Chennai Court October 1925 Judgments
T.R. Kaliaperumal Naidu Vs. Pounuswami Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad647
Viswanatha Sastri, J.1. These petitions are by the defendant against whom an ex-parte decree was passed by the Small Cause Judge of Kumbakonam in S.C.S. No. 2496 of 1922. He applied to set aside the ex-parte decree and, along with this application, he tendered security for the amount due under the decree as required by the proviso to Section 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. The Small Cause Judge, without considering whether the security tendered was sufficient or not, and without rejecting the security tendered, passed an order to the effect that the amount should be paid into Court. This was not done, and the petition to set aside the decree was dismissed. C.R.P. No. 23 of 1924 is against the order insisting on the payment of money into Court, and C.R.P. No. 24 of 1924 is against the order refusing to set side the exparte decree. The question to be considered in C.R.P. No. 23 of 1924 is whether the Court was justified in insisting upon the amount being paid when, as a matt...
Tag this Judgment!(Pannala) Subba Rao Vs. (Parupudi) Lakshmana Rao and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad728
ORDERPhillips, J.1. In this case there are two houses, Nos. 19 and 20, adjoining one another and apparently they both originally belonged to the same family. For many years past, and certainly for 20 years, the inhabitants of No. 20 have been using a privy situated in No. 19 and for that purpose have been enjoying the right of way over portions of No. 19. The plaintiff in this case originally brought a suit in 1917 for recovery of house No. 19, but that suit was dismissed. He has now brought the present suit for a declaration that he is absolutely entitled to the latrine marked 'C' in the plan and to the use thereof, and, in alternative, as a right of easement. Although the plaintiff's suit to recover house No. 19 has been dismissed, yet, in his plaint, he persists in asserting his right to it inclusive of the latrine marked 'C', and he pleads in the alternative that he is entitled to the use of the latter as an easement. The learned City Civil Judge has found that this right has been ...
Tag this Judgment!K. Narayanaswami Iyengar and ors. Vs. A. Thippayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1925
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.847
Spencer, J.1. In O.S. No. 208 of 1916 in the District Munsifs Court, Bellary, the plaintiff sued for a declaration that the mortgage by a widow named Subbalakshmiamma and a sale of a house were invalid beyond her life time, he being the reversioner to the estate. The mortgagee purchaser and the decree-holder in a money suit filed against the widow were made parties. The matter was referred to arbitration by order of Court on the consent of the parties. The arbitrators went beyond the scope of the reference and declared the plaintiff to be entitled to obtain immediate possession of the house during the widow's lifetime on payment of Rs. 900 which was not a matter referred to their decision through Court. The Court that tried the suit, therefore, rightly refused to embody that part of the award in its decree. In the present suit the same plaintiff has sued for possession of the house alleging that he has tendered Rs. 900 within the period provided in the award which was one year from the...
Tag this Judgment!P. Kuthatinga Mudaliar Vs. M.N. Shanmuga Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-23-1925
Reported in: (1926)50MLJ234
Devadoss, J.1. The only point in this appeal is whether the sale should be upheld in view of the findings of fact of the learned Subordinate Judge. He has found that out of the consideration of Rs. 600, Rs. 300 went towards discharging the debts binding on the reversioner and the other Rs. 300 was for the maintenance of the 2nd defendant. The 2nd defendant, who is a widow, was unable to maintain herself out of the income of her husband's property, which consisted only of the plaint house, and was obliged to borrow. It has been proved satisfactorily and has been found by the Judge that she did incur a debt of Rs. 300 in order to maintain herself: The property left by the husband was only a house which produced no income. She had to sell the house for the purpose of paying off the debt already incurred and for maintaining herself. It is not suggested that the house was worth more than Rs. 600 paid by the plaintiff for the sale. The Subordinate Judge has set aside the sale of the property...
Tag this Judgment!N.V. Nageswara Aiyar Vs. Alagu Srinivasa Aiyangar (Dead) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-23-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad743; 94Ind.Cas.427
Devadoss, J.1. The plaintiff sues upon an alleged equitable mortgage in his favour by Defendants 1 and 2. The other defendants are alienees from Defendants 1 and 2. The District Munsif gave a personal decree and declined to give a mortgage decree against the property covered by the equitable mortgage. The Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit on the ground that the equitable mortgage was not proved and that in consequence the suit was barred by limitation. The contention of Mr. Jagannadha Aiyar for the appellant is that the loans given by the plaintiff's 'father were covered by the deposit of title-deeds. Ex. C is a usufructuary mortgage deed executed by the defendant in favour of one Desikachariar for Rs. 200 on 13th July 1903. This document was deposited to cover the loan. Mr, Jagannadha Aiyar's contention is that this is a title-deed. I am unable to see how a mortgage-deed executed by the owner of a property in favour of a third person can ever be deemed to be a title-deed. A mortgag...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Arulay
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-23-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad815; 94Ind.Cas.707
ORDERJackson, J.1. The petitioner seeks to revise an order of acquittal in C.C. No. 60 of 1925 on the file of the Court of the Second Class Magistrate of Sivaganga. After the case was charged, there was a transfer of Magistrates, and in exercise of his privilege under Section 350, Criminal P.C., the accused asked that the prosecution witnesses might be re-summoned and reheard. When they appeared, he said he would be content to cross-examine them. The question raised is whether his original application had the effect, as it were, of cancelling the evidence recorded by the Magistrate's predecessor, so that on the adjourned date of hearing the only course was to examine the witnesses afresh, or whether on the contrary the accused could change his mind and leave the Court free to exercise its statutory option and act upon the evidence recorded by its predecessor. The petitioner relies upon the rulings in Sobh Nath Singh v. Emperor 12 C.W.N. 138 in which it was held, no doubt, that the accu...
Tag this Judgment!P. Kuthalinga Mudaliar Vs. M.N. Shanmuga Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-23-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad461; 92Ind.Cas.989
Devadoss, J.1. The only point in this appeal is whether the sale should be upheld in view of the findings of fact of the learned Subordinate Judge. He has found that out of the consideration of Rs. 600, Rs. 300 went towards discharging the debts binding on the reversioner and the other Rs. 300 was for the maintenance of the second defendant. The second defendant who is a widow, was unable to maintain herself out of me income of her husband's property, which consisted only of the plaint house, and was obliged to borrow. It has been, proved satisfactorily and has been found by the Judge that she did incur, a debt of Rs. 300 in order to maintain herself. The property left by the husband was only a house which produced no income, She had to sell the house for the purpose of paying off the debt already incurred and for maintaining herself. It is not suggested that the house was worth more than Rs. 600 paid by the plaintiff for the sale. The Subordinate Judge has set aside the sale of the pr...
Tag this Judgment!Nidavolu Atchutam Alias Atchutaramayya and ors. Vs. Ratnaji, Carrying ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-22-1925
Reported in: (1926)50MLJ208
Murray Coutts Trotter, J.1. The Chief Justice: In this case the father of the appellants embarked on hardware trade in 1914 and was sued along with them in respect of debts contracted 22nd October, 1925by him in the conduct of that venture. The appellants' vakil relied on a text of Gautama XII. 41, which runs as follows:Money due by a surety for a commercial debt, a fee due to the parents of a bride, debts contracted for spirituous liquor or in gambling, and a fine shall not involve the sons of the debtorand the bold contention is put forward that the pious obligation does not extend therefore to commercial debts. I have discussed this subject at length in paragraph 303 of the 9th Edition of Mayne on Hindu Law and I have very little to add to what I said there. This Court has held in Thangath Ammal v. Arunachalam Chettiar : (1918)35MLJ229 that sons are liable in a case of a surety bond executed by the father for payment as distinct from obligations as a surety for appearance and for ho...
Tag this Judgment!Mahammad S. Chamnad Vs. Jainabi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-22-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad861
Devadoss, J.1. The first point urged in this appeal is that the District Munsif should have granted an adjournment to enable the 4th defendant to give evidence in the case. No written application was made for an adjournment to the District Munsif, but an oral application is said to have been made by the 4th defendant's vakil on the ground that the 4th defendant was away in Delhi. The District Munsif refused to grant the adjournment and in appeal, this point, its is urged, was pressed before the Subordinate Judge. The Subordinate Judge has not adverted to it in his judgment. Though he sent down an issue to be tried by the District Munsif, he did not allow the 4th defendant to be examined with regard to some of the points in the case. I am not quite satisfied that the 4th defendant had sufficient excuse for not appearing before the District Munsif on, the day the case was taken up for trial ; and further I think his evidence will not be of much use in deciding the meaning of the word wak...
Tag this Judgment!Nidavolu Atchutam Alias Achutaramayya and ors. Vs. Ratnaji Carrying on ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-22-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad323; 92Ind.Cas.977
Victor Murray Coutts Trotter, C.J.1. In this case the father of the appellants embarked oh the hardware trade in 1914 and was sued with them in respect of debts contracted by him in the conduct of that venture. The appellants' Vakil relied on a text of Gautama XII, 41 which runs as follows:Money due by a surety for a commercial debt, a fee due to the parents of a bride, debts contracted for spirituous liquor or in gambling and a fine shall not involve the sons of the debtor' and the bold contention is put forward that the pious obligation does not extend, therefore, to commercial debts. I have discussed this subject at length in para. 303 of the 9th Edition of Mayne on Hindu Law and I have very little to add to what I said there. This Court has held in Thangathamma v. Arunachalam Chettiar (1918) M.W.N. 673 that sons are liable in a case of a surety bond executed by the father for payment as distinct from obligations as a surety for appearance and for honesty and there are other decisio...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »