Chennai Court October 1920 Judgments
Suri Chetty Ranganathan Chetty and Brother Vs. Gadala Parthasarathy Ch ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Mad141; 61Ind.Cas.457; (1921)40MLJ13
Wallis, C.J.1. This is a suit for damages for breach of a contract for the sale of a house by the defendant to the plaintiffs. The contract which is in the form of a receipt, states that the property is ' sold for Rs. 24,000 only subject to the approval of title etc., by your legal advisers within one month for completion of sale ten days subsequently.' The plaintiffs did not approve the title within one month and consequently the sale was not completed ten days later. In these circumstances Courts Trotter, J., has dismissed the suit on the ground that time was of the essence of the contract. If this were a suit for specific performance of the contract the recent decision of the Privy Council in Jamshed Khodaram v. Burjorji Dhumjibhai I.L.R(1915) . 40 Bom. 289 would be express, authority of the proposition that in contracts for the sale of land time is not ordinarily considered to be of the essence of the contract within the meaning of Section 55 of the Indian Contract Act, the terms o...
Tag this Judgment!Arumugam Pillai and ors. Vs. Panayadian Ambalam and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Mad425; (1921)40MLJ475
Krishnan, J.1. The main question argued in this Second Appeal is whether Article 44 of the Limitation Act applies to it or not. The plaint property originally belonged to the 1st defendant. He executed a sale deed for it to his wife Irulayi and the property then became hers. The plaintiff is her only son by the 1st defendant. She died some time ago and the lower courts have held and it is not disputed before us that on her death the property passed to the plaintiff and he became solely entitled to it. In 1909 when the plaintiff was still a minor his father the 1st defendant and his father's brother one Palaniyandi now deceased executed a sale deed Ex. I to the 2nd defendant benami for the 4th defendant for the plaint property. In that deed, the plaintiff is named as one of the vendors, the 1st defendant executing it on his behalf as his father and guardian, this is so expressly recited in the deed. The plea of limitation has reference to this deed, it being contended that the plaintiff...
Tag this Judgment!Gunupati Narasa Reddi Vs. Makkena Kondap Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Mad85; 61Ind.Cas.759
1. The plaintiff had a first mortgage over the property in dispute. The 6th and 7th defendants in the case are puisne encumbrancers and the 4th and 5th defendants are the purchasers of the equity of redemption, from the owner of the property. Before the plaintiff, however, instituted the suit on the mortgage the 4th and 5th defendants, who are the owners of the equity of redemption, had been adjudicated insolvents, and we must take it that the property bad vested in the Receiver. Somehow or other, the Receiver was not made a party and the suit proceeded to a decree. When the present application was made for execution of the mortgage-decree for the sale of the property, the Executing Court apparently gave notice to the Receiver appointed in the insolvency of defendants Nos. 4 and 5 and became in and objected to the sale on the ground that the property had vested in him and that the decree, therefore, bad no effect, The District Judge upheld the objection of the Receiver and dismissed th...
Tag this Judgment!Ramalingam Pillai Vs. the Official Receiver, Trichinopoly and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Mad313(1); (1921)41MLJ211
1. In this case an application was made by the appellant, who purports to have purchased the property of an insolvent at a sale held by the official Receiver, to the effect that his bid might be accepted and that the sale to another person be held to be invalid. Jhe learned District Judge is of opinion that he has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter under Section 22 of the Provincial Insolvency Act and that a regular suit is necessary. This view of the law is opposed to the very-wide language of Section 22, which says that ' if the insolvent or any of the creditors or any other person is aggrieved by any act or decision of the receiver, he may apply to the court, and the court may confirm, reverse or modify the act or decision compLalned of and make such order as it thinks just'. It seems to us that it is convenient and proper that matters of this sort should be disposed of by the executing Court and that is the pLaln direction of the legislature as contained in Section 22. This is...
Tag this Judgment!Satrasala Hanumanthu and ors. Vs. Receiver to the Estate of Insolvent ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Mad28; 61Ind.Cas.767
1. In this case the District Judge of Bellary has, under Section 23 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, Act III of 1907, directed that the entries relating to the debts purported to be owing to creditors Nos. 5 to 11 in the schedule filed by the insolvent be expugned, Several amounts are alleged to be due on promissory-notes executed by the insolvent on various dates in 1910, 1911 and 1912: on the debtor's own petition the adjudication was made some time in 19-3 and in his petition he entered these debts in the schedule. There is a creditor named Matta Gattayya who claims to be entitled to a large amount under a decree obtained by him against the Insolvent, The winding up of the estate was delayed owing to some suits filed by certain persons claiming to be mortgagees and it appears that in 1918 the Receiver made a report to the District Judge asking, among other things, for directions as to whether the debts now in question had been proved. The creditor Gattayya had also made a similar a...
Tag this Judgment!Kakumanu Venkatasuryanarayana Vs. Akuthota Ramayya and Akuthota Venkat ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Mad98; (1921)40MLJ153
Abdur Rahim, J.1. This second appeal arises in a suit instituted by the plaintiffs against defendants 1 and 2, two minors represented in the suit by their mother as guardian adlitem for a declaration that the suit partnership was dissolved, for the taking of the partnership accounts and for other ancillary reliefs. It is necessary to state shortly the history of the case in order to understand the questions that arise in the appeal. The first plaintiff's father Narasimhulu, and the 1st and second defendants' father Amarayya, and another person called Guravayya carried on business in partnership from before 1887. Guravayya died in 1887; and the business was carried on by his brother Gopalan taking his place. Gopalan retired from the business after settling accounts on 15th November, 1887.2. Then Narasimhulu who is the father of the first plaintiff continued the business along with the father of the defendants down to 12th November, 1S9S when Narasimhulu died. On his death, the first pla...
Tag this Judgment!Elvararti Venkatappa Charyulu and Three ors. Vs. Tirumala Reddi Royapa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-22-1920
Reported in: (1921)ILR44Mad550
1. The Subordinate Judge has discussed the evidence at some length and in arriving at a finding he has allowed himself, not unnaturally, to be influenced by the decisions of this Court laying down that the presumption in inam grants is that it is the melvaram alone that is granted. The decisions he refers to have since been overruled by the Judicial Committee, vide Suryanarayana v. Patanna I.L.R(1918) ., Mad., 1012 and Upadrastha Venkata Sastrulu v. Divi Seetharamudu I.L.R.,(1920) Mad., 116. We are therefore unable to accept his finding. We must ask the Subordinate Judge to return a fresh finding on issues 3 and 4, in the light of the observations contained in the judgments of the Judicial Committee. No fresh evidence will be taken. Finding is to be submitted within six weeks and seven days will be allowed for filing objections.2. [In compliance with the above order the Subordinate Judge submitted findings to the effect that the plaintiffs had not proved their right to eject the defend...
Tag this Judgment!Elavarti Venkatappacharyalu and ors. Vs. Tirumalareddi Papireddi (Dead ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-22-1920
Reported in: 62Ind.Cas.309
1. The Subordinate Judge has discussed the evidence at some length and in arriving at a finding he has allowed himself, not unnaturally, to be influenced by the decisions of this Court laying down that the presumption in inam grants is that it is the melvaram alone that is granted, The decisions he refers to have since been overruled by the Judicial Committee: vide Suryanarayana v. Patanna 48 Ind. Cas. 689 : (1919) M.W.N. 463 and Upadrashta Venkata Satrulu v. Divi Seetharamudu 61 Ind Cas. 304 . We are, therefore, unable to accept his finding. We must ask the Subordinate Judge to return a fresh finding on Issues Nos. 3 and 4, in the light of the observations contained in the judgments of the Judicial Commit tee. No fresh evidence will be taken. Finding is to be submitted within six weeks and seven days will be allowed for filing objections.2. In compliance with the order contained in the above judgment, the Additional Temporary Subordinate Judge of Guntur submitted the following.3. Find...
Tag this Judgment!Rajah Rajeswara Dorai Alias Muthuramalinga Sethupathi Avergal Vs. S. P ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Mad125; 61Ind.Cas.907; (1921)40MLJ52
1. This is an appeal from the Temporary Subordinate Court of Madura dismissing as barred by limitation the suit instituted in 1916, by the plaintiff, the present Rajah of Ramnad, to recover from the defendants certain payments made by the trustee of the estate under a trust created by the Rajah's father between the years 1S98 to 1902, by way of interest, on a mortgage of part of the estate created by the trustee in favour of the 1st defendant, a transaction which may be taken to have been a breach of trust by the trustee of which the 1st defendant had notice. It is said to follow that the payment by the trustee of interest on the mortgage was also a breach of trust and that the first defendant having taken these payments with knowledge of the breach of trust, the suit is not barred by limitation as it comes within the provisions of Section 10 of the Limitation Act. The learned Advocate General cited several English cases to show that the bar of limitation would not be applied in a simi...
Tag this Judgment!Raja of Ramnad Vs. Ponnusami Tevar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-1920
Reported in: (1921)ILR44Mad277
1. This is an appeal from the decree of the Temporary Subordinate Court of Madura, dismissing, as barred by limitation, the suit instituted in 1916 by the plaintiff, the present Raja of Ramnad, to recover from the defendants certain payments made by the trustee of the estate under a trust created by the Raja's father between the years 1898 to 1902 by way of interest on a mortgage of part of the estate created by the trustee in favour of the first defendant, a transaction which may be taken to have been a breach of trust by the trustee of which the first defendant had notice. It is said to follow that the payment by the trustee of interest on the mortgage was also a breach of trust and that the first defendant having taken these payments with knowledge of the breach of trust, the suit is not barred by limitation as it comes within the provisions of Section 10 of the Limitation Act. The learned Advocate-General cited several English cases to show that the bar of limitation would not be a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »