Chennai Court November 1918 Judgments
Chidambaram Pillai Vs. M.C.M. Duraiswamy Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-1918
Reported in: 52Ind.Cas.325
1. The question in this case is whether Order II, Rule 2, Civil Procedure Code bars the present suit. The plaintiff obtained a sale of certain property. Subsequently the right of the vendor for uncollected rent was assigned to him. The plaintiff first sued for arrears of rent due tinder his assignment. The second suit is for the rent based on title. In our opinion the causes of action 'for the two suits are not the same. It is true that under Order II, Rule 3, Civil Procedure Code, the plaintiff could have joined both the causes of action in one suit. But that is not the test. As was pointed out in Dasarthy Naidu v. Palala Kumaramull 45 Ind. Cas. 969 : 7 L.W. 557 : (1918) M.W.N. 427, the test is not whether the plaintiff could have sued for both the claims in the same suit, but whether he was bound to have sued. Mr. K.S. Jayarama Aiyar contended that the only obligation was to pay rent and that all the breaches of that obligation form but one cause of action. In the present case, the o...
Tag this Judgment!Kanda Ponnappa Naicken and ors. Vs. Venkataseshaiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-1918
Reported in: 50Ind.Cas.353
1. The 1st defendant executed Exhibit R, the lease deed, to two trustees of a temple. They sued on it for rent and Thundu and Kuppatham to which the temple was entitled as mirasidar. The suit was decreed in the two Courts below and these decrees were confirmed by Mr. Justice Ayling in Second Appeal No. 238 of 1912. In Letters Patent Appeal No. 97 of 1913 against the judgment of Ayling, J., it was held that the two trustees were not entitled to the decree and that the other trustees should be made parties and the case was remanded. When the new plaintiffs were added, the suit was barred by limitation. Both the Courts below have now held that as the suit was originally instituted to enforce the claims of the temple, the addition of other representatives, though out of time, would not bar the suit.2. Mr. K. Ramanath Shenai argued that the remand order of this Court precludes the Courts below from giving a decree to the temple. In our opinion, the remand order should be held to have decide...
Tag this Judgment!Venkatachallapathi Aiyar and anr. Vs. Thavasi Servai (Deceased) and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-1918
Reported in: 51Ind.Cas.67; (1919)36MLJ288
Abdur Rahim, J.1. I do not think the Subordinate judge was right in treating the provision for payment of interest at 12 per cent in default of payment on the date fixed in the mortgage bond, as penal. The original rate fixed no doubt is 9 per cent. But it is to be borne in mind that the debts t6 discharge which this mortgage was executed, carried interest at 12 per cent and more. It could not therefore, be said that the mortgagees were not justified in stipulating for payment of a higher rate, if the money was not paid as promised.2. The second question raised by the appeal is one of some importance. It is whether in a mortgage decree for sale interest should be computed on the aggregate amount found to be payable on the date fixed for redemption, that is, consisting of principal, interest and costs, or only on the principal, if the ascertained amount is not paid and property has to be sold in consequence. The matter is now governed by Order XXXIV, Rule 4 Civil Procedure Code, which r...
Tag this Judgment!Venkatasami Naik and anr. Vs. Sivanu Mudali and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-1918
Reported in: 51Ind.Cas.102; (1919)36MLJ199
1. The appeal turns solely on the question of whether the District Munsif of Koilpatti had jurisdiction to entertain a petition (E.P. No. 193 of 1916) presented to him for execution of a mortgage decree passed by the Additional District Munsif of Tinnevelly in O.S. No. 280 of 1906 on his file. Territorial Jurisdiction over the hypotheca sought to be brought to sale in execution of the mortgage decree admittedly lay with the Koilpatti court while the Tinnevelly Court had no local jurisdiction at all, but was established simply to aid the other courts of the district, by disposing of suits transferred from their file. There had been a transfer of territorial jurisdiction to the Koilpatti court from that of Srivilliputtur in which the suit had originally been filed; but it is agreed that this circumstance makes no difference to the question for disposal, and we may consider the latter as if territorial jurisdiction had always been with the Koilpatti court. No order had been passed transfe...
Tag this Judgment!Muthu Ar. St. Arunachallam Chettiar and ors. Vs. St. N. Narayanan Chet ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-1918
Reported in: (1919)36MLJ301
Seshagiri Aiyar, J.1. This is a suit by an endorsee of a hundi. On the 9th of April l914, the 1st defendant drew the hundi--Ex.A--on a Rangoon firm. At the top of the hundi, the 3rd defendant is described as the creditor and the 1st defendant as the debtor. The exact rendering of the hundi omitting unnecessary portions is : ' the money with Rangoon current rate of interest should be paid on demand to the person who brings this, by the Rangoon firm.' This was signed by the 1st defendant. Subsequently the 3rd defendant put his signature by way of endorsement. Plaintiffs lent to the 1st defendant on the strength of the endorsement. Hence the suit. The defence was that the debt was discharged, and that as the hundi offended against the provisions of the Paper Currency Act the suit is not maintainable. The court below held that the hundi was not discharged. They came to the conclusion relying upon Chidambaram Chettiar v. Aiyasami Thevan I.L.R. (1916) M. 585 that the suit should be dismissed...
Tag this Judgment!Srinivasa Raghava Aiyangar Vs. K.R. Ranganatha Aiyangar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-1918
Reported in: (1919)36MLJ618
Spencer, J.1. The first defendant in this suit executed a promissory note for Rs. 2,500 on 4th December 1913 in favour of one Aramudachari and two days later gave a security-bond to the same individual for the same debt. The plaintiff obtained an assignment of both instruments and sued upon them. The second defendant is a subsequent purchaser; and the third defendant is the Official Receiver of Tanjore, who was made a party in consequence of first defendant's insolvency. The plaintiff has succeeded in obtaining a personal decree against first defendant for what was due upon the promissory note, but his claim to be allowed to enforce his charge upon the first defendant's immoveable properties has been refused by both the lower Courts on the ground that there was no consideration for the security-bond (Ex. C), and upon this point he has lodged this second appeal.2. The considration for Ex. C is stated in para. 4 of the plaint to be the forbearance of the payee under the promissory note (...
Tag this Judgment!Changalroya Chetti and ors. Vs. Raghava Ramanuja Doss and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-1918
Reported in: (1919)37MLJ100
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The defendants 1 to 3 and 5 to 8 are the appellants The defendants 1 to 3 alone and the plaintiff agreed to abide by the decision of the District Munsif passed as an arbitrator. The defendants 4 and 5 who are majors and who are interested in the litigation remained ex-parte as also the guardian of the minor defendants 9 and 10. The defendants 6 to 8 are minors represented by their guardians, defendants 1 and 2. So far as the defendants 6 to 8 are concerned, it might be taken (though the defendants 1 to 3 do not expressly say so in the statement given to the District Munsif) that their guardians the defendants 1 and 2 agreed to abide by the District Munsif's decision on behalf of these minors also.2. The District Munsif as such arbitrator dismissed the plaintiff's suit on a mere inspection of the disputed house sites without referring to the evidence of the plaintiff's witness already examined and apparently without allowing an opportunity to the plaintiff to prove ...
Tag this Judgment!Muthu Ayer St. Arunachalam Chettiar and anr. Vs. St. N. Narayanan Chet ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-1918
Reported in: 51Ind.Cas.300
Seshagiri Aiyar, J.1. This is a suit by an endorsee of a Hundi. On the 9th of April 1914 the 1st defendant drew the Hundi, Exhibit A, on a Rangoon firm. At the top of the Hundi the 3rd defendant is described as the creditor and the 1st defendant as the debtor. The exact rendering of the Hundi omitting unnecessary portions is 'the money with Rangoon current rate of interest should be paid on demand to the person who brings this, by the Rangoon firm.' This was signed by the 1st defendant. Subsequently the 3rd defendant put his signature by way of endorsement. Plaintiffs lent to the 1st defendant on the strength of the endorsement. Hence the suit. The defence was that the debt was discharged, and that as the Hundi offended against the provisions of the Paper Currency Act the suit is not maintainable. The Courts below held that the Hundi was not discharged. They came to the conclusion, relying upon Chidambaram Chettiar v. Ayyasami Thevan 36 Ind. Cas. 741 ; (1916) 2 M.W.N. 210 that the suit...
Tag this Judgment!Srinivasa Raghava Iyengar Vs. K.R. Renganatha Iyengar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-1918
Reported in: 51Ind.Cas.963
Spencer, J.1. The 1st defendant in this suit executed a promissory note for Rs. 2,500 on 4th December 1913 in favour of one Aramudachari, and two days later gave a security-bond to the same individual for the same debt. The plaintiff obtained an assignment of both instruments and sued upon them. The 2nd defendant is a subsequent purchaser; and the 3rd defendant is the Official Receiver of Tanjore, who was made a party in consequence of the 1st defendant's insolvency. The plaintiff has succeeded in obtaining a personal decree against 1st defendant for what was due upon the promissory note, but his claim to be allowed to enforce his charge upon the 1st defendant's immoveable properties has been refused by both the lower Courts on the ground that there was no consideration for the security-bond (Exhibit C), and upon this point he has lodged this second appeal.2. The consideration for Exhibit C is stated in paragraph 4 of the plaint to be the forbearance of the payee under the promissory n...
Tag this Judgment!The Public Prosecutor Vs. Sennimalai Goundan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-1918
Reported in: 49Ind.Cas.656
1. We are bound by the authority of Queen-Empress v. Muppan 1 Weir 203 : 6 Ind. Dec. 628 and Public Prosecutor v. Ramaswami Konan 8 Cri.L.J. 200 : 18 M.L.J. 540, both of which place the consent and neglect of the custodian on the same footing. These rulings have been distinguished by Krishnasami Aiyar, J., in Public Prosecutor, In re 7 Ind. Cas. 392 : 8 M.L.T. 286 : 11 Cri.L.J. 477 : (1910) M.W.N. 592, but with all respect we do not think the ground of distinction is sound.2. We may refer to the wording of Section 221 of the Indian Penal Code as illustrative of the meaning to be given to the word 'escape' in Section 225 B. Section 221 speaks of a public servant who 'intentionally suffers such person to escape.' This strongly suggests that an escape is nonetheless an escape, though effected with the 'consent of the custodian.3. Under the terms of the warrant in this case, the process-server was only authorised to release the judgment-debtor on actual receipt of the decree amount.4. We m...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »