Chennai Court January 1919 Judgments
Angia Kuppier Vs. Periakaruppa Kavundan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-1919
Reported in: 50Ind.Cas.758; (1919)36MLJ286
1. The undisputed facts are that the 1st defendant executed a deed of mortgage to the plaintiff which was not in proper form owing to want of attestation, After the mortgage, the plaintiff was in possession for some time and then he was dispossessed by defendants Nos. 2 to 4 who claimed the property by title paramount. There is no allegation that the 1st defendant aided or abetted these other defendants in depriving the plaintiff of his possession. Under these circumstances, plaintiff would not be entitled to sue for the mortgage money as such even if the mortgage was in proper form. Reliance was placed upon Bam Narayan Singh v. Adhindra Nath Mukerjee I.L.R. (1916) C. 388 : 92 M.L.J 39 for the proposition that even though plaintiff may not be able to assert his claim as mortgagee, he can claim the money advanced by him on the footing that the mortgagor should refund it, In the case before the Judicial Committee the mortgagor had taken active steps to deprive the mortgagee of his posses...
Tag this Judgment!P. Suriyanarayana Rao Naidu Vs. P. Balasubramania Mudali and Six ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1919
Reported in: (1920)ILR43Mad635
Sadasiva Ayyar, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. He purchased in Court auction sale the plaint house in execution of a decree passed against the defendants Nos. 2, 3 and 4. The defendants Nos. 3 and 4 had no rights in the property and we may take it that the plaintiff purchased the right, title and interest of the second defendant in the house. The house belonged to the second defendant's husband Ekambara Mudali and then to Ekambara Mudali's only son who died a minor. On her minor son's death, the second defendant as his heir became the qualified female owner of the house. The minor left his two sisters, defendants Nos. 6 and 7 unmarried. The money-decree against the second defendant was passed for a personal debt of the second defendant, the mother and next heir of the last male owner. The plaintiff, purchaser in Court auction, obtained delivery of the downstairs portion, but the upstair portion of the house now in dispute was occupied by the defendants Nos. 6 and 7, the two unmar...
Tag this Judgment!Annamalai Chetti and anr. Vs. Annamalai Chetti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1919
Reported in: 52Ind.Cas.456
Spencer, J.1. The plaintiff and defend-ants Nos. 1 to 10 represent a firm which was started in Mandalay under the style of A. L. A. M. for doing money-lending business, which, for brevity may be referred to as the Mandalay 'firm In 1908, the 8th defendant in this suit brought a suit in the District Court of Mandalay for dissolution of the partner-ship of this firm and obtained a decree in which the proportionate shares of the partners were defined, seven in number and the plaintiff in the present suit was declared to be the owner of one share While the suit was pending and before the partnership was dissolved, a sum of Rs. 35,239 and odd was collected by one Arunachalla Chetty, who was the agent of the Mandalay firm, and this sum was deposited at interest with a firm consisting of defendants Nos. 1 to 7 and a stranger who is the 11th defendant in this suit which may be briefly referred to as the Rangoon firm. It may be seen that defendants Nos. 1 to 7 are common partners in both the Ma...
Tag this Judgment!G. Aravamuda Chariar and ors. Vs. Aramanai Krishna Iyer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1919
Reported in: 50Ind.Cas.815
1. This is a suit for damages brought by the plaintiffs who purchased certain properties from defendants Nos. 1 to 3. Defendants Nos. 1 to 3 had purchased one half share of these properties from the 4th defendant, the guardian of his minor daughter, Ponnammal, who had inherited them from her deceased mother. After Ponnammal's marriage a suit, Original Suit No. 43 of 1915, was filed on her behalf to recover back her share of the properties with mesne profits from the present plaintiffs. The plaintiffs gave notice to the 4th defendant to come in and defend the title but he failed to do, and, in these circumstances the plaintiffs on the 28th September 1916 consented to a decree by which they became liable to pay Ponnammal Rs. 5,925 in settlement of her claims, which sum they duly paid, and then sued to recover the amount as damages from their vendors, defendants Nos. 1 to 3, and the 4th defendant and his son, the 5th defendant.2. At the trial the plaintiffs said they Would be satisfied wi...
Tag this Judgment!Rallabandi Veeramma Vs. Rallabandi Subba Rao and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-1919
Reported in: 52Ind.Cas.639
1. The question is whether Order IX, Rule 9, of the Code of Civil Procedure, is applicable to the dismissal of an application for probate which has under Section 83 of the Probate and Administration Act, V of 1881, been treated as a suit. That section directs that the proceedings shall take, as nearly as may be, the form of a suit according to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, Section 55 of the same Act also applies these provisions to proceedings in relation to the grant of probate go far as the circumstances of the case admit. And we cannot find anything in the latter part of Order IX, Rule 9, which is the relevant provision in the present connection, which cannot be conveniently applied.2. Respondents, however, argue, firstly, that that part of the rule can be applied only when the first part debarring the plaintiff from a second suit can be applied also, and they rely on Ramani Debi v. Kumud Bandhu 7 Ind. Cas. 126 : 14 C.W.N. 924 : 12 C.L.J. 185 for the position that i...
Tag this Judgment!Bogisetti Akka Nagamma Vs. Panganama Krishna Rao and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1919
Reported in: 52Ind.Cas.746
1. The second of the oases relied on by the District Judge, Luchhman Prasad v. Sarnam, Singh 40 Ind. Cas. 281 : 19 Bom. L.R. 646 : 26 C.L.J. 97 : (1917) M.W.N. 516 : 6 L.W. 334 : 44 I.A. 163 was decided with reference to the law in Allahabad, and in Anant Ram v. Collector of Etah 44 Ind. Cas. 290 : 34 M.L.J. 291 : 7 L.W. 323 : 4 P.L.W. 226 : 16 A.L.J 245 : 23 M.L.T. 228 : 22 C.W.N. 484 : 27 C.L.J. 363 : 20 Bom. L.R. 621: (1918) M.W.N. 446 the 'Judicial Committee in referring to the same case quote it as being authority for that province.2. The fact that the law on this point is different in Madras and Bombay from the law in Allahabad and Calcutta was recognised by the Privy Council so long ago as Lakskman Dada Naik v. Ramchandra Dada Naik 4 Sar. P.C.J. 173 : 3 Suth. P.G.J. 778 : 3 Shome. L.R. 217 : 4 Ind. Jur. 472 : 7 C.L.R. 320 : 3 Ind. Dec. (n.s.) 34 and Suraj Bunsi Koer v. Sheo Persad Singh 5 C.P 148 : 6 I.A. 88 : 4. Sar. P.C.J. 1 : 3 Suth. P.C.J. 589 : 4 R.P 226 : 2 Shome L.R. 242 ...
Tag this Judgment!Polita Pavana Panda and ors. Vs. Narasinga Panda and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-1919
Reported in: 51Ind.Cas.155; (1919)36MLJ538
Oldfield, J.1. I have had the advantage of reading the judgment to be delivered by my learned brother and, as I agree with it, I propose to deal with one aspect of defendants' case.2. Stated at its strongest, their case was that their dispute with plaintiff and 23rd defendant involved adjudication on two distinct matters, firstly their right and plaintiffs' to recover the property in 23rd defendant's possession from him, secondly, their rights as against plaintiffs to a particular share in it if it in fact was recoverable. On the first point for the reasons given by my learned brother, there could be no valid submission to arbitration without 2nd defendant's concurrence and although the record does not indicate what method of decision, if any, was really in the parties' minds the wording of paragraph 2, Ex. I, is in fact inconsistent with any intention on their part to submit this part of the case. But, it is argued, the absence of any valid submission on this point does not affect the...
Tag this Judgment!Venkatachallam Pillai Vs. Krishnaswami Pathan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-1919
Reported in: 50Ind.Cas.673
Krishnan, J.1. The Subordinate Judge has returned his findings. The suit, so far as it is based on the covenant for title is found to be barred by limitation and that is not disputed. So far as it is based on misrepresentation, the claim would also be barred. For, even assuming that Article 95 applies, as held in Punnayil Kuttu v. Raman Nair 31 M.P 230 : 18 M.L.J. 19 : 4 M.L.T. 80 to such a claim, the suit was brought more than 3 years after the date of the second appeal decree; so that, making every allowance in plaintiff's favour, the claim based on misrepresentation also fails.3. But the claim based on the indemnity bond remains. I agree with the Subordinate Judge that the language of the bond is wide enough to include loss caused by an adverse title being set up by third parties as was done in this case.4. The covenant talks of security, etc, muthaliathu in Tamil and later on contemplates the whole property being lost which may be due to minors' suits or otherwise. The suit, so far...
Tag this Judgment!J. Ramaraya Shanbogue Vs. Sherbett Venkatramanayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-1919
Reported in: 50Ind.Cas.410
Oldfield, J.1. The only question for decision is whether interest ceases to run on money paid into Court for a decree holder under Order XXI, Rule 1, on the date of that payment or on the date when the decree-holder receives notice thereof.2. The Code is not explicit on the point, and the authority relied on by the lower Appellate Court, Krishnaswami Chettyar v. Ramasawmi Chettyar 8 Ind. Cas. 763 : 35 M.P 44 : 9 M.L.T. 131 : (1911) 1 M.W.N. 89 deals with a payment under the special provisions of the Transfer of Property Act. Looking however to the terms of Order XXI, Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure, I observe that there would be nothing to compel compliance by the judgment-debtor with Clause 2, which enjoins the giving of notice of the payment to the decree-holder, if the running of interest stopped before and independently of it. There is further no reason why the decree holder should be deprived of compensation for being kept out of his money, because the judgment-debtor chooses a pa...
Tag this Judgment!Gurusami Nadan and ors. Vs. T.S. Gopalaswmi Odayar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-1919
Reported in: 50Ind.Cas.775
John Wallis, C.J.1. This is a suit by the members of a temple committee to recover temple funds which were originally lent on two promissory notes, Exhibits E and J, dated 10th January 1893, executed by the late Katnaswaniy Natfar, brother of the 1st defendant, father of defendants Nos. 2 to 4 and uncle of defendants Nos. 5 to 10. Several promissory notes were executed in renewal of Exhibit E and J by Satanswamy Nadar, the last of which were Exhibits A and A-1. The only question is whether their is sufficient evidence to support the Subordinate Judge's finding that these debts are binding on the joint family of the defendants of which the deceased Ratnaswamy Nadar was the managing member. In 1893, when the loan was contracted, his brothers were minors and there is evidence that he was carrying on the business of an Abkari contractor and that the business was a joint family business. The family had been engaged in the business for a great, many years, and indeed for a long time were the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »