Chennai Court August 1916 Judgments
A.S.S. Subbaiya Pandaram Vs. Mahamad Musthapa Maracayar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1916
Reported in: (1917)32MLJ85
1. his an appeal by the plaintiff from the Decree of the Subordinate Judge of Tanjore dismissing the suit on the preliminary ground that it was barred by Limitation.2. The case has not been fully tried and except where the facts are admitted we have to take the statements in the plaint as true 'for the present purpose. The facts which raise the question in dispute may be shortly stated.3. One Subbaiya Pandaram acquired large properties in a salt trade and settled certain of his properties in trust for charity by two instruments, dated 21st February 1890 and 13th December 1894 and marked as Exhibits B and B 1 in the case. He had an only son. Arunachela, the 3rd defendant and the plaintiff is his son. Subbaiya Pandaram constituted himself the 1st trustee and after his death his descendants according to seniority were to be trustees hereditarily. The trustee for the time being had the power, if he was so inclined, to take Rs. 144 a year for his own use out of the income of the charity pro...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Perumal Naik and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1916
Reported in: 36Ind.Cas.582
ORDERSadasiva Aiyar, J.1. I think that Rule 8 (page 39 of the Forest Manual) prohibiting the 'use of a forest produce' includes the use of forest grass by grazing cattle thereon. Rule VI at page 343 relating to this particular estate of Kadavur also makes unlawful the grazing of cattle in reserved lands, and the land on which the grazing in question took place was admittedly reserved as fuel reserve.2. The convictions are right and are confirmed.3. The accused, however, got no reply at all, and no specific order on their petition of January 1912, in which they claimed rights of grazing on this reserve and the damage done was trivial.4. I reduce the sentences to a fine on each of the petitioners in Criminal Revision Case No. 414 of 1916 to Rs. 5 each. The balance of fine will be refunded.5. The fine will be paid to the complainant wholly....
Tag this Judgment!Tanguturi Jagannadham Alias Hanumantha Rao Vs. K. Seshagiri Rao and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-1916
Reported in: 37Ind.Cas.387
1. This Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 708 of 1916 is an application to review our judgment in Second Appeal No. 92 of 1914, as it proceeded on the basis that the suit to set aside, among other things, the Court auction-sale of item No. 13 (at which the 15th defendant became the purchaser of that item) was brought more than a year after that sale and was, therefore, barred by Article 12 of the Limitation Act. It is not now disputed that we were in error in having entertained the opinion that the suit was: brought after an interval of more than one year from the date of the confirmation of the sale of item No. 13.2. It is, however, argued for 15th defendant's legal representatives (the appellants) that the sale should not be set aside as the 15th defendant was a bona fide purchaser at the Court auction without notice of the irregularities relied on by the plaintiff. A third party who is the bona fide purchaser at a Court auction-sale is no doubt protected where the decree, in executio...
Tag this Judgment!V. Venkataramiah Pillai and anr. Vs. P. V. Subramania Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-1916
Reported in: 37Ind.Cas.799
Abdr Rahim, Offg. C.J.1. In this appeal the only question is whether compound interest should not have been allowed on the debts due on the two promissory notes dated 1st October 1904. These two notes were executed for Rs. 14,500 and Rs. 15,000 respectively, payable with interest at 18 per cent., and on the dates of their execution two memoranda were drawn up by which it was stipulated, among other things, that in default of payment of interest each month, compound interest would be payable with monthly rests. The promissory notes themselves do not expressly provide that interest was payable every month. Exhibits H and J also contain other stipulations, among which is the stipulation that there will be an equitabe mortgage on certain properties of the executants of the promissory notes.2. Mr. Justice Kumaraswami Sastri who tried the suit has disallowed compound interest, holding that the contract in this respect was brought about by undue influence. As I am clearly of opinion that the ...
Tag this Judgment!Kunchithapatham Pillai Vs. Palamalia Pillai (Deceased) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-1916
Reported in: (1917)32MLJ347
1. The owner of the properties was one Murugappa Pillai. He mortgaged them to one Krishnachariar in 1895. In September 1897, he sold some of the properties com. prised in the mortgage to one Kunjithapatham with a direction to pay Krishnachariar, the mortgagee, Rs. 1,200. A portion of this amount was paid, but a good portion remained unpaid. In October, some other properties also included in the mortgage, were sold to one Duraisami, with a direction to pay Rs. 460 and odd to the mortgagee, the deed also containing a covenant to clear off prior mortgages. This was not paid, The remaining properties comprised in the mortgage were sold to Rajagopal and others and they were asked to pay the mortgagee Rs. 2,000 and odd. This sale deed is not before us on appeal, but it is admitted that there is no assignment or specific covenant in favour of the purchaser on which he' can rely for the purpose of this suit. The mortgagee sued Murugappa Pillai and the three aliences among others on the mortgag...
Tag this Judgment!Kunchithapatham Pillai and ors. and Vs. Palamalai Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-1916
Reported in: 39Ind.Cas.405
1. The owner of the properties was one Murugappa Pillai. He mortgaged them to one Krishnachariar in 1895. In September 1897 he sold some of the properties comprised in the mortgage to one Kunjithapatham with a direction to pay Krishnachariar, the mortgagee, Rs. 1,200. A portion of this amount was paid, but a good portion remained unpaid. In October some other properties, also included in the mortgage, were sold to one Duraiswami, with a direction to pay Rs. 460 and odd to the mortgagee, the deed also containing a covenant to clear off prior mortgages. This was not paid. The remaining properties comprised in the mortgage were sold to Rajagopal and others and they were asked to pay the mortgagee Rs. 2,000 and odd. This sale-deed is not before us on appeal, but it is admitted that there is no assignment or specific covenant in favour of the purchaser on which he can rely for the purpose of this suit. The mortgagee sued Murugappa Pillai and the three alienees among others on the mortgage. ...
Tag this Judgment!Best and Co. Ltd. Vs. the Deputy Collector and
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-1916
Reported in: 36Ind.Cas.621
1. This is an appeal from an order of Mr. Justice Bake well who dismissed the petition of the appellants Messrs. Best and Co., praying for an order under Section 45 Specific Relief Act, requiring the Land Acquisition Collector of Madras to refer the appellants' case to the Chief Judge of the Small Cause Court, Madras. The Government gave notice expressing their intention to acquire the building' occupied by the National Bank of India and questions arose as to the amount of compensation to be awarded and as to who was entitled to it and so forth Before the Government gave the notice to acquire the building the National Bank had agreed to sell the property to Messrs. Best and Go. It appears that notices were received by the National Bank and Messrs. Best and Co. from the Land Acquisition Collector acting under the Land Acquisition Act Both appeared and put in claims for compensation.2. The substantial question before us is whether the Land Acquisition Collector has referred the case of M...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: a Vakil of the High Court
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1916
Reported in: 39Ind.Cas.289
1. This is a matter under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent in which a Vakil of this Court stands charged as follows:2. He gave improper advice to the plaintiffs in Civil Suit No. 387 of 1914 (in which they in 1911 sought his advice as his clients) that they should execute a nominal sale-deed to him, in order that be might litigate in his own name but on their behalf with the plaintiffs' mortgagee.3. He was guilty of improper conduct in obtaining a sale-deed (Exhibit G, November 1911) accordingly in his own name.4. He took advantage of the ignorance and the needy position of his clients to obtain the conveyance (Exhibit G) for much less than the value of the equity of redemption and he afterwards fraudulently executed a fresh mortgage-deed in favour of the plaintiffs' mortgagee in order to defraud his clients and to secure for himself the property, in fraud of the understanding between himself and his clients and in order to create evidence against his clients in the matter of the said u...
Tag this Judgment!Hajee Siddick Hajee Sumar Sait and anr. Vs. Mahomed HussaIn Sait, Mino ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1916
Reported in: 37Ind.Cas.728
Abdur Rahim, Offg. C.J.1. The suit in which this appeal has arisen, was instituted by the plaintiff through his next friend, his maternal uncle, Zaccharia Ismail Sait.2. The facts of the case are, the plaintiff's father and the defendants in the suit, were partners carrying on business in piece goods. The partnership commenced on 16th June 1901, and it appears that the accounts used to be settled from time to time. The last settlement of accounts in the lifetime of the plaintiff's father was in February 1907. The plaintiff's father died on 5th October 1907. The suit is now brought for an account to be taken of the share of the plaintiff's father in the business and for recovery of what may be found due. The shares of the different partners were fixed, the plaintiff's father's share being one-half of the profits. He contributed Rs. 7,500, to the capital; 1st defendant contributed a similar amount, the 2nd defendant bringing in no capital. It also appears that in addition to the capital ...
Tag this Judgment!Rokhia Bi Vs. Saram Bi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1916
Reported in: 37Ind.Cas.505
1. Two ladies Saram Bi and Rokhia Bi wanted to prove their claim in the insolvency proceedings of one Enayatulla, the son of Saram Bi and brother of Rokhia Bi. It appears that the father of Rokhia Bai and Enayatulla had money owing by a certain firm and two ladies, the claimants, executed a power-of-attorney on the 14th November 1905 in favour of Enayatulla to manage all their affairs and all their properties to their best advantage and for the purpose of recovering moneys due to them.' Enayatulla received moneys from time to time on behalf of these ladies from the firm which was indebted to his father, and the last instalment received on account of interest was on the 12th October 1907. Then on 5th November 1908 while the ladies were going to Mecca on pilgrimage, they executed a second power-of-attorney in favour of Enayatulla. There also they authorized Enayatulla to manage all their affairs and all their properties to the best advantage, to sell or mortgage moveable and immoveable p...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »