Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1927Mad201
Phillips, J.1. In this case the appellant (first defendant) attached certain properties in execution of a decree obtained against Defendants Nos. 2 to 4 on 22nd June 1915. These properties were actually attached on 25th June 1915, but prior to that, on 24th June 1915, Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 presented an insolvency petition. The plaintiff who had purchased the properties under a sale-deed dated 11th March 1915, put in a claim petition on 28th July 1915, and this was allowed on 8th November 1915. Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 were adjudged insolvents on 16th November 1915, and first defendant filed a suit to set aside the claim order on 31st March 1916, and eventually obtained a decree which the present plaintiff sues to set aside. The Subordinate Judge has given the plaintiff a decree on the ground that the decree obtained by the first defendant is null and void. The reasons given by him are that the Official Receiver was not made a party thereto, that no sanction had been obtained to instit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1926Mad624
Spencer, J.1. The plaintiff's suit was dismissed in the Court of first instance on the District Munsiff's finding that the sale deeds Exhibits D, E and F, were brought about to defraud 1st defendant's creditors, viz., 4th defendant. The Subordinate Judge also found as a conclusion of fact that these transactions were not bona fide.2. He, however, gave the plaintiff, who was a purchaser under Exhibit F, a charge for Rs. 450 on the suit properties, on the ground that his vendor, Maruthanayagam Pillai, had Rs. 400 in discharging a prior mortgage (Ex. C.) on 1st defendant's house in Dindigul. The learned Judge did not rely on the doctrine of subrogation, but he gave this relief out of equitable considerations. In so doing,, he overlooked the law that there can be no equity in favour of a purchaser in fraud of creditors who acts without bona fides: vide Karappan Ambalagaram v. Sakuth Levvai : (1914)26MLJ74 .3. Even assuming that some consideration passed for the sale under Exhibit IF to pla...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1926Mad782; 95Ind.Cas.1014
Odgers, J.1. This is a batch of appeals for rent of a certain land for Fasli 1316 (1907). The suits were instituted on 30th June 1910 and on 1st July 1910. The litigation thus covers a period of nearly 15-1/2 years. They were first heard by the Revenue Officer on 30th March 1911. He held that the village is one in which the melvaram is taken by the landlord at the time of the harvest, and it is then, therefore, that the rent becomes due. The harvest in 1907 must have taken place, at the latest, in March of that year, and accordingly the rent then became due. The Revenue Officer heard the arguments of the vakil who referred to Rangayya Appa Row v. Bobba Sriramulu [1904] 27 Mad. 1433 (which will have to be again referred to) and considered the wording of Schedule A, No. 8 of the Mdras Estates Land Act and came to the conclusion that the suits for enforcing acceptance of patta which the plaintiff had instituted, and in which judgment was given on 1st July 1907, were not suits for ascertai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 95Ind.Cas.262
In S. A. No. 443 of 19231. The plaintiff's suit was dismissed in the Court of first instance on the District Munsif's finding that the sale-deeds, Exs. D, E and F were brought about to defraud 1st defendant's creditor, viz., 4th defendant. The Subordinate Judge also found as a conclusion of fact that these transactions were not, (sic)a fide.2. He, however, stave the plaintiff, who was a purchaser under Ex. F, a charge for Rs. 450 on the suit properties, on the ground that his vendor Maruthanayagam Pillai had paid Rs 400 in discharging a prior mortgage (Ex. C) on 1st defendnt's house in Dindigul. The learned Judge did hot rely on the doctrine of subrogation, but he gave this relief out of equitable considerations. In so doing he overlooked the law that there can be no equity in favour of a purchaser in fraud of creditors who acts without bona fides Vide Karuppan Ambalagaran v. Muhammad Spkuth Levvai (1).3. Even assuming that some consideration passed for the sale under Ex. F to plaintif...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1926Mad565; 94Ind.Cas.254; (1926)50MLJ279
1. We cannot subscribe to respondents contention that Government cannot under a decree recover the courts-fee decreed as payable to Government from a pauper plaintiff, whenever plaintiff's property is confined to a right to future maintenance. That contention is negatived by the Privy Council ruling in Rajindra Narain Singh v. Sundara Bibi 49 MLJ 244 (FC), which also indicates the proper method of recovering such court-fee. That method is by the Court appointing a Receiver to collect the maintenance amount and pay to Government (by instalments if necessary in order that plaintiff may have something to live upon) the fee due by plaintiff. The appellant's execution petition as it stands does not ask for relief in that form, and it should be amended. We grant leave to amend it accordingly. The amended petition is forwarded to the Lower Court for disposal in the light of the Privy Council decision quoted above. Each party will bear his own costs in this appeal....
Tag this Judgment!