Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1928Mad900
Beasley, J.1. The appellant here was the plaintiff in the District Munsif's Court and his suit there was for a declaration that the plaint scheduled property was not liable to be attached in O.S. Nos. 529 and 537 of 1919 against defendant 3 by defendants 1 and 2, as 'the plaintiff had purchased the property from defendant 3 for full and valuable consideration under a registered sale-deed-dated 16th August 1919. The issues raised in the District Munsif's Court were five in number, but there are only two which are of any importance Issue 1. wasWhether the attachments made in O.S. Nos. 537 and 529 of 1919 are not valid?2. And issue 2:Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the property?3. If I may pause here, I think I ought to point out that the issues are in the wrong. order and that the first and in fact the most important matter to be decided was whether the plaintiff was entitled to the property. The District Munsif in his judgment held that the transaction set up by the plaintiff to es...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1928)55MLJ171
William Phillips, Offg. C.J.1. This petition comes before us on a reference by Kumaraswami Sastri, J., and we are asked to determine two questions of law relating to insolvency (1) whether Section 7 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act confers jurisdiction on the High Court in garnishee proceedings where the garnishee lives outside its jurisdiction, and (2) whether Clause 18 of the Letters Patent is governed by Clause 12 of the same. Both these questions were decided by a Bench of this Court in Abdul Khader v. Official Assignee of Madras I.L.R. (1916) Mad. 810 and it was there held that Section 7 does give jurisdiction to the High Court to adjudicate on claims relating o immoveable property situated outside the limits of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction. The learned Judges also held that Clause 12 of the Letters Patent does not control the provisions of Clause 18 so as to limit the insolvency jurisdiction of the Court. The reference does not in terms question the correctness ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1928)54MLJ150
Tiruvenkatachariar, J.1. The defendant is the appellant. The suit was brought upon oral agreement entered into between the parties on or about the 18th May, 1925, by which the defendant agreed to pay Rs. 55 to the plaintiff in satisfaction of his liability to the plaintiff under a promissory note which had been executed in plaintiff's favour by the defendant and some others jointly on the 31st July, 1915, for Rs. 300. The plaintiff's case is that the executants of the promissory note including the defendant made several payments towards the amount due on the note and after giving credit for such payments there remained some balance due to the plaintiff and that four of the executants of the note agreed each to pay a certain amount to the plaintiff severally in discharge of their joint debt and that in accordance with such arrangement the defendant promised to pay the plaintiff Rs. 55 the suit amount. The defendant in his pleadings denied the oral agreement as true. He contended also th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 112Ind.Cas.149
William Watkins Phillips, Officiating C.J.1. This petition comes before us on a reference by Kumara-swami Sastri, J, and we are asked to determine two questions of law relating to insolvency (I) whether Section 7, Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, confers jurisdiction on the High Court in garnishee proceedings where the garnishee lives outside its jurisdiction; and (2) whether Clause 18, Letters Patent, is governed by Clause 12 of the same. Both these questions were decided by a Beach of this Court in Official Assignee of Madras v. Vadavalli Ammal 36 Ind. Cas. 534 : 40 M. 810 : 20 M.L.T. 311 : 4 L.W. 425 and it was there bald that Section 7 does give jurisdiction to the High Court to adjudicate on claims relating to immoveable property situated outside the limits of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction. The learned Judges also held that Clause 12, Letters Patent, does not control the provisions of Clause 18 so as to limit the insolvency jurisdiction of the Court. The reference does ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1928Mad489; 110Ind.Cas.21
Beasley, J.1. The appellant here was the plaintiff in the District Munsif's Court. His suit was for a declaration that the suit lands belonged to him and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from entering upon the lands and interfering with the plaintiff's enjoyment of it. The District Munsif gave the plaintiff the declaration asked for and the injunction. The Subordinate Judge, however, reversed the District Munsif's judgment, and as regards item 1 of the suit lands, did not record a finding either as to the plaintiff's title or upon the point as to whether or not he was in possession of that land. He found that defendant 3 was in possession of a portion of that land, namely 15 cents, and as there was evidence to support that finding we are not going to interfere with it. He does not give any definite finding with regard to the remainder of the land, but quite rightly took the view that with regard to that portion of the land which he has found defendant 3 to be in po...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1928Mad1059
1. The plaintiff is the appellant in the second appeal. He sued recover Rs. 961-3-0, being the principal and interest due on a promissory note dated 31st January 1916 executed by defendant 1 in his capacity as Keevalur temple manager. The allegation in the plaint was that the suit promissory note as executed by defendant 1 as agent and manager of the suit temple for discharging the debt already incurred in connexion with the temple expenses and for benefit of the temple. Defendant 3's deceased father was the trustee of the temple and it was alleged that defendant 1 was managing the. temple affairs under a power-of-attorney executed by defendant 3. The principal amount of the promissory note now sued upon is Rs. 660 which is said to be made up of R3. 500 alleged to have been borrowed for temple purposes under a promissory note executed by the late manager on 21st March 1912 and Rs. 160 balance of interest due on it. Defendant 2 is the present trustee of the temple. The prayer in the pla...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 113Ind.Cas.554
1. The plaintiff is the appellant in the second appeal. He sued to recover Rs. 961-3-0 being the principal and interest due on a promissory note dated 31st January, 1916, executed by the 1st defendant in his capacity as Keevalur temple manager. The allegation in the plaint was that the suit promissory note was executed by the 1st defendant as agent and manager of the suit temple for discharging the debt already incurred in connection with the temple expenses and for benefit of the temple. The 3rd defendant's deceased father was the trustee of the temple and it was alleged that the 1st defendant was managing the temple affairs under a power-of-attorney executed by the 3rd defendant. The principal amount of the promissory note now sued upon is Rs. 660 which is said to be made up of Rs. 500 alleged to have been borrowed for temple purposes under a promissory note executed by the late manager on 21st March, 1912, and Rs. 160 balance of interest due on it. The 2nd defendant is the present t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 108Ind.Cas.77; (1928)54MLJ116
Srinivasa Aiyangar, J.1. Though a number of interesting and difficult questions bearing on the law of contracts were raised in the course of the discussion of this second appeal, it comes about that the appeal can be disposed of on a comparatively narrow point. The plaintiff is the appellants He instituted the suit primarily against the 1st defendant for the recovery of certain amounts alleged to have been overpaid by him under a contract and for damages for breach of contract. The contract itself was in writing bearing date 19th Dec, 1919. Under it a sum of Rs. 5,514-4-0 was settled as the price payable in respect of 8050 bunches of plantains and this amount was agreed to be paid by instalments on various dates. The plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3 who were also parties to the contract agreed to pay interest on the amount of each instalment at 1 per cent from the date of default. It is in evidence that on or about the 4th May, 1920, the plaintiff went to the 1st defendant and asked hi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1928Mad199
Reilly, J.1. K. Subbiah, the petitioner here, was declared to be elected as a Municipal Councillor of Ellore as having got 196 votes at the election against 195 for T. Manikyam, respondent 1. On an election petition presented by T. Manikyam the District Judge found that the result of the election had been materially affected by the improper rejection of 16 ballot-papers, which, if accepted, would have left each of ' these candidates with 205 votes. Whether the District Judge's finding that the 16 ballot] papers were improperly rejected was right or wrong, he arrived at that finding by interpreting Rules 14, 15 and 17 of the rules for the conduct of Elections of Municipal Councillors. I find no defect in his jurisdiction to interpret those rules as he has done, nor any illegality nor material irregularity in his procedure. On his findings his order that a new election should be held was within his jurisdiction. The petition is dismissed. The petitioner will pay respondent 1's costs in t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1927)53MLJ757a
ORDERWallace, J.1. The Magistrate in this case has discharged the accused refusing to examine all the witnesses cited by the complainant. Now, while Section 253 authorises the Magistrate to discharge an accused person before all the witnesses are examined, if, for reasons to be recorded by him, he considers the charge to be groundless, there are two reasons why his procedure cannot be supported by that section. First, he does not say he finds the charge to be groundless, and I do not agree with the Sessions Judge in his revision order that to say that no case is made out is tantamount to saying the charge is groundless. In fact, the section itself uses both phrases, evidently not in the same sense.2. Secondly, where a complaint prima facie discloses an offence, a Magistrate cannot hold the charge to be groundless unless he knows what is the sort of evidence that is going to be adduced to prove it, and he cannot for example examine . one or two witnesses or, for the matter of that, no w...
Tag this Judgment!