Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1930Mad382; (1930)58MLJ420
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. The facts leading to this reference are these : The 1st defendant executed a sale-deed, dated the 21st of December, 1922, in favour of the 3rd defendant for Rs. 3,500 and he directed the vendee to pay the plaintiff Rs. 1,200 which he, the 1st defendant, owed the plaintiff. The plaintiff sued to recover the sum of Rs. 1,574-10-3 the balance which was due on a promissory note executed by the 1st and 2nd defendants, dated the 25th of June, 1921. He made the 3rd defendant a party on the ground that he was a vendee from the 1st defendant under an obligation to pay the debt due by the 1st defendant to the plaintiff.2. The sale-deed has been filed as Exhibit D in the case. It purports to be for Rs. 3,500. After reciting that the vendee had undertaken to pay Rs. 1,500 due to one Viswanatham Chetti and another sum of Rs. 500 due to the same creditor the material portion continues as follows:Whereas you have consented to pay on my behalf to P.L.M. Palaniuppa Chettiar ter...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1930Mad567
Anantakrishna Ayyar, J.1. This second appeal has been preferred by plaintiffs who, as purchasers from defendant 2 and her brother Muhammad Hussain, claim to be entitled to the suit property, said to have been purchased by defendant 1 in execution of the mortgage decree that she obtained against defendant 2. The facts are these: Defendant 2 executed a mortgage deed Ex. 1 in 1911 in favour of defendant 1. Defendant 1 put that mortgage into suit, and when the suit was pending, the plaintiffs purchased the property under Ex. A from both defendant 2 and her bother Muhammad Hussain. Plaintiff 2 as P.W. 1 admits that a portion of the consideration for Ex. A was reserved with the plaintiffs for payment to defendant 1 in respect of the decree that she had obtained. The plaintiffs did not, however, make any payment. The result was that defendant 1, in execution of the decree which she obtained, purchased the property and got delivery through Court. The plaintiffs intervened under Order 21, Civil...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1930Mad678
ORDER1. This case comes to us on a reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Ganjam in which reference he recommends that the conviction of a man named Chidamabaram for an act in contravention of Rule 35, Explosives Rules, 1914 and the fine of Rs. 50 imposed upon him should be set aside. The facts of the case are that a certain firm had consigned some packages described as 'fireworks' weighing 52 maunds 36 seers to one Indupuri Narasimham and that he having no license for explosives did not take delivery of them but Chidambaram did so paying the money into a Bank. He got the railway receipt and received the goods on 8th August 1927. He was thereafter charged with an act in contravention of Rule 35, namely, being in possession of explosives not in accordance with the conditions of the license granted under the rules for possession. He had a license entitling him to have explosives weighing up to 200 lbs. The origin of the complaint seems to be that some rival trader in the place compla...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 124Ind.Cas.55
1. The facts leading to this reference are these': The 1st defendant executed a sale-deed, dated the 21st of December, 1922, in favour of the 3rd defendant for Rs. 3,500 and he directed the vendee to pay the plaintiff Rs. 1,201) which he, the 1st defendant, owed the plaintiff. The plaintiff sued to recover the sum of Rs. 1,574-10-3 the balance which was due on a promissory note executed by the 1st and 2nd defendants, dated the 25th of June, 1921. He made the 3rd defendant a party on the ground that he was a vendee from the 1st defendant under an obligation to pay the debt due by the 1st defendant to the plaintiff.2. The sale-deed has been filed as Ex. D in the case, It purports to be for Rs. 3,500. After reciting that the vendee had undertaken to pay Rs. 1,500 due to one Viswanatham Chetti arid another sum of Rs. 500 due to the same creditor the material portion continues as follows:Whereas you have consented to pay on my behalf to P. 1 M. Palaniappa Chettiar firm carrying on money-len...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 123Ind.Cas.42
Anantakrishna Iyer, J.1. This second appeal has been preferred by plaintiffs who, as purchasers from the 2nd defendant and her brother Muhammad Hussain, claim to be entitled to the suit property, said to have been purchased by the 1st defendant in execution of the mortgage decree that she obtained against the 2nd defendant. The facts are these. The 2nd defendant executed a mortgage-deed Ex. I in 1911 in favour of the 1st defendant. The 1st defends ant put that mortgage into suit and, when the suit was pending the plaintiffs purchased the property under Ex. A from both the 2nd defendant and her brother Muhammad Hussain. The 2nd plaintiff as P. W. No. 1 admits that a portion of the consideration for Ex, A was reserved with the plaintiffs for payment to the 1st defendant in respect of the decree that she had obtained. The plaintiffs did not, however, make any payment. The result was that the 1st defendant, in execution of the decree which she obtained, purchased the property and got deliv...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1930Mad389; (1930)58MLJ369
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. The question referred to us is 'Whether a Court has jurisdiction to extend the time originally fixed under Section 27 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, for an application by the debtor for discharge, after the expiry of that time, but before an order of annulment is passed under Section 43, either under Section 5 of the Insolvency Act taken with Section 148, Civil Procedure Code, or under Section 27 (2) of the Act itself, or otherwise.' This reference is made necessary because of the view taken by Courts other than the Madras High Court in opposition to the balance of opinion in the Madras High Court.2. The facts are that the insolvency petition was presented on the 5th January, 1923 and on this petition there was an order of adjudication on the 31st January, 1924 and one year's time was granted to the insolvent to apply for his discharge. This time was further extended and the finally extended period expired on the 30th June, 1927. No further a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1930Mad594
Anantakrishna Ayyar, J.1. The plaintiff and the defendant are brothers. The plaintiff obtained a lease for ten years from the Tiruppananthal Mutt agreeing to pay rent (partly in paddy and partly in money) every year. The paddy rent was to be paid in particular months, and cash rents in particular months, by instalments. A sum of Rs. 1,000 was paid as advance to the mutt. The plaintiff gave the benefit of half the lease to the defendant who was to pay one half of the rent due. The defendant had also paid Rs. 500 towards the advance as the advance of Rs. 1,000 was made from funds belonging to plaintiff and defendant. The terms of the contract between the parties have to be ascertained from Ex. A executed by the plaintiff to the mutt, and Ex. B executed between the plaintiff and the defendant. On the allegation that the defendant had not paid the rent due for the 9th year of the lease (fasli 1328) the plaintiff filed the prior suit O. Section 246 of 1919, to recover the same from the defe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 124Ind.Cas.51
Anantakrishna Iyer, J.1. The plaintiff and the defendant are brothers. The plaintiff obtained a lease for ten years from the Tiruppananthal Mutt agreeing to pay rent (partly in paddy and partly in money) every year. The paddy rent was to be paid in particular months, and cash rents in particular months; by instalments. A sum of Rs. 1,000 was paid as advance to the Mutt. The plaintiff gave the benefit of half the lease to the defendant who was to pay one-half of the rent due. The defendant had also paid Bs. 500 towards the advance as the advance of Rs. 1,000 was made from funds belonging to plaintiff and defendant. The terms of the contract between the parties have to be ascertained from Ex. A executed by the plaintiff to the mutt, and Ex. B executed between the plaintiff and the defendant. On the allegation that the defendant had not paid the rent due for the 9th year of the lease (Fasli 1328) the plaintiff filed a prior suit, O.S. No. 246 of 1919, to recover the same from the defendan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1930Mad699
Jackson, J.2. The Chetti had attached the same property, and brought it to sale in execution of a decree in the Sub-Court, Dindigul. Out of the sale proceeds he satisfied his decree.3. The davasthanam petitioned the District Judge to order restitution of the amount taken by the Chetti in order that there might be rateable distribution. The District Judge held that he had no jurisdiction to pass such an order and hence this petition.4. Part of the argument on behalf of the petitioner has been directed towards showing that if the Sub Court held assets in consequence of the Chetti's sale, such assets would be available for rateable distribution by the District Court. So much the respondent is prepared to concede, and authority for the proposition will be found in Periya Karupan v. Soma Sundaram Chetti A.I.R. 1927 Mad. 67. it is not the respondent's case that the sale by the Sub-Court prevails against the attachment by the District Court. He merely contends that when the money has been pai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 129Ind.Cas.252; (1930)59MLJ876
Jackson, J.1. The six appellants have been convicted on the charge that they rioted with the common object of hurting one Rani Sundararajan and also Mookan Servai and Kalimuthu Servai. The 1st and 4th appellants have also been convicted under Section 148, and the first under Section 326, and all the others under Sections 326 and 1492. The learned Judge finds that the statement taken from Rani Sundararajan before he died, Ex. F, is a substantially true account of what occurred.3. He says that he came to Madura from Tirupparankundram and found Mookan and Kalimuthu sitting in front of the he use of Nagayan, who joined them, and told them that his son's wife had left him and when his son went to get her back from her parents they called is accused No. 1, who protested against the son trying to get his wife from a he use of which accused No. 1 was the landlord. The son said there was no need to ask his leaver and was beaten, Nagayan protested and was also beaten. Next morning he was beaten ...
Tag this Judgment!