Chennai Court March 1918 Judgments
Ramalingam Ayyar and ors. Vs. S. Subbaier
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1918
Reported in: 47Ind.Cas.624
Napier, J.1. With regard to the question whether the suit was bona fide filed in the Court of the District Munsif of Ambasamudram, I do not think that the fact that he thought ha would be more likely' to get his money paid by the 1st defendant if he sued him in the Court of which he was an officer shows want of bona fides. A man has a perfect right to endeavour to get the payment of his money, and I see nothing improper in suing his debtor where he thought he would be more willing to discharge the debt. But the real difficulty in the way of the plaintiff seems to me to lie, in the language of the section, as follows:-- 'in computing the period of limitation prescribed for any suit,' that is to say, in reckoning the number of days to see if time has expired, you may deduct from the period that has actually expired the period allowed by Section 14, namely, 'the time during which the plaintiff has been prosecuting with due diligence another Civil proceeding' in a Court which is unable to ...
Tag this Judgment!Ranga Pillai Vs. Narasimha Ayyangar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1918
Reported in: 47Ind.Cas.852
1. It is contended for appellant that the words at whatever cultivation season in the month of Chittirai in any year after the stipulated period of ten years. I may pay the principal amount, you shall at that time receive the amount' contain an implied covenant to pay at the end of ten years. This stipulation as to payment is one entirely for the benefit of the mortgagor for it allows him to choose his own time for payment if he wishes to pay. To construe this as a personal covenant to pay at the end of ten years which the mortgagee could enforce at once would be to destroy the whole benefit of the stipulation so far as the mortgagor is concerned. We are not, therefore, prepared to read into the words a covenant which would destroy the whole effect of the express arrangement between the parties. There are no other recitals in the deed to suggest that there was any personal covenant, and therefore, we agree with the Subordinate Judge's finding that there is none.2. As this is the only p...
Tag this Judgment!Best and Co. Ltd. Vs. the Collector of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1918
Reported in: (1918)35MLJ23
1. This was a suit brought by Messrs. Best & Co. Ltd., a firm of merchants carrying on business in this city, for a declaration that an agreement dated the 4th October 1915 entered into by them with the Collector of Madras of the day was binding on the parties. The action is brought because, on the 22nd May 1917, the Collector purporting to act in consequence of the Income-Tax Act, V of 1916 declared that the agreement was no longer binding on him and repudiated it. The plaintiffs tendered the sum that they sad to be due under the agreement and brought this action to safeguard their rights under it. The agreement is one made with the Collector of Madras under the provisions of the former Income-Tax Act (II of 1886) Section 31, which enables persons, instead of being reassessed every year, to arrange with the Collector for a definite sum to be assessed for a fixed period and in this case the period agreed upon was five years from the 1st April 1915. The plaintiffs originally sued the Se...
Tag this Judgment!Lakshmanan Chetty and ors. Vs. P.P.V. Palaniappa Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1918
Reported in: 45Ind.Cas.30; (1918)34MLJ470
ORDER1. As regards the preliminary objection that no petition under Order 41, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure lies in this court, in respect of stay of sale of immoveable property, Wallis, C.J. and Hannay, J. doubted in C.M. P. No. 1595 of 1914 (in A.A.O. No. 173 of 1914) the soundness of the decision in Kanniappan Chetty v. Manikkavasagam Chetty : (1912)23MLJ677 which was quoted in support of the objection. We are inclined to go further and dissent (with great respect) from the decision in Kanniappan Chetty v. Manikkavasagam Chetty : (1912)23MLJ677 . The inherent powers of the Appellate Court clearly recognised by Order 41 Rule 5 cannot be held to have been cut down or limited by the special and exceptional power conferred on the executing Court by Order 41 Rule 6, which rule seems to have been clearly intended in order that the executing court might be compelled to exercise it in emergent cases for benefit of the judgment debtor. (See also the pertinent observations of Mookerje...
Tag this Judgment!M. Kuppaswamy Chetty and ors. Vs. Kusala Ramiah and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1918
Reported in: 49Ind.Cas.89
John Wallis, C.J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of Mr. Justice Coutts Trotter in a suit brought by the purchaser, from the Official Assignee, of the right, title and interest of the insolvent, one Rathnavelu Chetty (1st defendant), in the suit 'properties. The insolvent was adjudicated in October 1903 and in the course of 1104 there was some correspondence between the Official Assignee and the insolvent's brother, Kuppuswamy Chetty, the 3rd defendant in this case. 'The then Official Assignee did not press his claim to the property but subsequently in 1910 his successor, Mr. Branson, took a different view and sold the property by public auction to the plaintiff. Now in the appeal which was argued before us, (he right of the plaintiff to stand in the shoes of the insolvent, Rathnavelu Chetty, by virtue of his purchase from the Official Assignee has not been contested. Three points were taken, two of which do not appear to have been pressed before the learned Judge.2. The facts as...
Tag this Judgment!Divakar Singh Vs. A. Ramamurthi Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1918
Reported in: 47Ind.Cas.273; (1918)35MLJ127
1. Upon the finding that the Sub-Inspector of Guntur conducted the search there can be no question of defendant's jurisdiction over the place searched. The finding is objected to on the ground that no specific issue was raised on the point, but the plea that the defendant did not himself conduct the search, but only searched the house as the Sub-Inspector's assistant was specifically raised in the written statement and comes within the scope of issue I. Even otherwise it is questionable whether defendant, as investigating Police Officer, was not attached to Guntur Police station by the orders of his superiors but this point does not seem to have been considered.2. The contention chiefly relied on by Mr. Ramadoss is that the search was wholly illegal inasmuch as Section 165 of the Criminal Procedure Code does not give authority to search for stolen property. This is a somewhat startling proposition put in this way, and it is based on the rulings in Bajrangi Gope v. Emperor I.L.R. (1910)...
Tag this Judgment!The Deputy Collector, Madura Division Vs. Muthirula Mudali and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1918
Reported in: (1918)35MLJ83
Abdur Rahim, J.1. These appeals in my opinion must fail. Objection is taken to the valuation of the District Judge in respect of plots 611 F, 611 G, 383, A2. The District Judge has awarded Es. 1,143 per acre for all these plots. Mr. Ramesam contends that these are back lands and that there-, fore they ought not to be valued at the same rate as the lands with frontage. But I think the District Judge is right in holding that the purchase by the Madura Mills Company in 1915 of lands similarly situated furnishes a good index of the proper market price. We have considered the question carefully and are not prepared to dissent from the District Judge's estimate.2. The appeals are dismissed with costs. The time for payment will be 3 months from this date.3. A preliminary objection has been taken with reference to the memoranda of objections. The memoranda of objections relate not merely to the plots covered by the appeals but also to other plots, though all the plots to which the memoranda of...
Tag this Judgment!Aga Muhammadally Beg Sahib Vs. Chendragiri Venkatappayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1918
Reported in: (1918)35MLJ287
Phillips, J. 1. Plaintiff, appellant sues to redeem an usufructuary mortgage executed in 1902 (Exhibit B). Under that document the property was put in possession of the mortgagees, and it was stipulated that the mortgage amount should be worked off by applying the usufruct, Rs. 20 a year, in discharge, firstly of the principal and secondly of the interest, A calculation shows that the mortgage amount would be discharged in about 37 years. There is another stipulation that if payment of what is then due be made on 12-1-12 the property should be handed over to the mortgagor but if such payment were not made the mortgagee's possession was to continue on the same terms as before. The payment was not made on 12-1-12 and this suit for redemption was brought in 1916 and has been dismissed as premature.2. It is contended for appellant that the stipulation for payment in January 1912 is a covenant for payment, and that consequently the mortgagors are entitled to redeem after the time fixed for ...
Tag this Judgment!Adhikari Vishnumurthiayya Vs. Authaiya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1918
Reported in: 47Ind.Cas.533; (1918)35MLJ153
1. In this case the plaintiff sued the 1st defendant, here appellant, to recover the half share of property alienated to the latter by a widow, whose husband's reversioners plaintiff and 2nd defendant are; 3 to 5 defendants are 2nd defendant's legal representatives. The lower appellate court's judgment is concerned with the validity of this alienation; and the 1st defendant has not disputed the correctness of its conclusion in plaintiff's favour before us. The appeal therefore so far as it relates to plaintiff's claim must be dismissed with costs as between him and 1st defendant. 2. As between 1st defendant and 3 to 5 defendants the facts are that, although the suit was brought in ejectment by plaintiff as a co-owner and 2nd defendant made no attempt to disclaim his position as a defendant, he offered in his written statement to pay the necessary court-fee in case a decree should be given him for his share, proposing apparently to follow the procedure, which is undoubtedly open to a de...
Tag this Judgment!Samanthala Koti Reddi Vs. Pothuri Subbiah and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1918
Reported in: (1918)34MLJ494
John Wallis, C.J.1. As observed by Seshagiri Aiyar, J. in his order of reference the point for decision is whether in consequence of his want of bona fides the first defendant forfeited his right to notice before suit under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Both the referring Judges were of opinion that the act done by the defendant came within the words 'any act purporting to be done by such public officer in his official capacity. 'These words were introduced into Section 424 of the Code of 1877 by Act XII of 1879, and the corresponding Section 80 of the present Code was further amended by substituting 'any' for ' an ' and ',such public officer' for 'him'. According to the concise Oxford Dictionary recently published at the Clarendon Press, to 'purport' in this context means to 'be intended to seem'. There can be no doubt that the act of the Village Munsif in handing over the surplus proceeds of the revenue sale to the defaulting owner was an act 'intended to seem' to be don...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »