Chennai Court November 1934 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Gajjala Nagisetti and anr. Vs. Maddi Venkatasubbayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad345; 157Ind.Cas.640
ORDERVenkatasubba Rao, J.1. These cases raise a question as regards what is known as ' an anticipatory breach of contract' but what may be more accurately described as repudiation by an anticipatory refusal to perform it. The suits relate to two contracts, which were originally entered into by the defendants with one Rajayya by which they agreed to deliver to him a certain number of groundnut bags. Under the first contract, the delivery was to be on 28th February 1931 and under the second on 31st March 1931. These contracts were assigned by Rajayya to the plaintiff, who gave intimation of that fact to the defendants by his letter dated 14th February 1931. (Ex. E). The defendants on 23rd February sent a reply (Ex. F) stating that the contracts had been terminated by virtue of certain arrangements which they had entered into with Rajayya. The lower Court has found that this-allegation of the defendants is false and the correctness of this finding has not been attacked. The result then is...
Kannikandath Kizhe Purakkal Vella's Son Vs. Kannikandath Kezhe Purakka ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad458; MANU/TN/0403/1934
1. The first point is whether the present suit is barred under Order 9, Rule 9 by reason of the former suit. Cases of a second suit for partition may fall under three Classes, (1) Where the former suit ended in a final decree, e.g. Soni v. Munshi (1901) 3 Bom LR 94 distinguished in Madan Mohan v. Baikanta Nath (1906) 10 CWN 839, cases where there was a preliminary decree but not a final decree example of this are Mukerji Afzul Beg 1915 All 1, Mariamanessa Bibi v. Jouyanan Bibee (1906) 33 Cal 1101 and Sethu Rama Sahib v. Ram Pershad (1906) 28 All 627. (3) Cases where the suit was dismissed f for default : Bisheshar Das v. Ram Pershad (1906) 28 All 627 2. The case before us falls under the last 'heading. Following the decisions in Bisheshar Das v. Ram Pershad (1906) 28 All 627 and Madhura Gramani v. Sesha Reddy 1926 Mad 1018, we hold that the present suit is not barred. The reason is that, even after the dismissal of the former suit, the jointness? continues and there is a continuing cau...
The Official Assignee Vs. A. Kanniah Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1934
Reported in: (1935)69MLJ360
Mockett, J.1. The Official Assignee by this Notice of Motion seeks for a declaration that the settlement of a debt of Rs. 2,453 due to the insolvent by the respondent alleged to have teen effected on the 17th of February, 1934 by the payment of Rs. 913 is a voluntary transfer under Section 55 of the Presidency-towns Insolvency Act so far as the balance Rs. 1,540 is concerned. The facts are these. The Insolvent and the respondent have been doing business together and on the above date the respondent admittedly owed to the insolvent a sum of Rs. 2,453. This debt was settled by payment in cash of Rs. 713 and a promissory note for Rs. 200 making Rs. 913 and by the balance of Rs. 1,540 being waived. The respondent's story is that this amount was remitted because the insolvent had been supplying to him (the respondent) tobacco of a low quality over a period of four years and that at the time of settlement he requested the insolvent to show him some consideration. His exact words are, 'I comp...
Vegesana Kanakaraju Vs. Vegesana Venkatraju and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1934
Reported in: (1935)68MLJ248
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. The question raised in this appeal is whether the District Munsif's Court had jurisdiction to try the suit. It was a suit claiming a declaration that the plaintiff was the nearest reversioner to the first defendant's husband (deceased) after the first defendant's death and that certain alienations made by the first defendant in favour of some of the defendants were not valid and supported by consideration and not binding upon the reversionary right of the plaintiff. The second relief claimed was a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from cutting down the fruit trees, etc. An issue was raised with regard to jurisdiction and the learned District Munsif held that the suit had been properly valued for purposes of jurisdiction and proceeded to decide the case on its merits. He held that the alienation by sale of all the properties in her possession by the widow was invalid and not binding upon the reversionary interest. With regard to the...
Killur Ramakrishna Rao Vs. Kochi Mahadeva Bhatta and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad335; (1935)68MLJ482
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. This second appeal arises out of a suit by the plaintiff for the recovery of enhanced rent in the following circumstances.2. In 1905 the plaintiff's father granted a permanent mulgeni lease under Ex. A, of certain lands to the defendants. The lease stipulated that the defendants were not to alienate their mulgeni interest in the lands. In case of alienation the rent payable was enhanced from Rs. 137-12-0 to Rs. 250. The restraint against alienation and the increase in rent in case of alienation are mentioned in the following provision of the lease deed; ' In case we do not require the said plot, we shall hand it over to you only; but we shall have no right to alienate this mulgeni right to any one else by way of mortgage, arwar (usufructuary mortgage), sale, etc. If in contravention thereof we alienate it to others, we shall pay geni at Rs. 250 per year from that time'. On 28th January, 1910, under Ex. B, the defendants sold their mul...
Vagesana Kanakaraju Vs. Vagesana Venkataraju and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad262; 159Ind.Cas.367
Beasley, C.J.1. The question raised in (his appeal is whether the District Munsifs Court had jurisdiction to try the suit. It was a suit claiming a declaration that the plaintiff was the nearest reversioner to the 1st defendant's husband (deceased) after the 1st defendant's death and that certain alienations made by the 1st defendant in favour of some of the defendants were not valid and supported by consideration and not binding upon the reversionary right of the plaintiff. The second relief claimed was a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from cutting down the fruit trees, etc. An issue was raised with regard to jurisdiction and the learned District Munsif held that the suit had been properly valued for purposes of jurisdiction and proceeded to decide the case on its merits. He held that the alienation by sale of all the properties in her possession by the widow was invalid and not binding upon the reversionary interest. With regard to the permanent injunction claimed, t...
Bhimavarapu Veerareddi Vs. Adusumalla Angayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad347; 159Ind.Cas.507
ORDERKing, J.1. Plaintiff and defendant here were co-defendants in a suit (O.S. 239/22) decreed against, them with costs on appeal. Plaintiff says he has paid these costs and sues defendant for contribution. The lower Court held that as plaintiff in defending O.S. 239/22 had put forward a document which has been found by the learned appellate Judge to be fabricated he is a dishonest litigant who has no right to contribution. Plaintiff's suit has therefore been dismissed without any finding of fact whether plaintiff paid the costs or not, and without any finding of the amount of contribution to which he would be entitled if his right to contribution were recognized. The question of the right of one defendant to claim contribution from another defendant in respect of costs is an interesting one which, frequently comes before the Courts, and I propose to analyse five rulings of the Madras High Court which have been cited before me. The first is reported in V.V. Vittil Manja v. P.P.K. Kadu...
Thangeswara Chettiar Vs. Ramamurthi Chetti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad602
ORDERBeasley, C.J.1. This Civil Revision Petition raises an interesting point under the Provincial Insolvency Act. The petitioner obtained a decree for Rs. 200 odd against the respondent. Subsequent to the date of that decree, the respondent was adjudicated an insolvent under the Provincial Insolvency Act and included the petitioner's decree debt in his schedule of debts. Later on a composition was agreed to, which was approved by the Court. The petitioner took no steps whatever in the insolvency to prove his debt and therefore his debt was not included in the schedule to the composition. After this composition the adjudication was annulled. Thereafter the petitioner took steps to enforce his decree by execution and sought the arrest of the respondent. I am told that since the insolvency the respondent has acquired some more property and in the record before me it is difficult to understand why the appellant did not execute his decree or attempt to do so on this property. He 'however c...
Thangeshwara Chettiar Vs. Ramamurthi Chetti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-1934
Reported in: 159Ind.Cas.689
ORDERBeasley, C.J.1. This Civil Revision Petition raises an interesting point under the Provincial Insolvency Act. The petitioner obtained a decree for Rs. 200 odd against the respondent. Subsequent to the date of that decree, the respondent was adjudicated an insolvent under the Provincial Insolvency Act and included the petitioner's decree debt in his schedule of debts. Later on a composition was agreed to, which was approved by the Court. The petitioner took no steps whatever in the insolvency to prove his debt and therefore his debt was not included in the schedule to the composition. After this composition the adjudication was annulled. Thereafter the petitioner took steps to enforce his decree by execution and sought the arrest of the respondent. I am told that since the insolvency the respondent has acquired some more property and in the record before me it is difficult to understand why the appellant did not execute his decree or attempt to do so on this property. He however ch...
M. Krishnaswami Naicker Vs. A. Thiruvengada Mudaliar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad245; 157Ind.Cas.272; (1935)68MLJ63
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The trial Judge found that though the second endorsement was signed by the defendant, it was not in his handwriting. Unfortunately, he has not recorded a finding on the question whether or not there was a part-payment as mentioned in the endorsement; the judgment proceeds. I take it, upon the assumption that there was such a part-payment. The prevailing view of the law was, that a part-payment to be effectual under Section 20 of the Indian Limitation Act, must be in the case of a literate person appear in his handwriting and that it is not sufficient that he has merely signed it. In accordance with this view, the learned trial Judge, finding that the claim was barred, dismissed the suit. The Full Bench of the Small Cause Court reversed this decision on the ground that the amended Section has done away with this requirement.2. The law has been made less stringent upon the point: either there should be an endorsement in the handwriting of the person making the paym...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »