Chennai Court August 1925 Judgments
Muthuveeraswami Nayudu and ors. Vs. V.T.A.L. Annamalai Chettiar and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad411
1. The lower Court, without dealing with the objections raised has made an order directing the decree, to be transferred to another Court. The application was to bring on record the legal representatives of certain deceased parties and to transmit the decree to another Court for execution. Notice was not served on all the persons on whom it should have been served. Defendants Nos. 4 to 6 raised the objection that they were not the legal representatives of Defendants Nos. 1 and 7. The learned Judge observed : ' In the natural course they will be the legal representatives of Defendants Nos. 1 and 7.' In this he is not correct. If the first defendant had left a widow for instance, Defendants Nos. 3 to 6 would not be his legal representatives in respect of his personal property. The learned Judge apparently did not bring to bear his mind upon the question, as he left it to be decided by the Court to which he directed it to be transferred.2. Another plea put forward raised a question of lim...
Tag this Judgment!Umamkeswara Mudaly and ors. Vs. Muniswami Mudaly and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-1925
Reported in: 94Ind.Cas.306
1. In this case the learned Judge in making his final decree in a suit for dissolution of partnership has made two errors in taking the accounts. In the first 'place he has allowed interest on monies drawn by a partner from the partnership funds--be it capital or interest, it does not matter--a thing which it is not the practice to allow unless it is so provided in the deed. There is clear authority in the case of Meymott v. Meymott (1862) 54 E.R. 1211 : 31 Beav. 445 : 32 L.J.Ch 218 : 9 Jur.(N.S.) 426 : 135 R.R. 515. The other thing he has allowed is interest on certain advances up to the date not of the dissolution which had been effected by the preliminary decree but right up to the date of final decree. For that again there is clear English authority, Barfield v. Loughborough (1873) 8 Ch. 1 : 42 L.J.Ch.l79 : 27 L.T. 499 : 21 W.R. 86 that such allowances cannot be made. The decree will be amended by disallowing those two items, interest at 9 per cent. being allowed up to the date of ...
Tag this Judgment!Bohisetti Mamayya Vs. the Official Receiver
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-1925
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.726
1. This appeal is against the order of the District Judge of Guntur setting aside the alienation in favour of the appellant madeby the insolvent on 29th September 1918 under Ex. I. Mr. Varadachariar, for the appellants, contends that the sale is a bona fide sale for adequate consideration. The learned Judge has attached importance to the fact that the properties sold were undervalued. In a case of fraudulent preference it is not necessary for the Official Receiver to make but that the property alienated was undervalued. The gist of fraudulent preference lips in preferring one creditor to another when the insolvent is unable to meet his liabilities fully. In this case the creditor presented a petition to adjudicate the insolvent on the 19th December 1918 and on the 10th March 1919 the insolvent presented an application for being adjudicated, an insolvent. It is also in evidence that the insolvent alienated almost all the properties in his possession between the date of Ex. I and the dat...
Tag this Judgment!Thanappa Chetty and ors. Vs. Esuf Khan Sahib and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad853; 92Ind.Cas.753
Ramesam, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for the declaration of the plaintiffs' right to the whole minor produce in the villages of Pudur Jaghir, and for injunction and damages. The jaghir of Pudur otherwise known as Ariya Goundan Jaghir is one of the five estates situated in the Kalroyan Hills. The Hills are partly in the Salem District and partly in the South Arcot District. This suit jaghir also is partly in the South Arcot District and partly in the Salem District. The first defendant is the present jaghirdar or the proprietor of the estate: The plaintiff was the lessee for six years from the first defendant of the minor produce of the jaghir under a registered lease-deed, Ex.-A dated 24th August 1908, which took effect from 10th July 1909 to 9th July 1915. The lease has since been extended under another deed dated 5th December 1918, Ex. B, for 25 years, i.e., from 9th July 1915 to 10th July 1920. Defendants Nos. 6 to 63 are the cultivators of the entire lands in the jaghir. ...
Tag this Judgment!V. Gopal Naidu Vs. Mohanlal Kanyalal and 2 ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-24-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad206; (1925)49MLJ709
Victor Murray Coutts Trotter, C.J.1. This case raises a point of some interest. Two persons traded together in partnership. A man called Anantha Mudali, about whom no question arises in these proceedings, and the appellant, Gopal Naidu, had carried on a produce business in Madras and the facts seem to be that Anantha Mudali was managing the business in Madras, whereas Gopal Naidu resided ordinarily at Wallajabad, but the evidence which is given in the case and that is the evidence that was relied upon by the adjudicating creditors themselves establishes two things. The first is that when anybody, after the difficulties arose and in this concern they did arise wanted to see Gopal Naidu when he went to Wallajabad, he found Gopal Naidu without difficulty and was able to put whatever he wanted to put before him. The other fact that emerges is that, although Gopal Naidu ordinarily resided at Wallajabad, he did from time to time come to Madras and look into the accounts and see how the busin...
Tag this Judgment!Gandha Korliah Vs. Janoo Hassan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-24-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad175; (1925)49MLJ738
1. This case raises a point of some interest that has been much discussed in the English Courts and has very recently been the subject of a decision by Mr. Justice MacLeod, as he then was, sitting in the High Court of Bombay. Boggiano and Co. v. The Arab Steamers Co. Ltd. ILR (1915) B 529. It is not disputed by the appellant that if Mr. Justice Macleod's judgment is correct he is out pf Court. The defendant was the owner of two steamers which were chartered by the plaintiff for the carriage of rice from Akyab to the Coromandel Coast. The importation of rice was only permitted--and Mr. Justice Waller, the Trial Judge, has very rightly found that this was a fact perfectly within the knowledge of the parties--if and when a certificate could be obtained from the Food Comptroller. The learned Judge has also rightly found--and this part of his judgment is not challenged--that neither party to the contract committed himself to a guarantee that such a certificate would be forthcoming. As to th...
Tag this Judgment!K. Venkatanarasimha Rao Vs. Hemadri Suryanarayana
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-24-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad325; (1926)50MLJ75
Phillips, J.1. The only question that arises here is whether Order 9 applies only to suits or whether, by reason of Section 141, it also applies to applications made under Order 9 itself. In this case an application to restore a suit was dismissed for default and a subsequent petition was filed to set aside that dismissal. The subsequent petition has been allowed and the original petition under Order 9 is now under enquiry.2. The contention for the appellant is that the Court had no jurisdiction to treat the second application as one to which Order 9 is applicable. In Thakur Prasad v. Fakir Ullah I.L.R. (1894) All 106 it was laid down by the Privy Council that Section 647 of the Code of 1882, which is equivalent to Section 141 of the present Code, included original matters in the nature of suits, such as proceedings in Probate, Guardianship, and so forth, and did not include executions. The question at issue in that suit was whether execution petitions were included in that section and...
Tag this Judgment!Unnamalai Ammal and anr. Vs. Abboy Chetty and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-24-1925
Reported in: (1926)50MLJ172
1. This suit has been brought to enforce three mortgages evidenced by Exs. A, B and D. Audi and Ramaswami were father and son. Exs. A & B were executed by Ramaswami and D was executed after Ramaswami's death by Audi and Ramaswami's widows, the 1st defendant and another. Subsequent to the execution of these mortgages, the 1st defendant obtained a decree for maintenance against Audi and in execution of it she and her father, the 10th defendant, became the purchasers of the properties which had been previously mortgaged.2. In regard to the first two deeds the question is, did the interest of Audi pass to the plaintiffs, the mortgagees. They were executed by Ramaswami, the son, but the Lower Court has found, and we agree with the finding, that he was the manager of the family. As regards the question whether the moneys were borrowed for family purposes, the learned Judge relying mainly on oral evidence and probabilities has come to the conclusion that they were not so borrowed. He, however...
Tag this Judgment!Gandha Horliah Vs. Janoo Hassan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-24-1925
Reported in: 91Ind.Cas.780
1. This case raises a point of some interest that has been much discussed in the English Courts and has very recently been the subject of a decision by Mr. Justice Macleod as he then was sitting in the, High Court of Bombay Boggiano & Co., v. Arab Steamers 33 Ind. Cas. 536 8 Bom. L.R. 126. It is not disputed by the appellant that if Mr. Justice Macleod's judgment is correct he is out of Court. The defendant was the owner of two steamers which were chartered by the plaintiff for the carriage of rice from Akyab to the Coromandel coast. The importation of rice was only permitted, and Mr. Justice Waller, the Trial Judge, has very rightly found that this was a fact perfectly within the knowledge of the parties, if and when a certificate could be obtained from the Food Controller. The learned Judge has also rightly found and this part of his judgment is not challenged that neither party to the contract committed himself to a guarantee that such a certificate would be forthcoming. As to that ...
Tag this Judgment!Pazhaniandy Tarakan Vs. Murukappa Tarakan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-24-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad367; 92Ind.Cas.124; (1926)50MLJ49
Phillips, J.1. In this ease the plaintiff and his family obtained a saswatam lease of certain property which was dedicated in trust. The plaintiff was appointed the managing trustee and in pursuance of that appointment, he gave notice to the person in possession of the property to deliver it up. The title of plaintiff's transferor was disputed and subsequently plaintiff purchased the saswatam right from the rival jenmi in his own name. He now sues for damages for trespass and an injunction. The lower Appellate Court dismissed his suit on the ground that under Section 8 of the Trusts Act, plaintiff was bound to hold the property on behalf of the trust and could not, therefore, bring a suit in his personal capacity in derogation of the trust.2. The first argument put forward in appeal is that inasmuch as the plaintiff did not obtain actual physical possession of the property, Section 88 does not apply. In Section 88 there is no recital as to the possession of the property and in the case...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »