Chennai Court September 1925 Judgments
Mathilda Sice and anr. Vs. Fritz Gaebele and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad955
Odgers, J.1. This is an appeal against the final decree of the Subordinate Judge of Salem in a mortgage suit. By Ex. A, dated 24th August 1886, one Jules Sice, who was a coffee planter in the Shevaroy Hills mortgaged certain property, namely, 1/2 of the Tanny Pandal Estate and the whole of the St. Josephs Estate, to one Lob Levyt. In 1892 Jules Sice, the mortgagor, died. His widow, sons and daughters are the defendants in this case. On the 31st July 1908, Madame Sice, the widow of Jules Sice entered into a contract, Ex. B, with one Mr. Fritz Gaebele, by which the latter undertook to work the coffee estate and to furnish the necessary money for it, which latter should bear interest at 8 per cent. Mr. Fritz Gaebele was to be treated as the first mortgagee of the estate for Rs. 24,000 and was to work the plantation without any interference from the defendants. The agreement provided that an account and inventory should be taken on the 1st March every year and that after providing for cert...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: A.V.P.M.R.M. Murugappa Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad767; 97Ind.Cas.395; (1926)51MLJ138
1. The difficulty in this case has entirely arisen owing to the ambiguity in the language used by the Commissioner in passing his order on the petition. The second paragraph of his order was on the face of it capable of the construction that he had held in the circumstances of this case that where any sum of money passed from a foreign business to the head-quarters of the firm in British India it must be regarded as profits and that no evidence was admissible to show-that in fact it was something else. We are satisfied that the Commissioner did not mean to say that, but merely meant to say that he thought that where money was remitted from abroad to the head-quarters in British India, the natural inference would be that such remittances came out of profits rather than capital until the contrary was shown by the assessee. The claim here was that a large portion of the amount remitted from Seranda to Karaikudi was a re-payment of capital lent long years before or at any rate was profits ...
Tag this Judgment!Mathila Sice and anr. Vs. Fritz Gaebele and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-1925
Reported in: 96Ind.Cas.429
Odgers, J.1. This is an appeal against the final decree of the Subordinate Judge of Salem in a mortgage suit. By Ex. A dated 24th August, 1886, one Jules Sice who was a coffee planter in the Shevaroy Hills mortgaged certain property, namely, of the Tanny Pandal Estate and the whole of the St. Joseph's Estate to one Lob Levyt. In 1892, Jules Sice, the mortgagor, died. His widow, sons and daughters are the defendants in this case. On the 31st July, 1908, Madame Sice, the widow of Jules Sice, entered into a contract Ex. B, with one Mr. Fritz Gaebele, by which the latter undertook to work the coffee estate and to furnish the necessary money for it, which latter should bear interest at 8 per cent. Mr. Fritz Gaebele was to be treated as the first mortgagee of the estate for Rs. 24,00 and was to work the plantation without any interference from the defendants. The agreement provided that an account and inventory should be taken on the 1st March every year and that after providing for certain ...
Tag this Judgment!Meenakshisundara Nachiar Vs. Al. V.R.P. Veerappa Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-1925
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.838
Viswanatha Sastri, J.1. Second appeal by defendant against the decree of the Subordinate Judge, Ramnad, in A.S. No. 100 of 1921.2. The, only question which has to be considered in this appeal is, whether the Courts below ware right in decreeing the plaintiff's claim for contribution based upon Section 70 of the Indian Contract Act. A common channel irrigated the lands of the plaintiff and the defendant. The case of the plaintiff was that he repaired this channel after informing the defendant, and that the defendant was hound to contribute towards the repairs made. Both the Courts found that the repairs were done, that the defendant was benefited by the repair, and that the plaintiff did not intend to bear all the expenses himself.3. It was urged before me on the authority of the decision in Sundara Aiyar v. Ananthapadbhanaba Aiyar 70 Ind. Cas. 405 A.I.R. 1923 Mad. 64 that the plaintiff could not succeed, because he was also benefited by the act. Observations in Viswanadha Vijia Kumara ...
Tag this Judgment!Arunachalam Chetty Vs. Abdul Subhan Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-25-1925
Reported in: (1926)50MLJ232
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The decree-holder in S.C.S. No. 3863 of 1919 on the file of the Court of Small Causes, Trichinopoly, is the petitioner. He obtained a decree against the respondent. The respondent was a minor and was not represented in the suit in which the decree was passed against him. In execution of the decree, the petitioner arrested the respondent and then the amount mentioned in the warrant was deposited by his surety in the Court and he was set free. An application was filed by the minor respondent asking the Court not to allow the petitioner to take the money on the ground that, at the time when the decree was passed, he was a minor and as such the decree was a nullity and not binding on him. The Lower Court, accepting this contention, allowed his prayer and the present Civil Revision Petition is filed against that order.2. On behalf of the petitioner, it has been contended before me that the Court below as an executing Court was bound to execute the decree as it stood and ...
Tag this Judgment!Narayana Mudaliar and anr. Vs. Nagappa Mudaliar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-25-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad245
1. We agree with the construction put upon the Will by the lower Court and find that the plaintiff was appointed co-trustee with Anjalai Achi, the widow of the testator, and that after Anjalai Achi's death, the plaintiff was entitled to the possession of the charity properties as trustee. It is, however, contended for the appellants that the plaintiff's right to recover 'the trust properties is barred by limitation on the ground that his is a suit to recover a non-hereditary office to which the trust properties are appurtenant and reliance is placed on the decision in Kidambi Ragava Chariar v. Tirumalai Asari Nallur Ragavachariar [1903] 26 Mad. 113, which purports to follow Jagan Nath Das v. Birhhadra Das 6 M.H.C.R. 301, and Tammirazu Ramazogi v. Pantina Narasiah [1892] 19 Cal. 775. In this case it was held that when a suit was brought for an office, namely, the office of Dharmakartha of a temple to which certain immovable property was attached, the article applicable was Article 120 a...
Tag this Judgment!Seetharama Naidu Vs. Govindasami Chettiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-25-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad352
Viswanatha Sastri, J.1. The question in this second appeal is whether the real owner of a ryotwari holding can sue in a civil Court for a declaration that certain lands belong to him, and that a sale under the provisions of the Estates Land Act was 'fraudulent, illegal, invalid and not binding on him.' Plaintiff, who is the appellant in second appeal, alleging that he was the real owner of the lands, and that the registered holder Rangasami Naidu was only a benamidar, sued to have a rent sale, held at the instance of the first defendant, at which the second defendant became the purchaser, set aside on various grounds. The District Munsif found as a fact: (1) that the notice Ex. X did not specify the holding in respect of which the arrear was due ; and (2) that a large-number of fields and a larger extent than necessary wore sold in contravention of the provisions of Section 126 of the Estates Land Act. On these findings be held that the sale was invalid and gave the declaration asked f...
Tag this Judgment!Solai Pillai Vs. A. Vedaji Baskara Tirumala Rao Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-25-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad756; 95Ind.Cas.250
Odgers, J.1 This was a suit under Section 112 of the Madras Estates Land Act instituted by the plaintiff who was a tenant of a certain holding in the Arni Jaghir, from Fasli 1318 to 1326. The appellant and the Jaghirdar had exchanged pattas and in Fasli 1327, corresponding to 1917, and the Jaghirdar in Fasli 1328, tendered a patta with an altered rent and diminished acreage. The tenant refused to accept it. The landlord then, under Section 112 purported to bring the holding to sale. Hence, the tenant brought this suit under the same section. The land was brought to sale for rent due for Fasli 1328. Both Courts have held that the patta tendered by the Jaghirdar to the appellant is proper and correct, and it has been found that the previous pattas were wrong both as to rent and extent owing to the fraud and collusion of the karnam of the estate with the appellant. It is argued in second appeal before us that the sale of the holding by the landlord cannot be upheld unless he has brought a...
Tag this Judgment!imani Satyanarayana and ors. Vs. Devarakonda Satyanarayanamurthi and a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad428; (1926)50MLJ144
1. This is an appeal against a decree on a mortgage executed by the 1st defendant, father of defendants 2 to 5. The mortgage was executed in order to discharge a prior mortgage deed executed by the 1st defendant in 1906, Ex. B, the suit mortgage being (Ex. A), dated 10th October, 1915. The Subordinate Judge has given a decree holding that the mortgage, having been executed to discharge an antecedent debt of the father, is binding upon the sons' shares, and he relies on the Full Bench decision of this Court in Arumugam Chatty v. Muthu Goundan I.L.R. (1919) M. 711.2. For the appellants it is contended that the decision is not applicable, because in the present case a portion of the previous debt could only be enforced as a mortgage debt and not as a personal debt of the father. This question has not been considered in the Lower Court and it is not at all clear whether the personal liability is barred or not in respect of the first three instalments. Whether it is barred or not, however, ...
Tag this Judgment!Muthuvenkatarama Reddiar and Two ors. Vs. the Official Receiver of Sou ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad350; (1926)50MLJ90
Devadoss, J.1. The appellants were adjudicated insolvents on their own petition in 1922. They applied to the District Court on 24th July, 1924, for a declaration that the two items of property, a terraced house and a cattle-shed, did not vest in the Official Receiver. The District Judge dismissed their petition, and they have preferred this appeal.2. The contention of the appellants is that they are agriculturists and the two items which are buildings which they occupied are exempt from the operation of the Insolvency Law by reason of Section 28, Clause 5, of the Provincial Insolvency Act. The appellants are large landed proprietors owning about 300 acres of land worth nearly a lakh and their debts amounted to Rs. 1,35,000 and odd. The two items are valued by the appellants themselves at Rs. 6,000 and Rs. 1,000 respectively. Under Section 28, Clause 5 all properties which are exempt by reason of Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure or by any other law from liability to attachment ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »