Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1936Mad878; (1936)71MLJ325
King, J.1. This appeal relates to a consignment of till seeds sent from Mysore to Palghat in 101 bags. The weight of the consignment was recorded on the railway pass as 181 maunds 32 seers, and was found at Erode to be 171 maunds 1 seer. It arrived at Palghat on 8th March, 1930 and Respondent, the consignee, on examining the bags found what he considered to be traces of their having been tampered with en route. He asked for the bags to be re-weighed, whereupon the goods clerk informed him that they had been re-weighed already, and that the result was 164 maunds 27 seers. He thereupon refused to take delivery unless he were given by the clerk a memorandum of the weight and condition of the bags. The clerk refused to accede to this request, and after some correspondence with the Railway Officials the consignee persisted in his refusal to take delivery and the consignment was sold by the railway. The consignee then sued the South Indian Railway Company for the value of the consignment and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1937Mad289; 166Ind.Cas.72; (1936)71MLJ490
Pandrang Row, J.1. This is an appeal from the decree of the District Judge of Bellary dated 7th February, 1933, affirming in appeal the order of the District Munsiff of Bellary dated 8th August, 1932, in E.A. No. 325 of 1932 which was an application for transfer of the decree to the District Munsiff's Court, Gooty, for execution. There was a previous application for transfer of the same decree to the same Court, viz., E.A. No. 274 of 1931 and in that application the judgment-debtor pleaded an adjustment whereby the amount due by him under the decree was agreed to be only Rs. 150 with interest. This agreement or adjustment was denied by the decree-holder. After a partial examination of the judgment-debtor himself in support of his case in August, 1931, the objection was overruled because he did not appear on the adjourned date of hearing and there was an order for transmission of the decree for execution as prayed for. That order was appealed from, and on appeal the matter was remanded ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1937Mad112; 173Ind.Cas.219
Pandrang Row, J.1. This is an appeal from the decree of the District Judge of Cuddapah, dated 13th March 1933, confirming on appeal the order of the District Munsif of Proddatur, dated 19th July 1932 in E.P. No. 984 of 1931, which was an application made under Rule XIV-5 (b) of the Rules framed by the Local Government under Section 43, Co-operative Societies Act of 1912, The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies made an award or decree for the amount claimed against one M. Ramaswamiah for a sum of Rs. 4,400 odd and application was made to the District Munsif of Proddatur for the purpose of its being enforced. Rule XIV-5(b) is to the following effect:The decision or award (of a Registrar) shall be enforced on application to the civil Court having jurisdiction over the subject matter of the decision or award. That Court shall then enforce the decision or award as if it were a decree of the Court.2. It is clear that the subject matter of the decision or award was the liability of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1937Mad195
Varadachariar, J.1. This is an appeal by defendants 2 to 4 in a suit brought to enforce a security bond executed by defendant 1 in favour of the plaintiff in July 1918, (Ex. C). Defendants 2 to 4 are the sons of defendant 1, and they were all minors at the date of Ex. C. Ex. C itself does not refer to any particular debt but provides that defendant 1 wished to have debit and credit transactions with the plaintiff for a period of five years from that day to the limit of Rs. 5,000 both separately and jointly with other persona on promissory notes and on account. The properties specified in the schedule were offered as security for any sum of principal and interest that might become due to the plaintiff as a result of such transactions. The suit has been laid for recovery of the amounts remaining due on foot of the two promissory notes, Exs. A and B, dated respectively 28th September 1920 and 31st May 1921; and it is claimed that in respect of the amounts due under these two documents pla...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 164Ind.Cas.853; (1936)71MLJ294
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The question raised is, whether the father's adjudication defeats the decree-holder's rights in respect of the sons' share in the property. The attachment was of the lands, that is to say, of the interests not only of the father but also of the sons. Subsequent to the attachment, the father was adjudicated an insolvent. It has been held in Seetharama Chettiar v. The Official Receiver, Tanjore 49 M 849 : 97 Ind. Cas. 825 : 51 MLJ 269 : 24 LW 345 : (1926) MWN 743 : AIR 1926 Mad. 994, and is now settled law. that what passes to the Receiver on a father's adjudication is not only the father's share in the property but also his power of disposal, under the Hindu Law, over the shares of the sons ; it. is equally clear that when the sons' shares are attached, the attachment puts an end to the father's power of disposal. When therefore an attachment has been effected of the son's shares before the father's adjudication, there is no power of disposal which can pass to, an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1936)71MLJ284
Pandrang Row, J.1. This is an appeal from the decree of the Subordinate Judge, Tinnevelly, dated 16th October, 1935, reversing in appeal the decree of the District Munsif of Tenkasi dated 25th September, 1934, in O.S. No. 182 of 1933, a suit to set aside a sale held for arrears of rent under the Estates Land Act on the 29th January, 1931, and for an injunction restraining the first defendant from interfering with the plaintiff's enjoyment of the property purported to have been sold. The suit was dismissed by the District Munsiff on the ground that the sale was not vitiated by reason of anything alleged by the plaintiffs. On appeal however a new point was raised, namely, that the sale was invalid because it was conducted by a person who had no authority to hold it and as this point, namely, that the conduct of the sale was by a person who had no authority to hold it, was conceded, the learned Judge found that the sale was invalid and accordingly allowed the appeal and decreed the suit a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1936Mad700
Pandrang Row, J.1. This is an appeal from the decree of the Subordinate Judge, Tinnevelly, dated 16th October 1935, reversing in appeal the decree of the District Munsif of Tenkasi dated 25th September 1934 in O.S. No. 182 of 1933, a suit to set aside a sale held for arrears of rent under the Estates Land Act on 29th January 1931 and for an injunction restraining defendant 1 from interfering with the plaintiff's enjoyment of the property purported to have been sold. The suit was dismissed by the District Munsif on the ground that the sale was not vitiated by reason of anything alleged by the plaintiffs. On appeal, however, a new point was raised, viz., that the sale was invalid because it was conducted by a person who had no authority to hold it, and as this point, viz., that the conduct of the sale was by a person who had no authority to hold it, was conceded, the learned Judge found that the sale was invalid and accordingly allowed the appeal and decreed the suit as prayed for. It is...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1936Mad844
Pandrang Row, J.1. This is an appeal from the decree of the City Civil Judge, Madras, dated 30th August 1934 in O.S. No. 220 of 1933 on his file, a suit for ejecting a tenant and for recovering arrears of rent due by him. The plaintiff's case was that the defendant was a tenant of hers in occupation of a plot of land as well as a tiled shed belonging to her as a monthly tenant bound to pay a rent of Rs. 15 a month. The defendant claimed that the buildings on the suit land were his, that he is entitled to protection under the Madras City Tenants' Protection Act, that the rent payable was only Rs. 4 a month and that all rent up to October 1932 had been paid. A number of issues were framed by the learned City Civil Judge but in his judgment he does not record findings on all the issues. He decided practically only two questions viz., (1) whether the defendant is entitled to protection under the Madras City Tenants' Protection Act, and if so whether the suit for ejectment must be dismissed...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 164Ind.Cas.973
Pandrang Row, J.1. This is an appeal from the decree of the Subordinate Judge, Tinnevelly, dated October 16, 1935, reversing in appeal the decree of the District Munsif of Tenkasi, dated September 25, 1934, in O.S. No. 182 of 1933, a suit to set aside a sale held for arrears of rent under the Estates Land Act on January 29, 1931, and for an injunction restraining the first defendant from interfering with the plaintiff's enjoyment of the property purported to have been sold. The suit was dismissed by the District Munsif on the ground that the sale was not vitiated by reason of anything alleged by the plaintiffs. On appeal, however, a new point was raised, viz., that the sale was invalid because it was conducted by a person who had no authority to hold it and as this point, viz., that the conduct of the sale was by a person who had no authority to hold it, was conceded, the learned Judge found that the sale was invalid and accordingly allowed the appeal and decreed the suit as prayed for...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1936Mad707; (1936)71MLJ373
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. This appeal raises a question of some importance. The plaintiffs - The National City Bank of New York--obtained a decree on 19th June, 1934, in the High Court at Rangoon for about Rs. 25,000 against two defendants, with first of whom alone we are concerned. The first defendant is described in the plaint as 'R.M.P.M. Chettiar firm, carrying on business at No. 84, Mogul Street' Rangoon. ' In execution of the decree, the plaintiff bank attached certain properties, which on their own showing belong to the four minors (the appellants before us) constituting a joint undivided Hindu family. The subordinate Judge of Coimbatore, in whose Court the decree was being executed disallowed the objections preferred on behalf of the minors and made an order allowing execution. The objection, which is material for the present purpose, has been raised in the following form:The suit and the proceedings that ended in the said ex parte decree and the proceedings m the execution taken ...
Tag this Judgment!