Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1927)52MLJ338
Lord Sinha J.1. This is an appeal against a decree of the High Court of Madras, dated the 19th of April, 1920, varying a decree of the Subordinate Judge of North Arcot, dated the 31st March, 1917, made in a suit filed in that Court on the 21st December, 1915.2. That suit arose out of a transaction between the Raja of Kalahasti and the Raja of Tuni, which was embodied in Ex. A and Exhibit I in the case.3. Ex. A purports to be a deed of 'mortgage with possession' of immovable properties described in Schs. A, B, C and D (hereafter called the A, B, C and D properties) for a sum of 11 lakhs of rupees, with interest at 10 annas per cent, per month, to be recovered from the rents and profits. The mortgagor was to have liberty to pay off the mortgage money at the end of four years, with option to defer payment for a further period of two years. If the money was not paid on the 13th of March, 1915, the entire amount then due was to carry interest at 1 per cent, per mensem--10 annas from the ren...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1927Mad664
Reilly, J.1. These appeals relate to the sale of about 11 acres of wet land in the Godaveri District by one Damisetti Satiraju for himself and his undivided son also called Damisetti Satiraju, to one Sateyya, a minor represented in this transaction by his father. The sale was in December 20, under Ex. D, for Rs. 10,000, In O. S. No. 35 of 1925 on the Subordinate Judge's file the minor Satiraju has sued for partition and incidentally has alleged that this sale is not binding on him because it was not supported by consideration and was for a price considerably below the value of the land. In O. S. No. 36 of 1921, on the Subordinate Judge's file the purchaser, Sateyya, has sued for possession of the land, and mesne profits. The Subordinate Judge heard the two suits together. The land sold consists of two adjoining survey Nos. 454/1, 5 acres and 48 cents in extent, and 454/2, 5 acres and 45 cents in extent. It is not disputed that out of the Rs. 10,000, the purchaser Sateyya retained under...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1927Mad666; 101Ind.Cas.375
Curgenven, J.1. The plaintiffs obtained a mortgage of the plaint property from the 1st defendant on 20-7-22. They subsequently discovered that a few days previously this defendant had sold it to his wife. They accordingly brought the suit out of which this second appeal arises to set aside the sale on the ground that it was devoid of consideration and in fraud of creditors, impleading their mortgagor and his wife, the vendee. The 1st issue raised was whether the suit was bad as not having been brought in a representative capacity. The learned Additional District Munsif decided this issue in the negative and in the result decreed the suit. This decree was affirmed on appeal by the District Court, no contest there being raised regarding the issue in question. The only ground now pressed in second appeal is that the objection againt this suit as being nonrepresentative in character should have been allowed.2. Mr. Ramadoss for the respondent has endeavoured to show that the suit was in fac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1927Mad669; 101Ind.Cas.132
Curgenven, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Tuticorin dismissing an appeal preferred by the 4th defendant against the order of the District Munsif of Tuticorin passed in E. P. No. 518 of 1924 in O. S. No. 239 of 1910, on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Koilpatti, in so far as that order directs sale of item 2 of the mortgaged property. The mortgage bond was executed in 1896 to the plaintiff's assignor who impleaded the 4th defendant as a puisne mortgagee of items 2 and 5. The defendant had purchased these properties under a decree obtained upon that mortgage. In consideration of the 4th defendant waiving certain objections to the plaintiff' claim, a decree was passed on 18-3-1913, providing that of the several mortgage items Nos. 2 and 5 should be sold last. Before any sales had taken place, one Chokalinga Goundan, a puisne mortgagee of items 3 to 6, had obtained a decree to which the mortgagor and the present respondent, but not t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 101Ind.Cas.439
Reilly, J.1. These appeals relate to the sale of about 11 acres of wet land in the Godavari District by one Damisetti Satiraju for himself and his undivided son also called Damisetti Satiraju to one Satheyya a, minor represented in this transaction by his father. The sale was in December, 1920, under Ex. D for Rs. 10,000. In O.S. No. 35 of 1921 on the Subordinate Judge's file the miner Satiraju has sued for partition and incidentally has alleged that this sale is not binding on him because it was not supported by consideration and was for a price considerably below the value of the land. In O.S. No. 35 of 1921 on the Subordinate Judge's file the purchaser, Satheyya, has sued for possession of the land and mesne profits. The Subordinate Judge heard the two suits together. The land sold consists of two adjoining Survey Nos. 454/1, 5 acres and 48 cents in extent and 454/2, 5 acres and 45 cents in extent. It is not disputed that out of the Rs. 10,000 the purchaser, Satheyya, retained under...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1927Mad595
Reilly, J.1. The plaintiff appeals against the dismissal of the suit for partition by the Subordinate Judge. The suit relates to a family of which the common ancestor, as is now not disputed, was Kanchiraju. He was great-grand father of the plaintiff and great-great-grandfather of Defendant 1. At the trial it was denied by Defendant 1, or rather by Defendant 2, as Defendant 1, his father, died a few days after the suit was instituted, that the plaintiff and his two brothers, Defendants 5 and 6, belonged to the family at all. The plaintiff's case is that his father, Suryanarayana, was adopted by Krishnayya I, the son of Kanchiraju I. The Subordinate Judge has found in favour of the adoption, and that is not now disputed before us.2. It is denied in Defendant 1's written statement that the property concerned is joint family property at all, and it is alleged that it was acquired by Defendant 1's grandfather Kanchiraju II. But it appears from Ex. A, a statement by Defendant 1's father, Ve...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1927Mad597; 100Ind.Cas.776; (1927)52MLJ396
1. In the former suit there was no prayer for an injunction nor did the Court give an injunction. Therefore, here was nothing in the decree of the District Munsif, the obedience to which involved a restraint on the present plaintiff preventing him from filing the suit earlier. In this respect this case resembles the decision in Putti Sethu Rao v. Seetha Lahshmi Ammal : AIR1925Mad1188 . It is unnecessary to repeat the reasons given in that case to which one of us was a party. It is true that the decision in the Secretary of State for India v. Zemindarni of Vegayammapeta Estate 59 Ind. Cas. 98 : 12 L.W. 334 has since been reversed by the Judicial Committee on the intimation of the parties 'that the Secretary of State for India in Council has now decided not to contest the appeal.' Their Lordships allowed the appeal 'without making any pronouncement on the merits of the judgment of the High Court.' The Secretary of State was unwilling to retain tax wrongly collected by relying on the plea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1927Mad468; 100Ind.Cas.680; (1927)52MLJ199
Reilly, J.1. The question is whether the suit was in time as against defendant 3, assuming, what has not yet been decided that time ran from 1st April, 1921. The plaint was presented against defendants 1 and 2 on the 3rd November, 1922. The plaintiffs presented their application, I.A. No. 130 of 1923, to bring defendant 3 on record on 27th January, 1923, and an order to that effect was made by the Subordinate Judge on the 23rd February, 1923. But on 10th October, 1923 the Subordinate Judge granted a review, set his order of 23rd February, 1923 aside and directed that the plaintiffs' application, I.A. No. 130 of 1923, should be re-heard. On 26th April, 1924 he dismissed that application. Against that dismissal the plaintiffs preferred C.R.P. No. 752 of 1924 to this Court, and on 12th March, 1925 my learned brother found that the Subordinate Judge's dismissal of the plaintiffs' application was wrong and ordered that defendant 3 be added as a party to the suit. When the suit came on again...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1927Mad1150a
1. The plaintiff' was employed by the defendant to sell the goods of the latter in the Madras Presidency among other places. The present suit was filed in the Sub-Court at Tinnevelly. Under para. 10 of the contract between the parties the defendant was not to sell the goods in the area allotted to the plaintiff. The plaintiff alleges that this was done in contravention of the agreement. The case seems to be practically identical with that reported in Raipur . v. Joolaganti Venkatasubba Rao A. I. R. 1921 Mad. 664 We follow that decision, reverse the order of the Subordinate Judge and direct that the suit be taken on his file.2. The defendant will pay the plaintiff his costs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 103Ind.Cas.37
1. The plaintiff was employed by the defendant to sell the goods of the latter in the Madras Presidency among other places. The present suit was filed in the Sub-Court at Tinnevelly. Under para. 10 of the contract between the parties the defendant was not to sell the goods in the area allotted to the plaintiff. The plaintiff alleges that this was done in contravention of the agreement. The case seems to be practically identical with that reported in Raipur . v. Joolaganti Venkatasubba Rao 70 Ind. Cas. 284 : 14 L.W. 341. We follow that decision, reverse the order of the Subordinate Judge and direct that the suit be taken on his file.2. The defendant will pay the plaintiff his costs....
Tag this Judgment!