Chennai Court August 1936 Judgments
A.Pr. L.M.L. Lakshmanan Chettiar Vs. K. Sreenivasa Ayyangar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1936
Reported in: 166Ind.Cas.378
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This miscellaneous second appeal raises a question as to the effect of an annulment in regard to the share of the insolvent who was at the moment of adjudication a member of a joint undivided Hindu family. The insolvent one Raghava Ayyangar and his brother, the 1st defendant, were undivided brothers of a joint family owning certain immovable property. In 1922 the said Raghava Ayyangar was adjudicated an insolvent by the High Court. Subsequent to his adjudication and before obtaining the order of discharge, he appeared to have borrowed from the plaintiff a sum of money on a promissory note. He died thereafter. Subsequent to his death the plaintiff filed in or about 1930 O.S. No. 1098 of 1929 on the said promissory note against the 1st defendant, and his sons, defendants Nos. 2 and 3, and also the 4th defendant who was the widow of the said Raghava Ayyangar. A decree was passed in the said suit against the defendant for the amount, claimed by the plaintiff payable...
Tag this Judgment!Alagirisami Naik and ors. Vs. Sikandar Rowther and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Mad960; (1936)71MLJ614
Horwill, J.1. This is a suit for redemption tiled by the grandson of the mortgagor. He stated in his plaint that defendants 8 and 9, the sons of the mortgagor, were also entitled to redeem but that they had refused to join the plaintiff in filing the suit because they themselves claimed no interest in the property. The trial Court found that the plaintiff's father had divided from the mortgagor even before the mortgage and that the only persons who had any right to redeem were defendants 8 and 9. That suit was dismissed. In appeal a part of the plaintiff's claim was allowed and a decree was given for some property in favour of defendants 8 and 9. In second appeal it was ordered that the appeal should be re-heard. The Subordinate Judge who heard the appeal a second time dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to show any cause of action. In second appeal it is now urged that the Subordinate Judge acted wrongly in not passing a decree in favour of defendants 8 and ...
Tag this Judgment!Korlapalli Bandachar and anr. Vs. Firm of Sathraji Dongerchand
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Mad942; 165Ind.Cas.951; (1936)71MLJ638
K.S. Menon, J.1. The only question for decision in this case is whether the Receiver appointed by the Court in execution of the decree for sale on a mortgage was entitled to sell the sugarcane crops raised by lessees of the mortgagor, under a lease given after the final decree. It is not denied that the mortgage-deed included a covenant mortgaging future crops also and that the decree gave a charge on the future crops. The lessees were admittedly aware of the suit to enforce the mortgage. The lease was taken only on 23rd February, 1931, while the final decree in the suit had been passed on 27th January, 1930. Generally a mortgagor may be entitled in the ordinary course of enjoyment to lease the mortgaged properties for a year in spite of a suit for sale pending on a decree for sale having been passed, provided it does not imperil or materially diminish the security. It may be that the crop raised by such a lessee may in some cases be immune from being proceeded against hi execution of ...
Tag this Judgment!Chanahalu Siva Reddi and anr. Vs. the Official Receiver of Bellary and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-1936
Reported in: 166Ind.Cas.80; (1936)71MLJ730
Burn, J.1. The appellants are two out of three brothers who have been adjudicated insolvents in I.P. No. 43 of 1931, on the file of the District Judge, Bellary. The learned District Judge has found that all the three brothers were in partnership and that the firm of which they were members was liable to be adjudicated insolvent. The eldest brother who has not appealed put up a case that the business in which the debts due to the petitioning creditors were contracted belonged to him alone and that his two younger brothers (the present appellants) had nothing to do with it. The appellants also supported that case. They pleaded that they had effected a partition from their elder brother 4 or5 years before the insolvency petition was filed. The eldest brother Ayyanha Gowd was adjudicated on his own admission and the appellants were adjudicated subsequently by the District Judge.2. It is contended on behalf of the appellants that there was no sufficient evidence to prove any partnership bet...
Tag this Judgment!Rao Saheb Manda Appa Rao Pantulu Garu-interim Trustee of Haradakhandi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-1936
Reported in: (1936)71MLJ797
Horwill, J.1. The plaintiffs lent a sum of money on a promissory note to the late mahant of the Lakshminarasimha Swami Mutt at Haradakhandi and have brought this suit against the present holders of the mutt for the recovery of the amount due. Both the lower Courts have found that the debt was not for the necessity of the mutt and was therefore not binding on the present mahant. In giving a decree against the personal property if any of the late mahant, both Courts have held that the arrears of rent due during the lifetime of the late mahant and since collected are the personal property of the late mahant and therefore liable in satisfaction of the decree. An appeal has been filed against this incidental finding, while a memorandum of cross-objections has been filed with regard to the main finding that the debt is not binding on the mutt.2. Both Courts held that arrears of rent due before the late, mahant's death but not collected by him were his personal property, because of a dictum o...
Tag this Judgment!(Manda) Appa Rao Pantulu Garu and anr. Vs. Budankayala Vignesam Subudh ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad118
Horwill, J.1. The plaintiffs lent a sum of money on a promissory note to the late mahant of the Lakshminarasimha Swami Mutt at Haradakhandi and have brought this suit against the present holders of the mutt for the recovery of the amount due. Both the lower Courts have found that the debt was not for the necessity of the mutt and was therefore not binding on the present mahant. In giving a decree against the personal property, if any of the late mahant, both Courts have held that the arrears of rent due during the lifetime of the late mahant and since collected are the personal property of the late mahant and therefore liable in satisfaction of the decree. An appeal has been filed against this incidental finding, while a memorandum of cross-objections has been filed with regard to the main finding that the debt is not binding on the mutt. Both Courts held that arrears of rent due before the late mahant's death but not collected by him were his personal property, because of a dictum of ...
Tag this Judgment!Alagairisami Naik and ors. Vs. Sikandar Rowthar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-1936
Reported in: 166Ind.Cas.730
Horwell, J.1. This is a suit for redemption filed by the grandson of the mortgagor. He stated in his plaint that defendants Nos. 8 and 9, the sons of the mortgagor, were also entitled to redeem but that they had refused to join the plaintiff in filing the suit because they themselves claimed no interest in the property. The trial Court found that the plaintiff's father had divided from the mortgagor even before the mortgage and that the only persons who had any right to redeem were defendants Nos. 8 and 9. That suit was dismissed. In appeal a part of the plaintiff's claim was allowed and a decree was given for some property in favour of defendants Nos. 8 and 9 In second appeal it was ordered that the appeal should be re-heard. The Subordinate Judge who heard the appeal a second time, dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to show any cause of action. In second appeal it is now urged that the Subordinate Judge acted wrongly in not passing a decree in favour of de...
Tag this Judgment!Jeethalal Manekji Sharma Vs. Saradambal Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-24-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Mad941; 166Ind.Cas.208; (1936)71MLJ617
Burn, J.1. The facts of this case are quite simple. The deceased Adimulam alias Kalappan was employed as a bricklayer by one Govindaraja Mudaliar a maistri who is himself employed by the appellant. While engaged upon a scaffolding, Adimulam fell and sustained fatal injuries. His widow claimed compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act and the Commissioner has awarded her a sum of Rs. 630. The appellant contends that he is not liable because Adimulam) was employed on work of a casual nature and otherwise than for the purposes of his (the appellant's) trade or business. The facts are that the appellant is a hotel-keeper and it appears that out of the profits of his hotel-keeping and out of his other income if any, he purchases houses, reconstructs or repairs them and lets them for rent. The contention on his behalf is that all this is not part of his business and that if he employs any one to repair or reconstruct house for him, he is not thereby doing his business. We have been r...
Tag this Judgment!Katta Venkatannagari Sreenivasayya Vs. Kutagulla Mudda Nagappa by Guar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Mad984; 166Ind.Cas.959; (1936)71MLJ738
Cornish, J.1. The appellant before me sued the defendants, eight in number, as members of a partnership upon a promissory note, which he alleged represented a partnership liability.2. The first Court dismissed the suit upon the ground that defendants 1-5 were not shown to have been members of the partnership on the date of the note and, apparently, against defendants 6-8 on the ground that they having been adjudged insolvents the plaintiff's appropriate remedy against them was in the Insolvency Court. The plaintiff appealed. His appeal was dismissed upon the ground that by reason of the insolvency of defendants 6-8 a suit' against them was barred by Section 28, Provincial Insolvency Act, and was likewise barred against the other defendants though they had not been adjudicated. The, lower appellate Court seems to have taken the view that though the suit might have been maintainable against defendants 1-5 alone, the plaintiff having joined the insolvent defendants as parties Section 28 s...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Malavaraya Padayachi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad151; (1936)71MLJ809
Stodart, J.1. The petition arises in insolvency.2. The chief question for consideration is the scope of Section 68 of the Provincial Insolvency Act.2. Petitioner had a mortgage from the insolvent. It was annulled by the Court under Section 54(1) of the Provincial Insolvency Act. In the same proceedings the Court at the instance of the Receiver considered the question whether the mortgage should be annulled under Section 53 as being not supported by consideration. The Court decided this in favour of the petitioner holding that the mortgage debt was true.3. The petitioner then filed proof of the debt before the Official Receiver relying on this finding in his favour. The Official Receiver it appears declared that he would not admit the debt to the schedule without further enquiry. Against this declaration of the Official Receiver the petitioner applied to the Insolvency Court contending that the Official Receiver was 'bound to accept proof of the debt and to admit it to schedule. The Ins...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »