Chennai Court January 1917 Judgments
Chunduru Chinna Lakshmi Narayana and ors. Vs. Neralla Venkata Subba Ro ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-1917
Reported in: 41Ind.Cas.605; (1917)33MLJ195
1. Several questions were raised at the hearing of the appeal, but at the close of the arguments there finally emerged for decision two substantial questions:1. Whether the suit was barred by the Statute of Limitations; and2. Whether the suit as brought was maintainable.2. The appellants challenged the findings of fact of the Lower Court but as we agree with those findings, it is scarcely necessary to deal with the evidence in detail. The facts which are either admitted or proved may be shortly stated. One Mangayya and Chunduru Subbarayudu, the father of defendants 1 and 2 and grand-father of defendants 3 to 6, had dealings with each other which resulted in mutual accounts. There were three accounts, one for cash dealings, another for purchase and sale of goods on each other's account, and a third called the Rice Mills Factory account. The last account requires some explanation. Subbarayadu and others were working some rice mills in Bezwada in partnership, and Mangayya was a sub-partne...
Tag this Judgment!Hajee Ismail and Sons Vs. Wilson and Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-1917
Reported in: (1918)ILR41Mad709
John Wallis, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiffs in this case are a well-known firm carrying on business in Mysore and Madras. In 1913 they obtained from the Mysore Government the Abkari contract for Mysore and arranged with the defendants who carry on business in Madras that they should go on importing molasses for them in the same way as they had done for the previous holders of the contract. Admittedly the goods contracted for were intended for use by the plaintiffs in their factories at Bangalore. Owing to the disorganization of shipping consequent on the outbreak of the war at the beginning of August 1914, the defendants were unable to ship 800 tons from Java in the month of October 1914 as they were bound to do under their contract. This was a breach of contract for which admittedly they are bound to compensate the plaintiffs in damages, and the main question argued before the learned Judge and before us is as to the measure of damages. The learned Judge awarded the plaintiffs only nomina...
Tag this Judgment!P.M.A. Muthiah Chetty and Three ors. Vs. P.R. Alagappa Chetty and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1917
Reported in: (1918)ILR41Mad1
John Wallis, Kt., C.J.1. In the first of these cases--Appeal No. 192 of Wallis, C.J. 1915, the Subordinate Judge has dismissed a suit brought by principals against an agent and his son to recover a specified sum of money, particulars of which are set out at length in the plaint, and those particulars show that what they are really seeking to do is to make the first defendant account for the moneys which they entrusted to the first defendant.2. The main ground of complaint taken by the plaintiffs in their plaint is that the first defendant lent moneys of the principals to persons to whom he was not authorized to lend them, and Mr. Krishnaswami for the appellants has taken the point that this case is governed by Article 90 of the Limitation Act which provides for:other suits by principals against agents for neglect or misconductand not by Article 89 which deals with suits:by a principal against his agent for moveable property received by the latter and not accounted for.3. Now the use of...
Tag this Judgment!Vishvendra Thirtha Swamier of Sode Mutt Vs. the National Insurance Com ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad635(1); 41Ind.Cas.392
1. The question is whether plaintiff's suits brought to recover on Policies of Insurance issued by Companies having their offices outside South Canada, were properly brought in the District. The lower Court held that they were not.2. It is argued, first, that plaintiff could sue in South Canada, because the Companies' acceptance of the policy-holder's proposals was completed only by their communication to the plaintiff there. The lower Court did not find on the question where the communication took place, because this contention was not relied on before it. For the same reason we cannot consider it in appeal.3. Next it is contended that plaintiff could sue in Sooth Canada, because the policy holder died there, and his death was part of the cause of action in each case. This contention is in accordance with the definition of the term 'cause of action' contained in Read v. Brown (1), which Courts in this country have adopted so frequently that vie do not fee! at liberty to depart from it...
Tag this Judgment!Periyasamy thevan and ors. Vs. Karuthiah thevan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad1293; 39Ind.Cas.933
1. The plaintiffs-respondents sued defendants-appellants for declaration that they were in possession of the suit property and an injunction restraining defendants from disturbing them. The Distrust Munsif granted these reliefs; and plaintiffs, who had not really been in possession at all, with the assistance apparently of the Police and relying on the moral support afforded by the judgment they had obtained, took possession in some way which is not clear, but not in the ordinary course of execution Afterwards the District Munsif's judgment, including his findings as to possession, was reversed. Defendants now ask for restoration under Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. Section 144 authorises the grant of relief in order to replace the parties in the position which they wruld have occupied but for the erroneous decree. No doubt in Hara Chandra Samanta v. Chintamoni Dutta 21 Ind. Cas. 84 it was held that the possession, restoration of which is claimed, need not have, been los...
Tag this Judgment!P.M.A. Muthiah Chetty and ors. Vs. P.R. Alagappa Chetty and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1917
Reported in: 45Ind.Cas.430
Wallis, C.J.1. In the first of these cases--Appeal No. 192 of 1915, the Sub-ordinate Judge has dismissed a suit brought by the principals against an agent and his son to recover a specified sum of money particulars of which are set out at length in the plaint, and those particulars show that what they are really seeking to do is to make the first defendant account for the moneys which they entrusted to the first defendant.2. The main ground of complaint taken by the plaintiffs in their plaint is that the first defendant lent moneys of the principals to persons to whom he was not authorised to lend them, and Mr. Krishnasami Ayyar for the appellants has taken the point that this case is governed by Article 90 of the Limitation Act, which provides forother suits by principals against agents for neglect or misconduct,and not by Article 89 which deals with suitsby a principal against his agent for moveable property received by the latter and not accounted for.3. Now the use of the word 'oth...
Tag this Judgment!Ramasamy Nadan and ors. Vs. Subramania Nadan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-26-1917
Reported in: (1917)32MLJ447
1. The plaint contains two principal prayers, firstly, that certain sales in favour of the defendants Nos. 2 to 18 made by the Official Receiver Gopala Aiyar be declared to be not valid in law, and secondly that a fresh receiver be appointed and the properties made over to him. On the first prayer plaintiffs have paid Rs. 10 that is for the declaratory relief valuing the suit for purposes of jurisdiction at Rs. 38,000; and the 2nd prayer they valued at Rs. 100 and have paid thereon an ad-valorem fee of Rs. 7-8-0. The Subordinate Judge is of opinion that they ought to have paid ad-valorem fee on Rs. 38,000. He relies upon certain rulings of this Court in support of that view. We do not think that those rulings really lay down any such proposition. The case in Achammal v. V. Achammal : (1910)20MLJ791 which follows the case in Chingacham Vittil Sankaran Nair v. Chingacham Vittil Gopala Menon I.L.R. (1906) M. 18 and also the case in Samiya Mavali v. Minammal I.L.R. (1899) M. 490 were all c...
Tag this Judgment!T.A. Chidambaram Chetty and anr. Vs. M.L.M. Ramanatham Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad605; (1917)32MLJ487
1. In Original Suit No. 111 of 1915, the respondent obtained a decree on the original side of the High Court against the appellant for a large sum of money. In November 1915, an application was made for concurrent execution of this decree in Madras, Burma, Tanjore and Pudukottah. As the decree was passed within a year of the application, it was granted without notice to the appellant. The decree was transmitted to the Chief Court at Pudukottah on the 23rd November 1915 for execution. On the 19th October 1916, an application was made td Coutts Trotter, J. for the cancellation of the order transferring the decree to Pudukottah. The application was dismissed, on the ground apparently that it was in accordance with settled practice. Hence this appeal.2. Section 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides for the transmission of decrees for execution to Courts within whose jurisdiction either the judgment debtor resides or his property is situate. Section 40 deals with the transmission of de...
Tag this Judgment!Senakkayala Virasami Naidu Vs. Bommadevara Pichayya Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad456; 43Ind.Cas.167; (1917)33MLJ536
1. A.S. No. 207 of 1915. The first question argued before us in this appeal is whether the plaintiffs are the reversionary of the last male owner of the properties of one B. Perumallu, the son of the 2nd defendant who is the widow of one Naganna. We do not think that the matter admits of any reasonable doubt. [Their Lordships after considering the evidence agreed with the conclusion of the Lower Court that the plaintiffs were the reversionary.]2. The next point that has been very strenuously argued before us is that the gift made to the 3rd defendant by the widow, the 2nd defendant, of one-fourth of the family property is valid. We agree with the Subordinate Judge that the gift cannot be supported. What the 2nd defendant did was, she gave half the estate of her husband first of all to her daughter the 4th defendant and then one-fourth of the estate to the 3rd defendant and the remainder to the 3rd defendant's son the 5th defendant. That is to say, she took it upon herself to divide the...
Tag this Judgment!M. L. M. Ramanathan Chetty Vs. T. A. Chidambaram Chetty and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1917
Reported in: 41Ind.Cas.41
1. In Original Suit No. 111 of 1915, the respondent obtained a decree on the Original Side of the High Court against the appellant for a large sum of money. In November 1915, an application was made for concurrent execution of this decree in Madras, Burma, Tanjore and Puduoottah. As the decree was passed within a year of the application, it was granted without notice to the appellant. The decree was transmitted to the Chief Court at Puducottah on the 23rd November 1915 for execution. On the 19th October 1916, an application was made to Courts Trotter, J., for the cancellation of the Order transferring the decree to Puduoottah. The application was dismissed, on the ground apparently that it was in accordance with settled practice, Hence this appeal.2. Section 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides for the transmission of decrees for execution to Courts within whose jurisdiction either the judgment-debtor resides or his property is situate. Section 40 deals with the transmission of d...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »