Chennai Court October 1925 Judgments
M.C. Chegganmull Sowcar Vs. Desur Manicka Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad792; 94Ind.Cas.384; (1926)50MLJ242
Ramcsam, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit to recover money due on two promissory notes. The plaintiff is the appellant before us, the learned trial Judge having dismissed the suit except as to Rs. 800 admitted due by the defendant and deposited by him in Court. The suit was filed on the 24th of January, 1923, under the summary procedure. The defendant applied for leave to defend in February. Leave was granted on the 5th of March and the written statement of defendant was filed on the 15th of March. The two suit promissory notes are dated 17th December, 1921 (Ex. B) and 22nd December, 1921 (Ex. A)and carry interest at the rate of Rs. 2-13-0 per cent per mensem. The plaintiff and defendant ordinarily reside at Tindivanam in the South Arcot District. On the 22nd of April, 1922, the plaintiff through his Madras vakil Mr. Mahadeva Aiyar sent 2. notice demanding the balance due on Ex. B(Ex. V). Two days after, the same vakil issued another notice, Ex. D, in which he mentions that he was...
Tag this Judgment!Rama Aiyar and ors. Vs. Narayanaswami Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad609; (1926)51MLJ313
Ramesam, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit by the reversioners of one Ananthakrishna Aiyar for possession of his properties after the death of the last intermediate female in 1918. The Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit. The plaintiffs appeal.2. Ananthakrishna Aiyar-died in 1858 leaving a widow and two daughters. The widow died about 1868-70. Her first daughter died in 1902. She had three sons all of whom died before 1918 leaving no issue. The second daughter died in 1918 leaving the five plaintiffs surviving her. They are, therefore, reversioners to the estate of Ananthakrishna Aiyar and are prima facie entitled to his properties. The following pedigree shows these facts at a glance:Ananthakrishna Iyev d. 1858--widow Thayarnmal d. 186S-70.|Two daughters.|_____________________________________________| |Thailammal d. 1902. Lakshmi Ammal d. 1918. | |_______________________________ || | | |Ramaswatni Vaidyanatha Another. |Iyer. Aiyar. || |Died before 1918 |__________________________...
Tag this Judgment!Walker and Co. Vs. G. Abdul Aziz Saheb and Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad720; (1926)51MLJ373
1. This is an appeal from the Original Side. The suit was brought to recover the value of certain goods consigned by the plaintiffs with the Ist defendant firm of Messrs. Walker & Co. as a free consignment. The suit Was filed on 24th August, 1922, and the written statement of Messrs. Walker & Co. was filed on 2nd October, 1922. By that time, Messrs. Walker & Co. had executed a trust-deed In favour of the creditors with the firm of Messrs. Fraser & Ross as trustees. In the list of creditors at the end of the deed, the plaintiff's name does not occur. We are informed that the written statement of Messrs. Walker & Co. was signed by Mr, Fraser under Clause (2) of the deed authorising him to defend suits against Messrs. Walker & Co. In December 1922 the plaintiff having heard of the assignment, applied by Judge's summons to make Messrs. Fraser & Ross parties to the suit and their firm was impleaded as 2nd defendant.2. The plaintiffs' contention that the 2nd defendant was liable on the groun...
Tag this Judgment!K. Muhammad Usan Rowther Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Counc ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad788
Odgers, J.1. The suit from which this appeal arises was brought by the plaintiff against the Secretary of State and others as owner of about 103 acres of land in the village of Anabhogi. He claimed an injunction against the defendants to restrain them from closing a certain inlet sluice on the ground that the said sluice is an irrigation sluice for the village of the plaintiff and that he has the right, title and enjoyment from time immemorial in respect of irrigation through it. It appears that the lands in question and those adjacent to it derive their water through two channels : (1) Anabhogi channel, which is the channel in dispute ; and (2) the Valkudi channel which at one point passes under the Anabhogi channel, the latter being carried over it by an aqueduct. It appears that at a point in the Valkudi channel which has been marked M in the plan, there is what has been called the Anabhogi inlet sluice which, as I understand it, is an aperture in the adjoining wall where the Valkud...
Tag this Judgment!Rama Iyer and ors. Vs. Narayanaswami Iyer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-1925
Reported in: 96Ind.Cas.483
ORDER.24. The Subordinate Judge will take any evidence that may be adduced by the parties on all the issues on which findings have been called for (by the order of this Court, dated 15th August, 1924) and will submit fresh findings in supersession of the findings, if any, already sent. One month from this date is allowed for sending the findings and seven days for filing the memorandum of objections to the said findings.25. In compliance with this order dated 9th September, 1924, and the order contained in the above judgment dated 15th August, 1924, the Subordinate Judge Of Mayavaram submitted the following.Findings.Issue No. 14.--In case the sale of the house in Item No. 539 in Schedule B, Part I, is found to be not binding on the plaintiffs, to what equity, if any, are the defendants Nos. 1 to 6 entitled?Issue No. 15.--Whether the present building on Item No. 29 in Schedule B, Part I, of the plaint, belonged to Anantha krishna Aiyar, and, if not, whether the plaintiffs have, any righ...
Tag this Judgment!Kalliakkal Vs. Palani Koundan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-1925
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.533
Devadoss, J.1. The only question in this revision petition is whether Order IX, Rule 13 applies to execution proceedings. The District Munsifof Namakal passed an ex parte order on 26th October 1922 directing delivery of property free from obstruction. Defendants Nos. 5 and 6 applied on 9th November 1922 to set aside the ex parte order. The District Munsif set aside the ex parte order and passed a fresh order. The auction-purchaser who is also a decree-holder has preferred this civil revision petition. The question for decision is, was the order of the District Munsif setting aside his previous ex parte order passed without jurisdiction2. The answer to the question depends upon the wider question whether Order IX applies to execution proceedings. There are several cases on the point which are not all re-concileable. In Tirthasami v. Annappayya 6 Ind. Dec. 441 Muthuswami Iyer, J., held that Chaps. VII and XIII of the old Code did not apply to execution proceedings. He rested his conclusi...
Tag this Judgment!Srinivasa Chetti Vs. Chenna Chetti and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-1925
Reported in: AIR1927Mad294
Phillips, J.1. The petitioner stood surety in a sum of Rs. 4,000 for the respondent who undertook to re-pay to a minor his share of an estate in case the Court declared that the minor had been validly adopted. The petitioner subsequently applied to be released from his obligation under the bonds and that the bonds should be cancelled. The District Judge has held that he cannot be released from his obligations unless and until he finds some one else willing to offer security.2. It is now contended that it is not the petitioner's duty to find another security but it is the respondent's duty either to pay up the whole amount for which the security is given or to produce some other security. This ignores the contract entered into by the petitioner that he would be responsible until a certain specified time of any loss that might be incurred by the minor during that period and that contract cannot be set aside at the mere wish of the petitioner. It is possible that he may have some remedy a...
Tag this Judgment!R. Rama Vadhyar Vs. T. Krishnan Nair and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad398
1. The appellant, plaintiff brought this suit to recover money lent under a usufructuary-mortgage deed, Ex. A, and a subsequent mortgage deed, Ex. C. He also sought to include in the mortgage money, the rent due under a lease Ex. B. His claim was made not only against the karnavan of the tavazhi of Defendants 1 to 16, but also against the properties of the tavazhi. The members of the defendant's tavazhi and the other members of the tarwad entered into a, karar in 1914 under which certain debts were allotted to the several tavazhis and power was given to charge the tavazhi properties with the repayment of those debts, but it was expressly forbidden to charge the tavazhi properties with any further debt. Rs. 3,000 was thus allotted to the tavazhi of Defendants 1 to 16 and they were authorised to borrow money to pay off the debt, but it was expressly provided that they should not borrow for the interest thereon, which interest had to be paid out of the current income. If it became necessa...
Tag this Judgment!Srinivasa Chetti Vs. Chenna Chetti (Dead) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-1925
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.251
Phillips, J.1. The petitioner stood surety in a sum of Rs. 4,000 for the respondent who undertook to re-pay to a minor his share of an estate in case the Court declared that the minor had been validly adopted. The petitioner subsequently applied to be released from his obligation under the bonds and that the bonds should be cancelled. The District Judge has held that he cannot be released from his obligations unless and until he finds some one else willing to offer security.2. It is now contended that it is not the petitioner's duty to find another security but it is the respondent's duty either to pay up the whole amount for, which the security is given or to produce some other security. This ignores the contract entered into by the petitioner that he would be responsible until a certain specified time for any loss that might be incurred by the minor during that period and that contract cannot be set aside at the mere wish of the petitioner. It is possible that he may have some remedy...
Tag this Judgment!T.K. Lakshmana Aiyar Vs. Sankarapandiam Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad311; (1926)51MLJ451
Spencer, J.1. I agree with my learned brother's construction of the document (Ex. V) which is before us. As observed by him, this is a very extraordinary document because, if it purported to be an absolute sale and if it purported to pass the rights of a full owner, there was no occasion to recite the transferor's enjoyment of the land under mortgages and sub-mortgages which had not been redeemed. For the respondents two cases to which I was a party have been cited, Kannuswami Thanjirayan v.Muthuswami Pillai (r) and an unreported case, Appeal No. 182 of 1921. The principle upon which those suits were decided was that if a defendant in possession of immoveable property puts forward a defence of limitation under Article 134 against a suit for redemption, there is no onus on him to first prove that he obtained a transfer in good faith of that property, or, as stated in Kannuswami Thanjirayan v. Muthuswami Pillai (1917) M.W.N. 5. 'it was not incumbent on the purchaser to prove that he had ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »