Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1921Mad122; 59Ind.Cas.943
Spencer, J.1. I feel no hesitation in holding that there was no valid endorsement contained in Exhibit A-2.2. This purports to be an acknowledgment of the payment of Rs. 631 and odd and is signed by Ampu who is one of the three alternative payees under Exhibit A.3. This is not either an endorsement in full or an endorsement in blank as defined in Section 16 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It is not the former as there is no direction to pay the amount in the instrument to a specified person and it is not the latter as it does not consist only of the signature of the indorsee's name.4. The District Judge dismissed the suit for another reason also. Re held that Exhibit A was not a negotiable instrument as it was executed before the passing of the Act V of 1914. That Act in its preamble declared that it was expedient to amend the Act of 1881 so as to remove doubts as to the validity of the making and endorsing of negotiable instruments in certain forms. These words might lead to the su...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 61Ind.Cas.300
.John Wallis, C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order of the Temporary Subordinate Judge of Sivaganga dismissing, under Order XXI, Rule 8, the suit of the plaintiffs who had become insolvents. Before the date of the petition the Official Assignee of Rangoon, where an order of adjudication had been made against the plaintiffs, had been brought on the record as third plaintiff to enable him to continue the suit. It was contended for the defendant that he was not entitled to represent the insolvents or carry on the suit, because, before the date of the adjudication in Rangoon, there had been an adjudication in Madras under which the insolvents estate had vested in the Official Assignee of Madras who was the proper person to continue the suit. The learned Subordinate Judge accepted this contention and his decision on this point is in accordance with the subsequent decision of this Court in Official Assignee of Madras v. Official Assignee of Rangoon 49 Ind. Cas. 210 where the question was ex...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1921Mad388; (1920)39MLJ403
1. The plaintiff sues for a declaration that he is solely entitled to the management of ' Pichai Kattalai ' in the Amirtagateswaraswami temple at Thirukkadaiyur and to the possession of the lands attached to the said Kattalai ; in the alternative, he claims that he should be given joint possession and management with the defendant. His first claim is based on the plea that as he is the seniormost male among the descendants of the original founder Chidambaram Pillai, he alone is entitled to the sole management and possession of the Kattalai. Incidentally he contends that the female members of the family of Chidambaram Pillai have no right. His second claim is based on the ground that as he and the defendant are only surviving male members of the junior branch of the original founder's family, they should both be declared trustees entitled to joint possession and management of the Kattalai and its emoluments. This claim also involves the contention that female members have no right.2. Or...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1920)39MLJ312
John Wallis, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff in this case is a principal and the defendant an agent. The plaintiff having a claim against the defendant preferred a complaint against him for misappropriating bangles and had him arrested, and he was afterwards bailed. Then the defendant was induced to appoint an arbitrator and the plaintiff appointed another arbitrator to settle their differences, and the award of the arbitrators was that the defendant should pay the plaintiff Rs. 10,000 in full satisfaction of all the plaintiff's claims and that the prosecution should be dropped. The defendant paid Rs. 7,000 and gave a hundi for Rs. 3,000 at the time. Then he refused to pay the balance of Rs. 3,000 and successfully sued to recover the Rs. 7,000 which he had paid on the ground that it was obtained by coercion. It was held by this Court reversing the decision of the Subordinate Judge that he had been induced to consent to this arbitration by coercion and that the money so obtained from him in t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 59Ind.Cas.472
John Wallis, C.J.1. The plaintiff in this case is a principal and the defendant an agent. The plaintiff having a claim against the defendant preferred a complaint against him for misappropriating bangles and had him arrested, and he was afterwards bailed. Then the defendant was induced to appoint an arbitrator and the plaintiff appointed another arbitrator to settle their differences, and the award of the arbitrators was that the defendant should pay the plaintiff Rs. 10,000 in full satisfaction of all the plaintiff's claims and that the prosecution should be dropped. The defendant paid Rs. 7,000 and gave a hundi for Rs. 3,000 at the time. Then he refused to pay the balance of Rs. 3,000 and successfully sued to recover the Rs. 7,000 which he had paid on the ground that it was obtained by (sic). It was held by this Court, reversing the decision of the Subordinate Judge, that he had been induced to consent to this arbitration by coercion and that the money so obtained from him in the cir...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1920)39MLJ525
Abdur Rahim, J.1. There can be no doubt that the settlement as it is called, Ex. B, was made with the object and in consideration of the donee cohabiting with the settler. This can be plainly inferred from the terms of the document itself. The plaintiffs who are usufructuary mortgagees of the property obtained the mortgage from the donee, Sadachi Ammal. The 1st defendant who is the appellant before us is the settler. His case is that the settlement or transfer to Sadachi having been made for immoral consideration, the transaction is void altogether and the plaintiffs can have no title under the mortgage executed by Sadachi Ammal.2. The facts are that this woman was kept by the 1st defendant, who made a gift of the property to her with the object that she should continue to be his mistress. She did in fact remain in his keeping and lived with him as contemplated by Ex. B. and to that extent therefore the immoral purpose which the donor had in view was attained. It is well established th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1920)ILR43Mad902; 58Ind.Cas.794
Ayling, J.1. Following the decisions in Seshayyangar v. Jainulavadin I.L.R(1880) ., Mad., 66 and Srinivasa Sastrial v. Subramania Aiyer (1907) 17 M.L.J., 583 we must hold that the order of the District Judge calling for security from the pauper appellant under Order XLI, Rule 10, was not without jurisdiction. We have been referred to the decision of the Bombay High Court in Khemraj Shrikrishnadas v. Kisanlala Surajmal I.L.R.(1918) , 42 Bom., 5 but we see no reason to question the decision of this Court in Seshayyangar v. Jainulavadin I.L.R.,(1880) Mad., 66 the correctness of which apparently has never been doubted by later Benches of this Court, and with which we are also disposed to agree.2. This petition is dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 60Ind.Cas.694
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The plaintiffs are the appellants. The plaintiffs and the defendants were bound under a razinamah to pay in equal shares two kottahs of paddy as maintenance to the second defendant. In default the second defendant was entitled to take possession of a certain land which had then come to belong the plaintiffs alone though it had a still earlier period belonged to the plaintiffs and first defendant jointly. The plaintiffs, in order to protest their interest in the land which was in danger of being taken one of their possession if the maintenance due to the second defendant was not paid in fall, paid the whole of the maintenance due to the second defendant for the year 1914 and 1915 and then brought the suit (Original Suit No. 9 of 1916) for recovery of half of the amount they paid from the first defendant. That suit was decreed in he Court of first in-stance but the Appellate Court, on the 25th January 1917, pronounced the judgment, Exhibit, in which it held that the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 60Ind.Cas.164; (1920)39MLJ316
1. This is an appeal from the judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Bezwada in a suit brought by the zemindar of South Vallur against the defendants from one of whom he had purchased a certain village to recover the costs which he was put to in defending his title to the village against a third party. He bases his claim upon an indemnity contained in a deed of sale executed by the second defendant who was the actual vendor and also on a covenant contained in an indemnity bond executed by 1st, 3rd and 4th defendants her husband and 2 sons respectively.2. The Subordinate Judge has given judgment for the plaintiff and we think he is right. The covenants in the deed of sale and in the indemnity bond are practically the same, and the covenant in the sale deed is accurately translated in para. 8 of the Subordinate Judge's judgment. It says 'if the previous owners or any others setting up any rights by transfer from them or any other claiming themselves to be their heirs or any others claiming...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1921Mad544; (1920)ILR43Mad898
Wallis, C.J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Bezwada in a suit brought by the Zamindar of South Vallur against the defendants, from one of whom he had purchased a certain village, to recover the costs which he was put to in defending his title to the village against a third party. He bases his claim upon an indemnity contained in a deed of sale executed by the second defendant who was the actual vendor, and also on a covenant contained in an indemnity bond executed by the first, third and fourth defendants, her husband and two sons respectively.2. The Subordinate Judge has given judgment for the plaintiff, and we think he is right. The covenants in the deed of sale and in the indemnity bond are practically the same, and the covenant in the sale deed is, accurately translated in paragraph 8 of the Subordinate Judge's judgment. It says:If the previous owners or any others setting up any rights by transfer from them or any others claiming themselves to be...
Tag this Judgment!