Chennai Court August 1935 Judgments
N.C. Krishna Ayyar and ors. Vs. Pierce Leslie and Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad64; 160Ind.Cas.478
ORDERCornish, J.1. I have been asked by the petitioning creditor's learned advocate to remand this case for a finding whether the respondents to the insolvency petitions (who are the petitioners before me) formed a, partnership firm. But as the creditors' petition did not allege a partnership, and as it was apparently nobody's case in the lower Court, that there was a partnership, I see no reason why I should open the question at this stage. I think that the business of the Auto and General Company, though originally the partnership business of respondent 2, and a stranger to the family, became after the stranger's death, the business of the joint family of which all the respondents are members. In the deed of alienation of their immoveable property which the respondents jointly executed to raise funds for meeting their creditors' claims in respect of the business, they admit that the business was a joint family business. It was sought to explain away this admission by stating that thi...
Tag this Judgment!Gurpur Vamana Pai Vs. Venkatu (Venkatesh) Naika
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad116
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. The plaintiff as usufructuary mortgagee from the mulgar of the plaint land has instituted this suit to recover arrears of mulgeni rent and for possession of the land on the ground that the defendants who are the mulgeni tenants have incurred forfeiture by nonpayment of rent and by alienation contrary to the terms of the lease. The forfeiture on the ground of alienation is not pressed before me. Mr. Adiga for the plaintiff-appellant has argued three points : (1) that the lower Courts ought to have decreed to him rent at the rate of Rs. 27 instead of at Rs. 20-4-0; (2) that 'as usufructuary mortgagee he will be entitled to enforce the forfeiture clause in the lease; and (3) that if it be held that the defendants are entitled to be relieved against the forfeiture, he must be paid the rent for the year 1921 which has been disallowed to him on the ground that the claim in respect thereof is barred by limitation. The first point arises in this way. Ex. A is the mulgen...
Tag this Judgment!Gurupur Vamana Pal and anr. Vs. Venkatu (Venkatasesha) Naika and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-1935
Reported in: 160Ind.Cas.530
1. The plaintiff as usufructuary mortgagee from the mulgar of the plaint land has instituted this suit to recover arrears of mulgeni rent and for possession of the land on the ground that the defendants who are the mulgeni tenantshave incurred forfeiture by non-paymen of rent and by alienation contrary to the terms of the lease. The forfeiture on the ground of alienation is not pressed before me.2. Mr. Adiga for the plaintiff-appellant has argued three points: (1) that the lower Courts ought to have decreed to him rent at the rate of Rs. 27 instead of at Rs. 20-4-0; (2) that as usufructuary mortgagee he will be entitled to enforce the forfeiture clause in the lease; and (3) that if it be held that the defendants are entitled to be relieved against the forfeiture, he must be paid the rent for the year 1921 which has been disallowed to him on the ground that the claim in respect thereof is barred by limitation.3. The first point arises in this way. Exhibit A is the mulgeni chit executed ...
Tag this Judgment!S.J. Rangachari and ors. Vs. G.R. Narayana Ayyar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad119; 162Ind.Cas.713
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by three brothers for the recovery of possession of certain lands and for rent and mesne profit Section Defendant No. 3 in the case is another brother of the plaintiffs and they had an elder brother by name Parthasarathy Ayyangar who died in January 1916. The lands in dispute in this suit were purchased by Parthasarathy Ayyangar in bis name under Ex. C in 1911. The plaintiffs claim that these lands were the joint family property of themselves and defendant No. 3 and the deceased Parthasarathy Ayyangar, that on 'Parthasarathy Ayyangar's death they devolved by survivorship on the remaining brothers and that as the result of a partition between the brothers in 1918 the lands had, been assigned to the plaintiff Section Defendant No. 1 came into possession as a usufructuary mortgagee from the widow of Parthasarathy Ayyangar under Ex. 8, dated October 1919, and under that arrangement he was entitled to remain in possession for a period of three yea...
Tag this Judgment!Toke J. Abboy Naidu (Deceased) and anr. Vs. the Secretary of State for ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad1069; 159Ind.Cas.1071; (1935)69MLJ795
Varadachariar, J.1. Both these appeals raise the same point for determination, namely, the title of the appellant's mother to certain plots of land. One appeal arises out of a suit by the Government for possession of these lands and the other appeal arises out of a suit by the appellant against the Government for damages for failure to supply water for the irrigation of these lands. The learned Subordinate Judge has found against the appellant's title and decided both the suits against him. Hence these appeals.2. The appellant claims title through his mother who became the owner of these properties by conveyance some time in 1922 from four grantees who acquired these properties under darkhast grants by Government on the 18th May 1921. In the course of 1924 it was reported by succeeding revenue authorities that the circumstances under which the darkhast grants were obtained justified the cancellation of the grants. A recommendation to this effect was made by the Collector of Nellore to ...
Tag this Judgment!Rai Bahadur P.V. Srinivasa Rao Panthulu Garu, Official Receiver Vs. Ye ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1935
Reported in: (1935)69MLJ839
1. This arises out of an application to strike out the respondent's name from the list of creditors of an insolvent. The debts shown in the schedule as owed to the Respondent are numerous. One of those debts has, after annulment (an annulment that was followed by an order vesting the insolvent's property in a Receiver for the benefit of creditors) been the subject matter of a suit to which the Receiver was made a party and to which the insolvent was the principal defendant. That suit ended in a decree giving to the plaintiff the right to attach the assets of the insolvent in the hands of the Receiver.2. Having that in mind the learned District Judge has treated it as a matter of res judicata that all the debts and not merely the subject matter of that suit, were owing. He has not gone at all into the question whether the other debts were not true debts.3. It will therefore have to go back for a determination whether the debts, other than the debts the subject matter of the suit should ...
Tag this Judgment!The Official Receiver, Representing the Estate of Grandhi Sattiraju (A ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1935
Reported in: (1935)69MLJ898
Stone, J.1. This is an appeal against an order passed by the learned District Judge of East Godavari in an execution application and it is an order that raises a point of some interest. The facts can be shortly stated. The action was brought by, what I will call, the execution creditor against the father and Manager of a Joint Hindu Family and his son and nephew. In that action the plaintiff was successful and obtained a decree against the father personally and against the son and nephew in respect of their share in the joint family property. Following upon that decree the judgment-creditor attached the family property, that is to say, the interest therein, both of the father and manager and of his son and nephew. The next step was that the father became an insolvent. The Official Receiver took charge of his properties. He communicated with the executing Court claiming the whole of the attachfed property and sought to stop the sale. The executing Court decided to continue the sale and ...
Tag this Judgment!Amirdham Vs. Valliammai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad19
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. The facts necessary for the disposal of this second appeal may be briefly stated. Plaintiff 1 is the wife and plaintiffs 2 and 3 are the minor sons of one Singaroo Padayachi, defendant 3, in the suit. The plaintiff's case is that defendant 3, defendant 2 and one Ranga-swami Padayachi formed members of a joint Hindu family, lived and acquired properties together, that at a partition effected in 1911, some lands fell to the share of defendant 2, that the plaint house fell to the share of defendant 3 and one Rangaswami Padayachi, that Rangaswami Padayachi died in 1922 and thereafter there were disputes in the family and there was a settlement of those disputes, and in consequence of the settlement a release deed was executed by defendant 2, by which defendant 3 became the sole owner of the plaint house, that in execution of a decree in Small Cause Suit No. 1126 of 1921 of Mayavaram Sub-Court the plaint house was attached and the plaintiffs by reason of the fact tha...
Tag this Judgment!P.V. Srinivasa Rao Pantulu Garu Vs. Yeruva Chinnapa Reddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad125
1. This arises out of an application to strike out the respondent's name from the list of creditors of an insolvent. The debts shown in the schedule as owed to the respondent are numerous. One of those debts has, after annulment (an annulment that was followed by an order vesting the insolvent's property in a Receiver for the benefit of creditors) been the subject matter of a suit to which the Receiver was made party and to which the insolvent was the principal defendant. That suit ended in a decree giving to the plaintiff the right to attach the assets of the insolvent in the hands of the Receiver. Having that in mind the learned District Judge has treated it as a matter of res judicata that all the debts and not merely the subject matter of that suit, were owing. He has not gone at all into the question whether the other debts were not true debts. It will therefore have to go back for a determination whether the debts other than the debts, the subject matter of the suit should or sho...
Tag this Judgment!Official Receiver Vs. Imperial Bank of India and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad193
Stone, J.1. This is an appeal against an order passed by the learned District Judge of East Godaveri in an execution application and it is an order that raises a point of some interest. The facts can be shortly stated. The action was brought by what I will call the execution creditor against the father and manager of a joint Hindu family and his son and nephew. In that action the plaintiff was successful and obtained a decree against the father personally and against the son and nephew in respect of their share in the joint family property. Following upon that decree the judgment creditor attached the family property, that is to say, the interest therein, both of the father and manager and of his son and nephew.2. The next step was that the father became an insolvent. The Official Receiver took charge of his properties. He communicated with the executing Court claiming the whole of the attached property and sought to stop the sale. The executing Court decided to continue the sale and e...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »