Chennai Court March 1918 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
N.P.R.M.V.R.M. Alagappa Chettiar Vs. N.P.R.M.L.S.T. Lakshmanan Chettia ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1918
Reported in: 51Ind.Cas.253
Abdur Rahim, J.1. The common question in all these appeals relates to the interpretation of Exhibit I, which is described as a deed of trust. The contest is between the Official Receiver appointed in the insolvency of Pachaperuma Chetty, and some of his creditors who are said to have been appointed trustees of the property of the insolvent for the benefit of all the creditors. The lower Court has held that the Official Receiver is entitled to possession of the assets of the insolvent as they had vested in him, and not the person described as trustees in Exhibit I. Exhibit I was executed on the 25th October 1913, and Pachaperamal Chetty was adjudicated an insolvent on his own application in April 1915. So, if there was a valid trust for the benefit of his creditors created by Exhibit I, the claim of the trustees will prevail against that of the Official Receiver.2. It is necessary for the creation of a trust that the property should be transferred to the trustee. But reading Exhibit I, ...
V.P. Peer Mahomed Rowther Vs. Dalooram Jayanarayan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1918
Reported in: 47Ind.Cas.555; (1918)35MLJ180
John Wallis, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Mr. Justice Coutts Trotter, giving the plaintiff damages for breach of contract on the ground that the goods delivered pursuant to the contract were found to be damaged by white ants and not of merchantable quality. Mr. M.D. Devadoss, in appeal, has raised a fresh point that Section 113, Indian Contract Act, does not mean that in the case of sales by description and sales by sample there is the same warranty that the goods are of merchantable quality as is provided in Sections 14 and 15 of the English Sale of Goods Act, 1893. It would be a very extraordinary thing if these two statutes which are founded on the same course of English decisions were found to vary in such a material particular as this. The language used in Section 113, Indian Contract Act, is not as clear as the language used in the Sale of Goods Act, which uses the words, ' merchantable quality.' But the first illustration to Section 113, Indian Contract Act, is cl...
V.R.M. Ramasami Naidu Vs. T.M. Muthusamia Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1918
Reported in: (1918)35MLJ581
Oldfield, J.1. The main facts of this case can be stated shortly. Plaintiff obtained a decree against 2nd, 3rd and 4th defendants and, after attaching money, alleged to belong to them and to be in 1st defendant's possession, was appointed Receiver in his own execution and in that capacity is now attempting to recover from 1st defendant, the other defendants being impleaded as persons interested. The defence of 1st defendant the appellant before us, is that (1) the money is a sum due to 2nd, 3rd and 4th defendants and one Rajappa Mudali, the right to collect which he acquired in a legal manner; (2) if his own title is bad, some at least of the money has vested in persons other than plaintiff, those who are administering 2nd and 3rd defendants' estates in insolvency.2. The Lower Appellate Court's judgment is mainly occupied with the second of these contentions. The facts relied on are that 2nd defendant on 13th March 1911 and 3rd defendant on 7th October 1911 became insolvents, the one i...
Aramproth Illoth Vasudevan Moosad, Karnavan and Manager of His Illom V ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1918
Reported in: 45Ind.Cas.46; (1918)34MLJ412
John Wallis, C.J.1. It is strange that in none of the cases in this Court dealing with the ottidar's right of preemption in Malabar, Cheria Krishnan v. Vishnu I.L.R. (1882) Mad. 198 Vasudevan v. Kesavan I.L.R. (1884) Mad 309, Kanharankutti v. Uthotti I.L.R. (1890) Mad. 490 Ammotti Haji v. Kuhayen Kutii I.L.R. (1892) Mad. 480, Kanaran Nair v. Raman Nambiyar (1893) 4 M.L.J. 46 or Mammali v. Kunhipakhi Haji I.L.R. (1912) Mad. 67 has the question been considered, how far such a right can be exercised in the case of court and revenue sales consistently with the provisions of the statute law regulating such sales. Both in Bengal and in Northern India, where cases of pre-emption are much more numerous than they are here, it appears to be well settled that it cannot in the absence of statutory provision being made for its exercise, as in the case of some revenue sales in the United Provinces. In Baij Nath v. Sital Singh I.L.R. (1890) All. 224 Mahmood, J., after reviewing the authorities, state...
Saminatha Aiyar Vs. Govindasami Padayachi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1918
Reported in: 45Ind.Cas.595; (1918)34MLJ536
John Wallis, C.J. 1. I do not think that the decision in Krishna v. Mekmn Peruma I.L.R. (1886) Mad. 44 is any authority for the proposition mentioned in the order of reference. In that case, a sale of a permanently settled mitta at a time, and in respect of arrears which accrued due, when some but not all of the joint proprietors were minors, was held not to be prohibited by Reg. X of 1831. The learned Judges were of opinion that an estate so owned was not one of which the Court of Wards could have assumed management under Reg. V of 1804, and that Reg. X of 1831 only applied to estates ' which might have but had not been taken under the Court of Wards'. Reg. V of 1804 imposed no restriction on the Court of Wards with reference' to the nature of the minor's property, and consequently the reasoning of the learned Judges in Krishna v. Mekam Peruma I.L.R. (1886) Mad. 44 has no bearing on the present case where the sole owner of the land is a minor. It has, however, been strenuously contend...
Challagundla Varamma and ors. Vs. Madala Gopaladasayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-1918
Reported in: 46Ind.Cas.202; (1918)35MLJ57
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The facts out of which the question of law referred to this Full Bench arises may be shortly stated thus:2. Butchayya, a Hindu, died in 1890. The 2nd defendant, his mother, inherited his properties with the rights and powers of a female heir. She sold the plaint properties in 1891 to the 3rd defendant. The then presumptive reversioner P.W. No. 1, who was entitled at once to sue for a declaration on behalf of the whole body of successive presumptive reversioners (including the 3rd defendant), failed to bring such a suit within the twelve years allowed to him by Article 125 of the Limitation Act, that is, within November 1903. The 3rd defendant who was benefited by the 2nd defendant's alienation would, of course, not bring any such suit. Meanwhile, the plaintiff and the 1st defendant, (minors even at the date of this suit), were born to Butchayya's stepsisters and they on their birth became nearer presumptive reversioners than even P.W. No. 1. The plaintiff, having b...
Sunkara Ratha Doss Vs. Epari Kopils and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-1918
Reported in: 46Ind.Cas.191
Phillips, J.1. This is a suit on a pro-note executed by one partner (1st defendant) in favour of another partner (plaintiff), and it has been dismissed by the District Judge on the ground that the partnership is still subsisting and that the debt should be included when the accounts are finally settled. I think he is wrong in his view of the law, for the correct principle has been enunciated in Karri Venkatareddi v. Kollu Narasayya 1 Ind. Cas. 384 that if the account sought is in respect of a matter which, though arising out of the partnership business or connected with it, does not involve the general taking of accounts the Court will as a rule give the relief sued for, and will now a--days refuse to interfere only in those oases in which a partial settlement would work injustice to the other partner.2. In the present case the business of the partnership has practically ceased, no transaction having taken place since the settlement of accounts which resulted in the plaint promissory n...
Subbu Reddi Vs. Ponnambala Reddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-1918
Reported in: 49Ind.Cas.359
1. The order under appeal is one dismissing an execution petition by a transferee, a decree-holder, for recovery by sale of certain items of property in which the counter petitioners, respondents, are interested. The decree, one for maintenance, was executable against those items and another No. 11, which was actually brought to sale and purchased by one Umapathy Reddi. This sale was confirmed on 9th April 1913 and the District Munsif made an entry in this diary that satisfaction ; of the decree to the extent of the proceeds was recorded. On 26th February 1914, however, one Veerama Reddi had filed Original Suit No. 15* of 1914 for a declaration that the items sold belonged to him and that the decree charging it and the sale were invalid against him. The defendants originally impleaded were the decree-holder, the judgment-debtor interest ed in the property, who is 6th respondent here, Umapathy Reddi and another person, not concerned in- the present proceedings. Daring the pendency of th...
Seetharama Ayyar and anr. Vs. Narayanaswami Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-1918
Reported in: 47Ind.Cas.749
1. There was a settlement of accounts between the plaintiff and the guardians of the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and in that settlement a earn of Rs. 600 due from one Sambamoortbia Pillaij husband of the 3rd defendant, is alleged to have been assigned to the plaintiff by the guardians of defendants Nos. 1 and 2. The first question that arises, is whether there was such an assignment as is Contemplated by section ISO of the Transfer of Property Act. There is no question but that the sum of Bs. 600 was in fact due from the 3rd defendant's husband to defendants Nos. 1 and 2. Section 130(1), Transfer of Property Act says 'The transfer of an actionable claim shall be effected only by the execution of an instrument in writing signed by the transferor or his duly authorised agent and shall be complete and effectual upon the execution of such instrument and thereupon all the rights and remedies of the transferor, whether by way of damages or otherwise, shall vest in the transferee, whether such no...
K. Nanu Nair and anr. Vs. K.M. Kundan Ashtamurthi Nambudripad by Mukte ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-1918
Reported in: 47Ind.Cas.914
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. This is an appeal by two of the judgment debtors, mortgagees and tenants under the Malabar Compensation for Tenants' Improvements Act, the respondent being the mortgagor landlord who brought this suit for ejectment and obtained a decree. Under Section 3, Clause (2) of the Malabar Compensation for Tenants' Improvements Act (Madras Act I of 1900) 'ejectment' includes ' redemption' or 'recovery of possession of the. land mortgaged. The revised decree in the suit passed by the Subordinate Judge (the lower Appellate Court) on the 14th February 1913 was to the following effect: that on plaintiff's depositing into Court on or before the 14th day of August 1913 the amount shown above as due to various defendants less the arrears of rent and costs and future rent till the date of deposit, the defendants do surrender the plaint properties with all improvements thereon and if such payment is not made on or before the said 14th August 1913 the property shall be sold. This decr...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »