Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1937Mad165
ORDERKing, J1. The petitioner in these two revision petitions was adjudicated insolvent in November 1929. In April 1932 he applied for his discharge which was granted in November. Between the date of his application and the order upon it, that is to say, in June 1932, he filed the plaints in the present suits. They were filed as small cause suits for small sums of money due on dealings. In September 1932 he obtained the permission of the insolvency Court to continue prosecuting these two suits. The decision in the suits, however, was that by reason of the fact that he filed these suits while he was still an undischarged insolvent they could not be maintained and even though the insolvent obtained the permission of the insolvency Court subsequently, that did not cure the original defect. The two suits were accordingly dismissed and the petitioner has applied in revision to this Court.2. It is not denied that the authority to which the lower Court refers, namely Subbaraya Chettiar v. Lak...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1936Mad543; 166Ind.Cas.922; (1936)71MLJ161
Pandrang Row, J.1. This is an appeal from the order of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Madura dated 21st October, 1935 recognising the transfer of the decree in O.S. No. 147 of 1928 in favour of the petitioner and directing execution to proceed. The decree in question was obtained by the receiver appointed in O.S. No. 71 of 1920 and that decree constituted one of the assets of the partnership, the affairs of which were involved in O.S. No. 71 of 1920, the receiver himself being one of the partners. The appellant in this appeal is also one of the partners. It was found in August 1931 by the Court before whom this suit, O.S. No. 71 of 1920, was pending that the receiver appointed was unable to do anything to protect the assets of the firm from being lost by the bar of limitation. Accordingly it decided to assume the reins of control in its own hands. By an order dated 20th August, 1931 it was decided by the Court that as the outstandings were getting time-barred they should be sold i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1936Mad713; (1936)71MLJ342
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The arbitration in this case was not in a pending suit; nor was there an order of reference on an agreement to refer. The parties had referred the matter to arbitration without the intervention of the Court, and the award having been made, the respondents applied to the District Munsif to give effect to it. Of the three groups of clauses of Schedule II, Civil Procedure Code, it is the third therefore that is applicable.2. The petitioner resisted the application on the ground that there was a written award on the 7th June, and that one of the arbitrators, dissenting from its terms, refused to sign it. The contention is, that the submission required that the decision should be unanimous and that as one arbitrator dissented, the award was not valid and binding. It is unnecessary to consider whether this construction of the submission is right or not. What the lower Courts have concurrently found is, that on the previous day the arbitrators had delivered an oral unan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1937Mad38
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This second appeal raises a question of limitation. The suit is one for an account of moneys due in respect of the business which was carried on in partnership between plaintiff 1 and defendant 1. The case of the plaintiffs is that plaintiff 1, defendant 1 and one Hanumantha Bhagavathar carried on business in partnership till 1919, that Hanumantha Bhagavathar left the business and thereafter the business was continued by plaintiff 1 and defendant 1, that the business terminated about three years before the suit was filed on 1st December 1927, and that even if the partnership was dissolved more than three years before suit, there was an acknowledgment of liability under Ex. A which was an agreement to have certain matters settled by panchayatdars executed by plaintiff 1 and defendant 1. The plaint is not very happily worded. It recites the partnership and also the agreement under Ex. A, and the prayer in the plaint is that the Court should direct the defendants t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 169Ind.Cas.340
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This second appeal raises a question of limitation. The suit is one for an account of moneys due it respect of the business which was earned on in partnership between plaintiff No. 1 and defendant No. 1. The case of the plaintiffs is that plaintiff No. 1, defendant No. 1 and one Hanumantha Bhagavathar carried on business in partnership till 1919, that Hanumantha Bhagavathar left the business and thereafter the business was continued by plaintiff No. 1 and defendant No. 1, that 1 he business terminated about three years before the suit was filed on December 1, 1927, and that even if the partnership was dissolved more than three years before suit, there was an acknowledgment of liability under Ex. A which was an agreement to have certain matters set-lied by panchayaldars executed by plaintiff No. 1 and defendant No. 1. The plaint is not very happily worded. It recites the partnership and also the agreement under Ex. A, and the prayer in the plaint is that the Cour...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1936Mad814; 163Ind.Cas.704; (1936)70MLJ719
King, J.1. The land which forms the subject-matter of this appeal was in 1917 in the possession of defendant 1. He mortgaged it in that year by Ex. B a simple mortgage deed to defendant 3. In October, 1919 Defendant 1 mortgaged this property amongst other items to Defendant 2's father by two usufructuary mortgage deeds (Exs. I and II), but by virtue of Ex. Ill, a lease deed of the same date as Ex. II, he himself remained in possession of the land. In March, 1920 defendant 1 sold the land to plaintiff l's mother (Ex, A) without apparently disclosing the existence of the usufrucuary mortgages and, in June, 1920 plaintiff's mother discharged the simple mortgage Ex. B. In 1925 Defendant 2 filed a suit upon the lease deed, Ex. Ill, obtained a decree, and in execution entered into possession of the land in 1926. In 1927 the plaintiffs, as heirs of plaintiff l's mother, filed the present suit, impleading the three Defendants, in which they claimed to enforce the mortgage Ex. B by sale of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1936Mad516; (1936)71MLJ231
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal by the first accused in S.C. No. 41 of 1935 in the Sessions Court of Coimbatore. The appellant was convicted of an offence pnnishable under Section 392, Indian Penal Code, namely, robbery, as a result of the unanimous verdict of the jury. He was sentenced to rigorous imprionment for two years by the learned Sessions Judge.2. Five other accused were charged with the appellant under Section 120-B read with Section 384, Indian Penal Code and the appellant was also charged with accused 1 to 4 and the sixth accused with extortion, Section 384, Indian Penal Code and with the same accused with dacoity, Section 395, Indian Penal Code. The appellant was acquitted on the other charges by the learned Sessions Judge and all the other accused were acquitted on all the charges.3. Briefly put, the prosecution case was that the Zamindar of Ramupatnam was engaged in an illicit amour with the appellant's wife, Satyabama. She wrote to him passion...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1936Mad801; (1936)71MLJ388
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. The preliminary objection as regards the orders in these cases made in the lower Court being appealable must be overruled.2. One of the orders in question is an order disallowing a plea that the execution petition was barred by limitation and that order having been made, subsequent proceedings were adjourned until a future date. The other is an order allowing the mortgagee from the original decree-holder in the suit to be brought on as legal representative of the deceased widow cf the original decree-holder and to continue the execution.3. A number of cases have been put before us but it is only necessary to refer to three of them. One is Rajah of Ramnad v. Velusami Tevar (1920) 40 M.L.J. 197 L.R. 48 : I.A. 45 a decision of the Privy Council and another is Shiva Narayan Lal v. Narayan Prasad : AIR1924Pat683 . The latter case holds the view that an order dismissing a plea of limitation as regards an execution petition in execution proceedings is ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1937Mad212
Cornish, J.1. The question in this appeal is whether a certain strip of land in South Kanara running between land undoubtedly the property of the plaintiff and a stream is part of the plaintiff's warg. It arises in this wise: The Government claiming the strip to be poramboke, the site of a public foot-path, took proceedings under the Land Encroachment Act 3 of 1905, to evict the plaintiff from this strip. Therefore the plaintiff brought his suit for a declaration that the strip belonged to him in warg right. The plaintiff alleged that he and his predecessors-in-title had been in possession of the suit land for more than the statutory period of 60 years. It has been found by both Courts that the plaintiff has not been able to prove a title to the disputed strip. But the lower appellate Court, having found that plaintiff has been in possession between 30 and 40 years, has held that the presumption may be drawn in his favour of having been in possession for the fall statutory period. I th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1936Mad562; 165Ind.Cas.412
ORDERVaradachariar, J.1. This revision petition has-been filed against an order of the learned. Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore in respect of the court-fee payable on the plaint in O.S. No. 265 of 1934 on the file of that Court. The plaintiff is the son of defendant 1 in the case. It appears from the plaint that a release deed has been obtained from defendant 1 by his father and the other coparceners and some years later another release from defendant 2 who is the elder son of the plaintiff. The contesting defendants are defendants 3 to 7 who are defendant 1's cousins. The plaintiff challenges these release deeds as not binding upon him and not depriving him of his right to a full share in the properties of the family. He prayed by his plaint for a declaration that he is entitled to a sixth share in the family properties and for possession thereof and also asked for the appointment of a commissioner to take accounts of the family dealings, moveables, outstandings, assets and the income...
Tag this Judgment!