Chennai Court November 1923 Judgments
Velamakanya Krishnayya Vs. S. Ponnuswami Iyer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1923
Reported in: (1924)46MLJ295
Walter Salis Schwabe, K.C., C.J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of Phillips, J., in which he decided that a loan made to the defendant by the plaintiffs' firm secured by promissory notes and by deposit of title deeds was secured by a valid equitable mortgage. The facts of the case are that the defendant was a servant in a certain firm and had borrowed from time to time monies from that firm secured by promissory notes and by deposit of title-deeds of his house. The firm dissolved and the plaintiffs' firm took over the assets and liabilities of the firm and continued the defendant in their employment. Shortly after the taking over of the firm they made an advance of Rs. 500 to the defendant and took a promissory note from him for the outstanding amount of his indebtedness to the old firm plus Rs. 500 and at a later date they made further advance to him some secured by promissory notes. About the time of the advance of Rs. 500 the document Ex. B was executed by the defendant and i...
Tag this Judgment!Velamakanya Krishnaiya Vs. Ponnuswami Aiyar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1923
Reported in: (1924)ILR47Mad398
Walter Sails Schwabe, Kt., K.C.C.J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of Phillips, J., in which he decided that a loan made to the defendant by the plaintiffs' firm secured by promissory notes and by deposit of title-deeds was secured by a valid equitable mortgage. The facts of the case are that the defendant was a servant in a certain firm and had borrowed from time to time monies from that firm secured by promissory notes and by deposit of title-deeds. of his house. The firm dissolved and the plaintiffs' firm took over the assets and liabilities of the firm and continued the defendant in their employment. Shortly after the taking over of the firm they made an advance of Rs. 500 to the defendant and took a promissory note from him for the outstanding amount of his indebtedness to the old firm plus Rs. 500 and at a later date they made further advances to him, some secured by promissory notes. About the time of the advance of Rs. 500 the document Exhibit B was executed by the defen...
Tag this Judgment!Velamakanya Krishnaiya Vs. Ponnuswamy Aiyar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1923
Reported in: 84Ind.Cas.629
Walter Salis Schwabe, C.J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of Phillips, J., in which he decided that a loan made to the defendant by the plaintiffs firm secured by promissory notes and by deposit of title deeds was secured by a valid equitable mortgage. The facts of the case are that the defendant was a servant in a certain firm and had borrowed from time to time monies from that firm secured by promissory notes and by deposit of title deeds of his house. The firm dissolved and the plaintiffs firm took over the assets and liabilities of the firm and continued the defendant in their employment. Shortly after the taking over of the firm they made an advance of Rs. 500 to the defendant and took a promissory-note from him for tire outstanding amount of his indebtedness to the old firm plus Rs. 500 and at a later date they made further advances to him, some secured by promissory notes. About the time of the advance of Rs. 500 the document, Ex, B., was executed by the defendant and it ...
Tag this Judgment!V. Krishnayya Vs. S. Ponnuswami Iyer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad547
Schwabe, C.J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of Phillips, J. in which ho decided that a loan made to the defendant by the plaintiffs' firm secured by promissory notes and by deposits of title deeds was secured by a valid equitable mortgage.2. The facts of the ease are that the defendant was a servant in a certain firm and had borrowed from time to time monies from that firm secured by promissory notes and by deposit of title-deeds of his house. The firm dissolved and the plaintiffs' firm took over the asets and liabilities of the firm and continued the defendant in their employment. Shortly after the taking over of the firm, they made an advance of Rs. 300 to the defendant and took a promissory-note from him for the outstanding amount of his indebtedness to the old firm plus Rs. 500 and at a later date they made further advance to him, same secured by promissory notes. About the time of the advance of Rs 500 the document Ex B was executed by the defendant and it runs thus. 'Coll...
Tag this Judgment!Sami Chetti (Died) and anr. Vs. Adaikkalam Chetti and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad484; (1924)46MLJ179
Waller, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of the District Judge, West Tanjore, appointing one Adaikalam Chetti as guardian of his minor nephew. Adaikalam Chetti was the applicant in the guardianship petition, which was opposed by Sami Chetti the minor's paternal uncle. The latter appealed, but died during the pendency of the appeal. His son was brought on record as his legal representative and seeks to prosecute the appeal. Objection is taken that the right to sue does not survive and that the appeal has abated.2. The objection is based on the decision in Gangabai v. Khashabai I.L.R. 23 B. 719. The facts of that case were, however, very different from those with which we are now concerned. The appellant there relied on a personal appointment as guardian under a will and her brother, after her death applied for leave to prosecute her appeal. It was held that a claim based on a personal trust did not survive. As Parsons C. J. observed ' it cannot be said that the right to sue, whic...
