Chennai Court February 1933 Judgments
T.N.S. Firm, Through One of Its Partners, T.N.S. Chockalingam Chettiar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad756; (1933)65MLJ458
Ramesam, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Tuticorin dismissing the plaintiff's suit against defendants 2 to 9. The plaintiffs are two brothers Chockalingam Chettiar and Subramaniam Chettiar carrying on business under the name of T.N.S. Firm in Ceylon. The 1st defendant is a Muhammadan merchant also carrying on business in Colombo, the 2nd defendant is his brother-in-law and son of the 3rd defendant. The 3rd defendant died while the suit was pending and defendants 4 to 9 were brought on record as his legal representatives along with the 2nd defendant who was already on record. The suit was brought to recover a sum of Rs. 15,895, consisting of Rs. 12,767 principal and Rs. 3,128 interest said to have been advanced by the plaintiffs to the 1st defendant for the purpose of his business. The 2nd defendant was impleaded on the ground that he was a prior endorsee of certain bills given to the plaintiffs by the 1st defendant's agent as security. The 3rd de...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Sri Sri Palahari Mahant Raja Ram Doss Bavaji Vs. Sri Sri Sri Gajap ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad729; 145Ind.Cas.721; (1933)65MLJ620
Curgenven, J.1. The defendant, the Mahant of Balaga Mutt, holds a usufructuary mortgage over a part of the Nandigam Estate, of which the plaintiff is Zamindar. The mortgage deed provides that the mortgagee shall pay annually a sum of Rs. 2,000 towards the peishcush and the land cess due upon the portion mortgaged. The defendant defaulted in making these payments for faslis 1330, and, 1331, so that the plaintiff was himself compelled to pay them. To recover as damages the amounts so paid he has filed two successive suits. That out of which this appeal; arises is the second, and relates to part of the payment for fasli 1330 and the whole of the payment for fasli 1331 The defendant raised various defences, the chief defence pressed at the trial being that the mortgage was not binding upon the Mutt. This was decided against him, and has been abandoned on appeal. The points taken before us are, firstly, that the interest which the Lower Court awarded upon the amounts paid, from dates of pay...
Tag this Judgment!Arumugam Pillai and anr. Vs. Khazi Mohideen Sheriff Sahib and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad533; (1933)64MLJ706
Madhavan Nair, J.1. A.S. Nos. 75 and 76 of 1927.-Both these appeals arise out of O.S. No. 2 of 1924 instituted by the plaintiffs, described as the mullas or trustees of a Muhammadan mosque at Paramathi. The suit is for the recovery of two items of property said to have been improperly alienated by the previous trustees. Appeal No. 75, in which the 1st defendant is the appellant, relates to item 1, the alienation of which was effected in his favour under three sale deeds, Exs. D.D (1) and D (2), dated 17th February, 1901, 19th April, 1901 and 3rd May, 1901, respectively. Item 2 was alienated in favour of the 2nd defendant, the appellant in A.S. No. 76, under two documents, Exs. E and E (1), dated 7th October, 1900 and 19th April, 1901, respectively. The present suit was instituted on 9th January, 1924. The main question in these appeals is whether the suit is barred 'by limitation under Article 134 or Article 144 of the Limitation Act. Article 134 specifies 12 years as the period of lim...
Tag this Judgment!Pidikiti Kotayya and ors. Vs. Anne Radhakrishnamurthi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad833
Madhavan Nair, J.1. Defendants 2, 3, 4 and 5 are the appellants. The plaintiff is the son of one Gopayya. Gopayya's brother is Rathayya, defendant 1. The wife of Gopayya is Seetaramamma. The suit out of which this appeal arises was instituted by the plaintiff for recovery of one half share of the suit properties. The circumstances in which the suit was instituted are these: In O.S. No. 50 of 1911 defendant 5 obtained a decree against the plaintiff's father and defendant 1 for recovery of possession of the suit property and other properties together with mesne profits and costs. The ground of his claim was that he was entitled to the properties as the reversioner to the last male owner and that the plaintiff's father and defendant 1 were in possession as trespassers. The decree was dated 24th February 1914. After the decree defendant 5 applied for possession of the properties, on 26th September 1914, but did not ask for mesne profits and costs. But immediately after delivery of possessi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›