.2. The letter Exhibit B signed by the defendants states that, as disputes about the contract were not settled and a suit was threatened, both parties agreed to refer matters to the arbitration of the persons mentioned therein. The material part of the document runs as follows:--' I shall agree to the decision made by them (arbitrators). Without having to do anything with the limitation of time, if they decide that I should pay any amount to you, I shall pay it immediately to you. If, perhaps, for any reason the said three mediators do not give their decision, it is...
Tag this Judgment!Sundara Aiyar Vs. Krishnamurthi Aiyar (Minor by His Guardian Natesa Ai ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-1916
Reported in: (1916)31MLJ317
John Wallia, CJ.1. In this case one of four coparceners mortgaged his share of the joint family properties in 1895. The assignee of the mortgagee obtained a decree in O.S. No. 93 of 1901 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Shiyali for sale of his interest which was purchased by one Rama Ayyar through whom the plaintiff claims. The plaintiff instituted a suit, O.S. No. 200 of 1911 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Shiyali for partition against the surviving members of the joint family and was allotted the suit properties among others by the decree. When however he attempted to execute the decree for possession he was resisted by the first defendant who claims under a decree obtained by his predecessor in title in O.S. No. 36 of 1904, on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Kumbakonum against the surviving members of the joint family for specific performance of an agreement to sell and to give possession, which was executed in 1905 by delivery...
Tag this Judgment!Suryadevara Seetaramayya Vs. Suryadevara Kotayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-1916
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.111
Abdur Rahim, J.1. The first question we have to decide in this second appeal is one of the construction of Exhibit A, the mortgage-bond executed by the respondents in favour of the appellant. Regarded from the point of view of one party or the other, the question is not free from difficulties. The instrument is one of simple mortgage which recites that on taking account of the debts due by the respondents, Rs. 1,777 were still owing to the appellant, that for Rs. 277 out of this amount, the respondents executed a promissory note and for the balance Rs. 1,500, Exhibit A was executed by them. They agreed to pay, in satisfaction of the amount, 75 putties of paddy in 10 instalments of 7 1/2 putties each every year. The first payment was to be on the 6th March 1905 and the last on the 26th March 1914. Then the deed provides: 'Should default occur in giving the paddy in any of these instalments, we shall on demand pay the whole amount with interest at one per cent, per mensem notwithstanding...
Tag this Judgment!Sundaresa Aiyar Vs. Krishnamoorthy Aiyar Minor by His Guardian, Natesa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-1916
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.677
John Wallis, C.J.1. In this case one of four co-parceners mortgaged his share of the joint family properties in 1895. The assignee of the mortgagee obtained a decree in Original Suit No. 93 of 1101 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Shiyali for sale of his interest, which was purchased by one Rama Ayyar through whom the plaintiff claims. The plaintiff instituted a suit, Original Suit No. 200 of 19il on the file* of the Court of the District Munsif of Shiyali, for partition against the surviving members of the joint family, and was allotted the suit properties among others by the decree. When, however, he attempted to execute the decree for possession^ he was resisted by the 1st defendant, who claims under a decree obtained by his predecessor-in title in Original Suit No. 36 of 1901 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Kumbakonam against the surviving members of the joint family for specific performance of an agreement to sell and possession, which was ex...
Tag this Judgment!Voddina Kamayya and anr. Vs. Gudisa Mamayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-1916
Reported in: 43Ind.Cas.352
John Wallis, C.J.1. In this case, where the defendant had conveyed his property benami to the plaintiff for the purpose of effecting a fraud on his creditors and the fraud had been effected, the Subordinate Judge has decided that he cannot set up the benami character of the transaction by way of defence in a suit by the plaintiff for possession under the conveyance. This was expressly ruled by Jenkins, C.J., and Beaman, J., in Sidlingappa v. Hirasa 9 Bom L.R. 542, following Doe v. Roberts (1819) 2 B. & Ald. 368. I do not think the learned Judges who decided Prole v. Wiggins (1836) 3 Bing 230 intended to question this decision. It appears to be in accordance with the principles laid down by Lord Eldon in the earlier case of Brackenbury v. Brackenbury (1820) 2 Jac. & W. 391. Both cases were referred to by Lord Hatherley in Greene v. Bateman (1872) 5 H.L. 591, but it was thought unnecessary to consider the principle they laid down or the manner in which it had been applied in other cases....
Tag this Judgment!Narna, Minor by Father and Guardian Vittappa Shanbhoga, Legal Represen ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-1916
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.418; (1916)31MLJ865
1. The suit is by the assignee of a widow on a mortgage executed in her favour. On the last occasion, we called for a finding whether the widow had any assignable interest in the debt transferred to the plaintiff. The finding returned is that the widow was competent to assign away the interest that remained due on the date of the assignment and not the principal of the mortgage debt. We accept the finding.2. Mr. Sitarama Rao, however, raised the question that the claim is barred by limitation. The mortgage is dated the 1st November 1888. It provides for the payment of the principal on the 1st of November 1899 and for annual payment of interest at 6-1/4 per cent. per annum. There is further stipulation in the document which is in these terms: ' If I, without paying the interest on the due date and also the principal and interest on the respective due dates according to the aforesaid conditions, allow the same to fall into arrears, I shall pay the principal sum together with interest at ...
Tag this Judgment!Pana Lana Ana Alagappa Chettiar and anr. Vs. Ravanna Mana Pana Chana M ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1916
Reported in: 41Ind.Cas.745; (1917)33MLJ173
Ayling, J. 1. The suit from which this appeal arises was instituted under Section 14, Religious Endowments Act XX of 1863, by four persons, who had obtained leave of the Court under Section 18 of the same. Subsequent to its institution, one of these persons died; and the District Judge has dismissed the suit on the single ground that it is not competent to the three survivors to maintain it, it being ' essential that all the donees of the power (to institute a suit) conferred by the Court should jointly exercise that power right up to the finish of the suit.' The surviving plaintiffs appeal.2. The chief authority relied on by the District Judge is that of Venkatesha Malla v. Ramayya Hegade I.L.R. (1914) M. 1192 : 27 M.L.J. 241 in which it was held that where sanction was given under Section 18 of the Religious Endowments Act to two men, it was not open to one of them alone to institute the suit under that sanction. It may be pointed out at once that this ruling does not necessarily cov...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »