Chennai Court November 1920 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.
A. Swaminatha Mudaliar Vs. S.V. Ramaswami Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Mad72; (1921)40MLJ161
John Wallis, C.J.1. I agree that the case should go back. The words ' agreement to lease ' which were included in the definition of ' lease ' at least as far back as the Registration Act of 1866, long before the enactment of the Transfer of Property Act, and were apparently, intended to guard against the possibility that courts in India might otherwise extend the same degree of recognition to agreements to lease that is extended them pursuant to equitable principles in England, have apparently received a restricted construction in the recent decision of the Privy Council in Hemanla Kumari Debi v. Midnapur Zemindari Company which approves of the construction put upon them by Sir Lawrence Jenkins, Chief Justice in Panchanan Bose v. Ghandicharan Misra I.L.R. (1910) C. 803 ; and it appears necessary to reconsider in the light of these decisions and on the facts of the case whether there was here any agreement to lease within the meaning of the definition in Section 2 of the Indian Registra...
The Bombay Company Limited Vs. the Official Assignee of Madras the Ass ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Mad236; (1921)40MLJ404
John Wallis, C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order of Mr. Justice Coutts Trotter in the Insolvency of one Seethapathy Iyer who was formerly a dubash of Messrs. Dymes and Co and afterwards of the Bombay Company who took over the business, directing the Bombay Company to repay to the Official Assignee as representing the estate of the insolvent Rs. 27,243-13-0, which the Bombay Company had appropriated out of monies belonging to him in reduction of the loss the above firms had sustained in 'transactions with one V. V. Somasundaram Chetty, which Seethapathi had guaranteed under his dubash agreement. The ground upon which the refund was directed was that the effect of the arrangement entered into by the Bombay company with Somasundaram Chetty was to release the dubash from his liability as surety. Assuming for the moment that the effect of this agreement was to release the surety from all further liability, I am not satisfied, and no authority has been cited to show that this surety also ...
Ayyavu Alias Syed Muhamad Rowther Vs. Aru. Aru. SomA. Soma Sundaram Ch ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1920
Reported in: 60Ind.Cas.630
Abdur Rahim, J.1. There can be no doubt, upon the facts as found by the lower Court, that the judgment-debtor, appellant before us, has been evading arrest for a long time. No less than 6 warrants were taken out for his arrest, and there is no difficulty in coming to the conclusion, as the lower Court has done, that he has been willfully evading arrest in order to avoid payment of the decree-amount.2. According to the rulings of this Court and also of the Allahabad High Court, those fasts would amount to fraud within the meaning of Section 48 of the Civil Procedure, Code, that if, willful evasion of arrest under warrants taken out by the judgment-creditor, is fraudulent prevention of the execution of the decree, within the meaning of Section 48(2) of the Civil Procedure Code. It is not necessary for the judgment-creditor to prove by positive evidence that, but for the conduct of the judgment-debtor, he would have realised the decree. The law on the subject was first laid down in Annama...
In Re: T.A. Chidambara Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-1920
Reported in: (1922)ILR65Mad31; 61Ind.Cas.991
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. These are garnishee summonses taken out by the Official Assignee claiming from the garnishees' kist due by them for various faslis from 1318 to 1328. Several defences were raised, one of them being that the Court has no jurisdiction, claims for rent in respect of estates being exclusively triable by Revenue Courts. Section 189 of the Estates Land Act enacts that no Civil Court in the exercise of its Original jurisdiction shall take cognizance of any dispute or matter in respect of which a suit or application might be brought or made before a Collector or Revenue Officer in respect of suits and applications specified in parts A and B of the schedule to the Act. A suit for rent is included in part A (item 8). If the present claim was by way of garnishee summons on the Original Side of the High Court it is clear that it would not lie but the question is whether a Judge exercising jurisdiction under the provisions of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act is exercisin...
Velayudham Pillai (Dead) and ors. Vs. Thina Velayudham Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Mad554; (1921)40MLJ443
Napier, J.1. The question that arises in this appeal is whether Article 120 applies or Article 10 of the Limitation Act. The Lower Appellate Court has held, that Article 120 applies, as the words of the third column in Article 10 exclude the position that arises in this case. The plaintiff had never given possession to his vendee and it is found that the second vendee never took possession, because of the fact that the plff. remained in possession which was wrongful. In my opinion, however wide a meaning can be claimed for the words 'subject of the sale does not admit of physical possession,' it cannot be read as including the case where possession has not been taken for such a reason only. I therefore think that the second alternative position in Article 10 does not apply. That being so, Article 120 will in my opinion apply, because it is a case 'for which no period of limitation is provided elsewhere.'2. The second appeal is dismissed with costs.Krishnan, J.3. This second appeal aris...
P. Venkatrama Aiyar Vs. G. Ramasami Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-1920
Reported in: (1921)40MLJ204
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The 23rd defendant is the appellant before us. The purchaser from the 1st plff. who was entitled to and given a decree for 1/6th share in certain proper-ties prayed under Order 20, Rule 2 to have the mesne profits due to the petitioner by the 23rd defendant ascertained, the decree in the suit having, as I read it, declared the 1st plaintiffs' right to recover mesne profits from the date of suit against the 23rd defendant and having only left the actual amount to be ascertained and awarded in a supplemental decree. I do not agree with the contention of the appellant's learned vakil that the sale deed to the petitioner by the 1st plaintiff did not transfer the 1st plaintiff's rights under the decree but transferred merely a right to claim mesne profits.2. The only remaining contention which has to be considered is whether when a decree declaring such a right has been passed in favour of a litigant against another litigant, whether such a right can be transferred lawf...
Venkatarama Aiyar Vs. Ramasami Aiyar and Two ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Mad56; (1921)ILR44Mad539
Sadasiva Ayyar, J.1. The twenty-third defendant is the appellant before us. The purchaser from the first plaintiff who was entitled to and given a decree for the one-sixth share in certain properties prayed under Order XX, Rule 2, to have the mesne profits due to the petitioner by the twenty-third defendant ascertained, the decree in the suit having, as I read it, declared the first plaintiff's right to recover mesne profits from the date of suit against the twenty-third defendant and having only left the actual amount to be ascertained and awarded in a supplemental decree. I do not agree with the contention of the appellant's learned vakil that the sale-deed to the petitioner by the first plaintiff did not transfer the first plaintiff's rights under the decree, but transferred merely a right to claim mesne profits.2. The only remaining contention which has to be considered is whether, when a decree declaring such a right has been passed in favour of a litigant against another litigant...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›