Chennai Court December 1919 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.
Kadhir Masthan Rowther Vs. Segammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-1919
Reported in: (1920)38MLJ198
Spencer, J.1. This is a suit brought by the assignee of a permanent lease granted by the trustee of a trust called Lala Dharmam to recover possession of the suit site from the tenant in occupation. The suit was dismissed in the District Munsiff's Court on the ground that the trustee had no power to alienate the trust property and that his alienation was void and conveyed no title to the plaintiff; and on appeal the District Judge has confirmed this decision and dismissed the appeal.2. It is contended before us that a grant of a permanent lease represented not a void but a voidable transaction and that it has not yet been avoided. In Venkataramana Ayyangar v. Kasturiranga Ayyangar I.L.R (1916) M. 212 my learned brother stated: 'It is now settled law that, ordinarily, a permanent alienation of trust properties is ultra vires of the powers of a trustee' and the respondent's pleader asks us to treat this expression 'ultra vires' as meaning void; but it does not necessarily have that signif...
Kadir Mastan Rowther Vs. Sengammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-1919
Reported in: (1920)ILR43Mad433
Spencer, J.1. This is a suit brought by the assignee of a permanent lease granted by the trustee of a trust called Lala Dharmam to recover possession of the suit site from the tenant in occupation. The suit was dismissed in the District Munsif's Court, on the ground that the trustee had no power to alienate the trust property and that his alienation was void and conveyed no title to the plaintiff; and on appeal the District Judge has confirmed this decision and dismissed the appeal.2. It is contended before us that the grant of a permanent lease represented not a void but a voidable transaction and that it has not yet been avoided. In Venkataramana Ayyangar v. Kasturiranga Ayyangar I.L.R. (1917) Mad. 212 my learned brother stated:It is now settled law that ordinarily a permanent alienation of trust properties is ultra vires of the powers of a trustee.and the respondent's pleader asks us to treat this expression 'ultra vires' as meaning void; but it does not necessarily have that signif...
Kadiri Masthan Rowther Vs. Segammall
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-1919
Reported in: 55Ind.Cas.655
Spencer, J.1. This is a suit brought by the assignee of a permanent lease. granted by the trustee of a trust called Lala Dharman, to recover possession of the suit site from the tenant in occupation. The suit was dismissed in the District Munsif's Court on the ground that the trustee had no power to alienate the trust property and that his alienation was void and conveyed no title to the plaintiff, and on appeal the District Judge has confirmed this decision and dismissed the appeal.2. It is contended before us that the grant of a permanent lease represented not a void but a voidable transaction and that it has not yet been avoided. In Kalyana Venkataramana Aiyangar v. Kasturi Ranga Aiyangar 38 Ind. Cas. 73 : 31 M.L.J. 777 : 20 M.L.T. 490 : 5 L.W. 625 : (1917) M.W.N. 400 my learned brother stated: 'It is now settled law that ordinarily a permanent alienation of trust properties is ultra vires of the powers of a trustee', and the respondent's Pleader asks us to treat this expression 'ul...
Muthu Chettiar Vs. Muhammad HussaIn and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-1919
Reported in: 55Ind.Cas.763
1. In Second appeal No. 418 of 1919 the District Judge has held that the payment of interest by Naina Mohamed Rowther did not save limitation against the 7th and 8th defendants and that only the share of the payee should be sold under the decree. Mr. Venkatarama Sastriar has attacked this conclusion mainly on the basis of the English Statute Law of Limitation and of the decisions thareon. In England the limitation provided by the Mercantile Law Amendment Act (19 and 20 Vic, Chapter 97, Section 14) only applied to simple money debts The Real Property Limitation Act, 37 and 38 Vic, Chapter 57, provided for the saving of limitation by the act of mortgagors and of the mortgagees. Section 8, referring to mortgagors, makes the act of one of the mortgagors binding on his co-mortgagors. Section 7, on the other hand, lays down that the act of the mortgagee is binding only on him and not on his co-mortgagee. In this state of the English Law Section 21 of the Limitation Act was introduced into th...
Kandasami Goundan Vs. Minor Kuppa Moopan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-03-1919
Reported in: (1920)38MLJ203
1. The Lower Courts have found that the suit mortgage was neither executed for an antecedent debt nor for any necessary purpose binding on the sons. It is therefore clear that the mortgage as a mortgage is not enforceable against the sons shares in the property mortgaged and no mortgage decree for sale of those shares can be passed against them. This is not controverted by the appellant.2. It is however claimed for the appellant that a conditional decree for the recovery of any balance left, in case the net proceeds of the sale of the father's share or the mortgaged property is found to be insufficient to pay the amount due to him should have been passed under Order 34, Rule 6, Civil Procedure Code, against the 1st defendant the mortgagor personally and against the ancestral properties of himself and his sons, as prayed for by him in his plaint.3. That a conditional decree under Section 90 of the Transfer of Property Act can be passed in the mortgage suit itself without waiting for the...
In Re: W.H. Lockley
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-03-1919
Reported in: (1920)38MLJ209
Seshagiri Aiyar, J.1. The accused has been convicted of the offence of cheating. He was employed in Messrs. Oakes & Co., as Works Manager. Mr. Wilson was employed in the same firm in a slightly higher capacity. The case for the prosecution is that the accused received Rs. 3,000 from Mr. Wilson on the representation that the money was required for paying for certain articles purchased for the firm from the Chief Engineer of S.S. Ural, but that he only paid Rs. 2,000 to the Chief Engineer and misappropriated the balance.2. The arguments in appeal were mainly devoted to attacking the procedure followed by the Magistrate. Mr. Richmond's first complaint was that there was a misjoinder of charges. The facts on which this contention was based are these:The original charge against the accused was that he received stolen property from the Chief Engineer. After the prosecution evidence was closed, an alternative charge under Section 420 Indian Penal Code was added. The Learned Counsel contended ...
Hari Krishnamurthi Vs. Akella Suryanarayanamurthi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-03-1919
Reported in: 57Ind.Cas.753; (1920)38MLJ271
Spencer, J.1. The question is whether the execution petition filed on the 23rd March 1916 to execute the decree in O.S. No. 55 of 1904 is in time and the answer to this question depends on whether the execution petitions filed on 18th June 1914 and 22nd October 1914 by the transferee decree-holder, M. Narasayya, were made in accordance with law. It is true that on those dates Narasayya was restrained from executing the decree or otherwise realising the decree-debt by reason of the decree obtained by the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 835, of 1911, who are respondents in this appeal, and it is argued that, as no execution could take place without an execution petition being presented to the Court, the restraint order would render any application made in that connection by Narasayya illegal, as being in contravention of a decree of court.2. On the other hand, it is clear that the only person competent at that date to apply for execution was the transferee decree-holder, Narasayya, whose transfer...
T. Subramania Aiyar and anr. Vs. Shaw Wallace and Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-03-1919
Reported in: 58Ind.Cas.648; (1920)43MLJ402
Abdur Rahim, J.1. Messrs. Shaw Wallace and Co. merchants of Madras, sued the defendants--appellants on a surety bond executed on the 11th February 1911 by the 1st defendant the father of defendants 2 and 3, all of them being members of a joint Hindu family. The 1st defendant who is a Brahmin land-holder of Mayavaram in the District of Tanjore wanted to do tanner's business but for social considerations, he liked to keep himself in the background and let the business be carried on in the name of a third person. The plaintiff company need on behalf of the tanners to ship their goods to England for sale charging them a commission on the sale proceeds, and in furtherance of such business they advanced moneys to tanners in order that they might buy skins and hides and tan them on the understanding that those goods should be sold in the London market through the plaintiff's agency. They charged interest on such advances and in order to secure their repayment they not only bargained for a lie...
M.P.M.R.M.N. Ramanathan Chettiar Vs. K.R.S.V. Muthiah Chetty and Five ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-03-1919
Reported in: (1920)ILR43Mad429
Abdur Rahim, J.1. There were two brothers belonging to the Nattukottai Chetti community, namely, Narayana Chettiar and Muthia Chettiar, The plaintiff is the son of the former and defendants Nos. 4 to 6 are sons of the latter. The two brothers carried on money-lending business in the name of M.P.M.R.M. They had business in various places. Narayana Chettiar died fifteen years ago, and Muthia Chettiar died about ten years previous to the suit. At the time of the latter's death, plaintiff and defendants Nos. 4 to 6 were all minors and the family was undivided. The first defendant in the suit is the maternal uncle of defendants Nos. 4 to 6. He was appointed as agent by the mother of these defendants to manage and took after their share in the family property and the business. The second defendant, who is the maternal uncle of the plaintiff, was similarly appointed by the plaintiff's mother. The suit was instituted by the plaintiff, who attained majority in 1911, for a decree directing defen...
Hari Krishnamurti Vs. Akella Suryanarayanamurti and Two ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-03-1919
Reported in: (1920)ILR43Mad424
Spencer, J.1. The question is whether the execution petition filed on 23rd March 1916 to execute the decree in Original Suit No. 55 of 1904 is in time and the answer to this question depends on whether the execution petitions filed on 18th June 1914 and 22nd October 1914 by the transferee decree-holder, M. Narasayya, were made in accordance with law. It is true that on those dates Narasayya was restrained from executing the decree or otherwise realizing the decree debt by reason of the decree obtained by the plaintiffs in Original Suit No. 835 of 1911, who are respondents in this appeal, and it is argued that as no execution could take place without an execution petition being presented to the Court, the restraint order would render any application made in that connection by Narasayya illegal, as being in contravention of a decree of Court.2. On the other hand, it is clear that the only person competent at that date to apply for execution was the transferee decree-holder, Narasayya, wh...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »