Chennai Court September 1925 Judgments
The Secretary of State for India in Council Represented by the Collect ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-1925
Reported in: 95Ind.Cas.789
Phillips, J.1. This is a case of an alleged escheat of the properties of an Aliyasantana family of South Kanara. The undisputed facts are as follows: About 1850 the Haladi family consisted of two members, Puttu Shettithi and her son, Daraya Shetti. One Venkamma Shettithi was then adopted from another family and she had a daughter, Kollu Shettithi, who married Daraya Shetti's son Nandiappa Shetti and died in 1872. They had a daughter Durgi Shettithi, who died while still a minor in 1876. In 1864, Daraya Shetti executed what is called a Tahanaman, Ex. DD, in which he stated that there were no other heirs in his family except himself and Kollu Shettithi. He then entrusted the management of the family and the family property to his son Nandiappa Shetti and he also made a provision that if Kollu Shettithi had no issue, Nandiappa Shetti should enjoy the property mentioned therein. Daraya Shetti died in 1866, and from that time Nandiappa Shetti appears to have been in possession and managemen...
Tag this Judgment!Racharla Narayanappa Vs. Kondigi Bheemappa and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad494; 92Ind.Cas.541
1. This is an appeal against the order of the District Judge of Anantapur, dismissing the appellant's petition to be adjudicated an insolvent. The appellant stated in his petition that he had debts to the extent of Rs. 25,018-4-0 and that his properties were worth about Rs. 10,000; and he further stated that he was unable to meet his liabilities. The learned Judge dismissed his application on the ground that he was not satisfied, that the petitioner was unable to pay his debts. When a person presents a petition to be adjudicated an insolvent that petition itself is treated as an act of bankruptcy under the Insolvency Law. And when he says that his liabilities are more than his assets, that must be taken as some evidence that he is unable to meet his liabilities.2. Under Section 24 of the Provincial Insolvency Act where a debtor is the petitioner, he shall be required to furnish such proof as to satisfy the Court that there are prima facie, grounds for believing the same. Under Section ...
Tag this Judgment!Komarasami Chetti Vs. Sundar Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-1925
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.724
1. The only question in this appeal is whether the delay in presenting the application to the lower Court for setting aside the abatement should be excused or not. The appellant is the adopted son of the decree holder who died on the 30th January 191s). The decree was passed on the 12th November 1918. The appellant applied for execution of the decree on the 2nd November 1921. The District Judge held that there was no executable decree. Thereupon the appellant filed the present application out of which this appeal arises. His contention is that he was mistaken as regards the nature of the decree and he thought it was an executable decree and that was why he did not make the application before November 1921, for setting aside the abatement. He attained majority on the 4th June 1921.2. From 4th June 1921 to 2nd November 1921 it does not appear that he consulted any Vakil and he was misled by reason of the advice given by the Vakil. It is suggested on behalf of the respondent that, inasmuc...
Tag this Judgment!Manepalli Satanarayanamurthi Vs. Thommandra Erikalappa
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-1925
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.962
Victor Murray Coutts-Trotter, C.J.This case is really governed by the decision of the House of Lords in British & Beningtons Limited v. N.W. Cachar Tea Co., Ltd. 128 L.T. 422 . As I understand that case, it lays down that a seller is not to be defeated merely by its being shown that after repudiation by the buyer, he had not the goods to implement the contract actually in his physical possession. He can show that he could supply the goods contracted for either from the open market or from any other source and he would be entitled to maintain a suit for damages for wrongful repudiation.2. In this case the contract was that the buyer should take the goods between the 20th and the 30th of April 1919. He did not' do so and he set up & false defence that he sent two men to take delivery within the contract period. Those two men were called and gave evidence and the learned Judge refused to believe them. No Judged sitting as a Jury would have believed them because the seller wrote on 28th Ap...
Tag this Judgment!Chittammal and anr. Vs. Ponnuswami Naicker and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad363; (1926)50MLJ180
Devadoss, J.1. This appeal is against the order of the District Judge of Tinnevelly directing the appellants to hand over possession of the property in their possession to the Official Receiver and his lessee. The 1st respondent herein is the lessee of the property from the 2nd respondent who is the Official Receiver of Tinnevelly. The appellants were in occupation of the property in dispute from the year 1897. The respondents applied to the District Judge for an order under Section 56 of the Provincial Insolvency Act directing the appellants to hand over possession of the property in dispute to the respondents on the ground that the property was the property of the insolvent. The learned Judge has passed an order under Section 56(3) in favour of the respondents. The question for consideration is whether such an order can be passed against persons who claim adversely to the insolvent. Section 56, Clause 3, para. 2, is in these terms:Provided that nothing in this section shall be deemed...
Tag this Judgment!Chittammal and anr. Vs. Ponnusami Naicker and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-1925
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.573
Devadoss, J.1. This appeal is against the order of the District Judge of Tinnevelly directing the appellants to hand over possession of the property in their possession to the Official Receiver and his lessee. The first respondent herein is the lessee of the property from the second respondent who is the Official Receiver of Tinnevelly. The appellants were in occupation of the property in dispute from the year 1897. The respondents applied to the District Judge for an order under Section 16 of the Provincial Insolvency Act directing the appellants to hand over possession of the property in dispute to the respondents on the ground that the property was the property of the insolvent The learned Judge has passed an order under Section 56(3) in favour of the respondents! The question for consideration is whether such an order can be passed against persons who claim adversely to the insolvent. Section 56, Clause 3, 2nd paragraph is in these terms:Provided that nothing in this section shall ...
Tag this Judgment!S.R. Muthuswami Aiyar and Sons, Firm by One of their Partners Vs. S.R. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1925
Reported in: (1926)50MLJ260
Murrau Viswanatha Sastri, C.J.1. This appeal has. given rise to a very interesting argument none the less so that both Mr. Alladi Krishnaswarni Aiyar and Mr. S Varadachari who argued the appeal with great ability agreed in saying that whatever the result of the case was to be, the judgment of the learned Judge, which was a sort of compromise between the case of the plaintiffs and the defendants could not possibly stand.2. The facts are very short. The contract relates to a Batch, of bales of yarn and the contract in question in this suit is one of 28th August, 1918 for the sale of 86 bales by the defendants as sellers and the plaintiffs as buyers. The ptain-tiffs paid on the contract an advance of Rs. 6,966 and their claim is for that money with interest.3. The point that arises in the appeal is best shown by an account of the history of these bales. There was a sale in the first instance by the Madura Mills to Venkatachalapathy Aiyar and Sons who sold them to the plaintiffs, who sold ...
Tag this Judgment!The Municipal Council by Its Chairman Vs. T. Shanmuga Moopanar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad251; (1926)51MLJ62
Spencer, J.1. The Tuticorin Municipal Council, which through its Chairman preferred this Revision Petition, resolved to require wholesale dealers in grain to take out licences under Section 249 of the Madras District Municipalities Act (V of 1920) and accordingly published a notification under Section 328 in the Ttnnevelly District Gazette. The respondent, who was one of such wholesale dealers, paid the fees demanded of him under protest and brought a suit in the Small Cause Court to recover what was illegally collected from him. He succeeded in obtaining a decree for a portion of his claim. The District Munsif held that he was not liable to take out licences for godowns in which rice and broken rice, etc., were stored for wholesale trade but only for grain stores. It is contended for the petitioner that the word ' grain ' in Scheduel V (10) to the Act includes rice and broken rice. The District Munsif observed:Paddy without husk is rice. Rice is not a seed and does not sprout out. Hen...
Tag this Judgment!S.R. Muthuswami Ayyar and Sons Firm Vs. V.V.C. Ramalinga Mudaliar and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad485; 94Ind.Cas.334
1. This appeal has given rise to a very interesting argument none the less so that both Mr. Alladi Krishnaswami Aiyar and Mr. S. Varadachari, who argued the appeal with great ability, agreed in saying that whatever the result of the case was to be, the judgment of the learned Judge, which was a sort of compromise between the case of the plaintiffs and the defendants, could not possibly stand.2. The facts are very short: The contract relates to a batch of bales of yarn and the contract in question in this suit is one of 28th August, 1918, for the sale of 86 bales by the defendants as sellers and the plaintiffs as buyers. The plaintiffs paid on the contract an advance of Rs. 6,966 and their claim is for that money with interest.3. The point that arises in the appeal is best shown by an account of the history of these bales. There was a sale in the first instance by the Madura Mills to Venkatachalapathy Ayyar & Sons, who sold them to the plaintiffs, who sold to Hanumantha Ayyar, who sold ...
Tag this Judgment!(Ponttunoda) Ahmedkoya and ors. Vs. Kilkkakkad Aisamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad657
Devadoss, J.1. This is an application by the appellant to excuse the delay of 182 days in presenting S.R. No. 1604 of 1924 (Civil Miscellaneous Appeal,) against the order of the Inspecting Officer of the Laccadives in Case No. 6 of 1923 of Agathi Island.2. Mr. Padmanabha Pillai for the appellant contends that Section 5 of the Limitation Act applies to the case and the Court is entitled to consider the application on the merits Mr. Pocker for the respondents contends that the Limitation Act has not been extended to the Laccadive Islands.3. The history of the Laccadive Islands is an interesting one. We are at present concerned with the four islands which are known as the southern group of islands and the Island of Minicoy which, are administered by the Collector of Malabar. It is-unnecessary to consider the history previous to the year 1792. A few passages from ' A Short Account of the Laccadive Islands and Minicoy' by R.H. Hills, I.C.S. would be quite sufficient for the pupose of this c...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »