Chennai Court May 1919 Judgments
Samarapuri Chettiar Vs. A. Sutharsana Chettiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-02-1919
Reported in: (1919)37MLJ109
1. The Lower appellate Court was in error in applying the doctrine that time may not be of the essence of the contract which arises on the construction of contracts of sale to contracts for re-sale of property conveyed. The true doctrine is stated in Fisher on Mortgages Para II Chapter I. Section 18 and is that if the transaction is not a mortgage the right to repurchase being an option must be exercised according to the strict terms of the power; vide Joy v. Birch (1836) 7 Eng. Rep. 22 : Clause and F 57 Ranelagh v. Melton (1861) 62 Eng. Rep. 627 : 2 Dr.& Sm. 278 and Dibbins v. Dibbins (1896) 2 Ch. 348. There is no reason why a different rule should prevail in India. We therefore reverse the decisions of the lower courts and remit the case to the court of first instance for the trial of issues one and four in the light of the observations of the Full Bench in Muthuvelu v. Vythilinga Mudaliar : (1919)36MLJ385 . Costs to abide. Appellant to have refund of costs paid on this Memo of Secon...
Tag this Judgment!Ovula Kondama Naicken Aiyen Avergal and anr. Vs. Aparanji Amma and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-02-1919
Reported in: 52Ind.Cas.1003
1. We are not satisfied that the learned Subordinate Judge has sufficiently considered the bearing of all the material 'evidence in this case on the questions whether there was a bona fide dispute which was settled by the com-promise embodied in Exhibit A and the partition deed Exhibit C or a fair family settlement. He has not considered the effect of the evidence as to the property, which is the subject of the present suit and in the hands of the alienee, having been the separate property of Mailchamy and his branch, having come to them from their grandmother's father, the Zemindar of Ayakudi. He has also not considered with reference to the question of bona fides the evidence as to whether the two branches were divided or not. This evidence must be taken into account in order to arrive at a conclusion whether the compromise now in question was really a bona fide compromise of doubtful claims or a fair family settlement. Before disposing of the case, we must call for a fresh finding o...
Tag this Judgment!Sheikh Mahammad Maracayar and Son Vs. Oakley Bowden and Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-02-1919
Reported in: 55Ind.Cas.671
John Wallis, C.J.1. It has been held in Jafferbhoy Ludhabhoy Chattoo v. Thomas D. Charlesworth 17 B.P 520 on the express authority of a decision of the Privy Council in De Comas v. Prost (1865) 3 Moore P.C. (N.S.) 158 : 11 Jur. (N.S.) 417 : 12 L.T. (N.S.) 682 : 13 W.R. 595 : 146 R.R. 45 : 10 E.R. 59 that a factor to whom goods have been consigned for sale and who has made advances against them has no authority to sell without the consent of the owners, whether the advances were made at the time or subsequently, in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, which is not shown in the present case. In these circumstances the plaintiffs could not reasonably be expected to sell contrary to the instructions of the defendants and so expose themselves to a suit for damages. The only question before us is whether in the circumstances of the case the advances made by the plaintiffs to the defendants are recoverable without a sale. It was no doubt a term of the agreement that the advances were ...
Tag this Judgment!Raja Keesara Venkatappayya Alias Venkata Appa Rao and ors. Vs. Raja Na ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-01-1919
Reported in: (1920)38MLJ149
Wallis, C.J.1. These are appeals from decrees in two suits which were tried together and disposed of by one judgment, O.S. No. 30 of 1893 and O.S. No. 38 of 1895 in the Subordinate Court of Ellore re-numbered O.S. Nos. 45 and 56 of 1895 in the District Court of Kistna.2. In the first suit the plaintiffs sued at first as members of an undivided family to recover the Zamindari of Munagala from the 1st defendant, the Court of Wards and the 2nd defendant, the alleged adopted son of the daughter of the last male owner who died in 1854, on the ground that they had wrongfully taken possession of it on the death of the daughter in 1892. At a late stage they filed an additional written statement in which they claimed no doubt with reference to the plea of limitation: not as members of an undivided family, but on the footing that the joint family had become divided in status, and that in law all the family properties including this had been all along in their possession as tenants-in-common.3. T...
Tag this Judgment!Kuthiravattam Appu Thamban Vs. R. Foulkes
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-01-1919
Reported in: 54Ind.Cas.260
WAllis, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Bakewell, J, dismissing a suit, brought with leave under Section 12 of the Letters Patent for specific performance of a contract completed at Madura for the sale of land in Malabar, for want of jurisdiction on the ground that no part of the cause of action arose in Madras within the jurisdiction of the Original Side of this Court. For the appellants it is argued that the offer must be held to have been in Madras where the parties had an interview at the chambera of Mr. Rangachariar, who took down certain notes of terms. Bakewell, J., held that the contract was concluded at Madura, and that no part of the cause of action arose here.2. The cases of Borthwick v. Walton (1655) 15 C.B. 501: 3 C.L.R. 364 : 24 L.J.C.P. 83 : 1 Jur. (N.S.) 142 : 3 W.K. 203 : 139 E.R. 519 : 24 L.T. (O.S.) 271 : 100 R.R. 463 and Green v. Beach (1873) 8 Ex. 208 : 42 L.J. Ex. 151 : 21 W.R. 850 show that the offer is part of the cause of action and Aris v. Orchard ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›