Tag this Judgment!Ramaswami Reddi Vs. Talaivasal Marudai Reddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad469; (1924)46MLJ198
Krishnan, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of remand by the Subordinate Judge of Trichinopoly in a suit brought by the plaintiff for ejectment of the defendants from the plaint properties. The defendants pleaded inter alia that they had a right of occupancy in the land and that they could not be ejected. This plea, it was urged by the plaintiff, was res judicata between the parties and could not in consequence be raised by the defendants. The Munsif gave effect to the plea and took no evidence on the question of occupancy right. The Subordinate Judge has reversed his judgment and has held that the plea of res judicata is not well founded, and, having also held on another preliminary issue on the question of limitation that that issue should be found upon only after evidence was taken in the case, has remitted the suit to be tried by the Munsif after taking such evidence.2. The main question argued before us is the question of res judicata and that question arises in this way. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Samid Chetti and anr. Vs. Adaikalam Chetti and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-1923
Reported in: 84Ind.Cas.613
Waller, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of the District Judge, West Tanjore, appointing one Adaikalam Chetty as guardian of his minor nephew. Adaikalam Ghetti was the applicant in the guardianship petition, which was opposed by Sami Chetti the minor's paternal uncle. The latter appealed, but died during the pendency of the appeal. His son was brought on record as his legal representative and seeks to prosecute the appeal. Objection is taken that, the right to sue does not survive and that the appeal has abated.2. The objection is based on the decision in Gangabai v. Khashabai 23 B. 719 : 1 Bom. L.R. 363 : 12 Ind. Dec. . The facts of that case were, however, very different from those with which we are now concerned. The appellant there relied on a personal appointment as guardian under a Will and her brother, after her death applied for leave to prosecute her appeal. It was held that a claim based on personal trust did not survive. As Parsons, C.J., observed: 'It cannot, therefo...
Tag this Judgment!Ramaswami Goundan Vs. Kalaivasal Marudai Reddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-1923
Reported in: 84Ind.Cas.622
1. This is an appeal against an order of remand by the Subordinate Judge of Trichinopoly in a suit brought by the plaintiff for ejectment of the defendants from the plaint properties. The defendants pleaded inter alia that they had a right of occupancy in the land and that they could not be ejected. This plea, it was urged by the plaintiff, was res judicata between the parties and could not, in consequence, be raised by the defendants. The Munsif gave effect to the plea and took no evidence on the question of occupancy right. The Subordinate Judge has reversed his judgment and has held that the plea of res judicata is not well-founded, and, having also held on another preliminary issue on the question of limitation that that issue should be found upon only after evidence was taken in the case, has remitted the suit to be tried by the Munsif after taking such evidence.2. The main question argued before us is the question of res judicata and that question arises in this way. The plaintif...
Tag this Judgment!S. Vaithianatha Aiyar and anr. Vs. S. Subramania Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-1923
Reported in: AIR1925Mad301; 78Ind.Cas.238
1. It is suggested that in making the partition the arbitrator followed the now obsolete rule of Hindu Law giving the eldest brother an extra share as 'Jeshtabhagom', and, therefore, under section, 14, Clause (c), of the Second Schedule, Civil Procedure Code, the award was illegal on the face of it. Though he uses the word 'Jeshtabhagam' in para. 5 of his award, we do not think the arbitrator was applying any rule of Jeshtabhagam to the ease, for, if he was doing so, he would have given a half share to the plaintiff of all the properties and only a one-fourth share to each of his brothers. He has only allowed the eldest brother to take the whole of the sum of Rs. 3,128 due to the family in consideration of his having looked after his brothers carefully for many years and by educating them enabled them to attain responsible positions in life. We do not think such an award can be said to be illegal. The lower Court has accepted the award and passed a decree in terms of it, and, in the ci...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Rahiman Sahib Chowdry and ors. Vs. Murugappa Naicker and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad577
Schwabe, C.J.1 This is an appeal from a decision of the Judge, City Civil Court, in which he finds that the plaintiffs, who are suing as representative Muhammadans, failed to make out their claim that the suit land is wakf property, having been dedicated a long time ago and used as a public burial ground for Muhamayidans. The evidence for the defendants was to the effect that, beginning somewhere in 1916, attempts were made by the original first plaintiff, who styled himself Muthawali, to set up a claim to this land, as having been dedicated for religious purposes, and with that object, he started holding religious ceremonies there, and built a platform which was used in those ceremonies. The plaintiffs, on the other hand, adduced evidence to show that certain persons had been buried in this land some time more than thirty years ago. At an earlier stage, it had been the case of the first plaintiff that there was an actual dedication of this land for religious purposes. The then Judge o...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »