Chennai Court August 1937 Judgments
H. Venkata Sastri and Sons and ors. Vs. Shroff Balakrishna Rao and anr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad199
Leach, C.J.1. The appellant was the plaintiff in the Court below. The suit was one to recover a sum of Rs. 1257-2-0 alleged to be due to the appellant under a deed of composition entered into by respondent 2 with his creditors. Respondent 1 was sued as the trustee under the deed. In 1930 respondent 2 who at all material times was a merchant carrying on business in Madras became financially involved and by the month of July 1930, he owed his creditors art aggregate sum of over Rs. 88,000. There were 26 creditors altogether, 14 of them being resident in Madras and 12 resident in Mysore. At a meeting of the Madras creditors it was agreed that they should accept a composition of four annas in the rupee. A deed was drawn up on this basis and executed by respondent 2 in favour of respondent 1 as trustee for the creditors. Respondent 1 was himself a creditor for a sum of over Rs. 15,000. The total amount required to pay a composition of four annas in the rupee was about Rs. 22,000. Respondent...
Tag this Judgment!Penatapati Nageswara Rao Vs. Moka Narayanamurthi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad75; (1937)2MLJ805
Alfred Henry Ltonel Leach, C.J.1. The question raised by this petition is whether an improperly stamped promissory note can be admitted in evidence to prove acknowledgment of liability in order to save limitation in respect of promissory notes previously executed. The petition arises out of a suit filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Amalapurm. The promissory note was in the following terms:On account of my necessity this day--that is, the amount due for principal and interest on the promissory note executed and delivered on 23rd June, 1929, is Rs. 93-3-0; the amount due on the promissory note executed and delivered on 6th July, 1929, is Rs. 92-13-0 and the amount due for principal and interest on the promissory note executed and delivered on 14th February, 1931, is Rs. 101. The total is Rs. 287. On demand I promise to pay you or order in one lump sum, the (said) principal together with interest thereon at Rs. 1-9-0 (One rupee and nine annas) per cent, per mensem, shall it th...
Tag this Judgment!Pentapati Nageswara Rao Vs. Moka Naraynamurthi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-1937
Reported in: 175Ind.Cas.24
Leach, C.J.1. The question raised by this petition is whether an improperly stamped promissory note can be admitted in evidence to prove acknowledgment of liability in order to save limitation in respect of promissory notes previously executed. The petition arises out of a suit filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Amalapuram. The promissory note was in the following terms:On account of my necessity this day that is the amount due for principal and interest on the promissory note executed and delivered on June 23, 1929, is Rs. 93-3-0: the amount due on the promissory note executed and delivered on July 6, 1929, is Rs. 92-13-0 and the amount due for principal and interest on the promissory note executed and delivered on February 14, 1931, is Rs. 101. The total is Rs. 287. On demand I promise to pay you or order in one lump sum the (said) principal together with interest thereon at Rs. 1-9-0 (one rupee and nine annas) percent, per mensem, shall get the payment endorsed on this n...
Tag this Judgment!V.E.N.K.R.M.A. Ramanathan Chettiar Hukdar of Nagappa Chettiar Kattalai ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad256; (1937)2MLJ887
1. In our opinion the learned Subordinate Judge took the correct view both as to the general principle and as to the particular case. There may have been some divergence of view in this Court in the past, as Mr. Patanjali Sastri contends, but latterly the trend of the decisions has undoubtedly been towards the view that once a decree settling a scheme has been passed the Court has done its duty and is not to be called upon in the execution department to make the scheme work (vide Vaithilinga Mudaliar v. Board of Control, Sri Thyagarajaswami Devasthanam, Tiruvarur : AIR1936Mad581 . With due respect to the learned Judges who have taken the other view, we think this is correct, and see no sufficient reason to accept Mr. M. Patanjali Sastri's suggestion that the case should be laid before a Full Bench.2. In this case before us, we agree with the learned Subordinate Judge that the decree itself does not even purport to be executable. It provides in paragraph 4 that the Manager shall deposit...
Tag this Judgment!S.A. Annamalai Chettiar Vs. Chellammai Achi, Minor by Father and Next ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad174; (1937)2MLJ936
Abdur Rahman, J.1. It has been conceded by Mr. Rajah Aiyar, the counsel for the petitioner, that there was no proclamation before the property, which happens to be one-eighth share in a village, was sold by public auction. Admittedly this is a material irregularity. It was not seriously contested that the price at which the property was sold, was grossly inadequate. A firm offer was made by the objecting creditor in the lower appellate Court to the extent of about double the price for which the property was knocked down at the auction sale. It was also admitted that the purchaser is a close relation of the judgment-debtor.2. The only point which was seriously contested by the Counsel for the petitioner was that the sale could not be set aside as the respondent had failed to prove that the inadequacy in price was caused by reason of such irregularity.3. At one point of time there was a divergence of views between the High Court of Allahabad on the one hand and those of the High Courts o...
Tag this Judgment!St. A.M. Palaniappa Chettiar Vs. Kuttayan Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-1937
Reported in: (1937)2MLJ865
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. We have heard Mr. Sesha Aiyangar fully and do not propose to call on the respondents. The suits have been brought to enforce certain mortgages granted on behalf of a joint family by one Muthukaruppa and his son the first defendant, the adult members thereof. The eighth defendant is Muthukaruppan's son by another wife and there was a partition suit filed by him against the other members of the coparcenary about the year 1909. It is unnecessary to describe in detail the course of this litigation, for, it is sufficient to state that the Privy Council by the decree passed in June, 1921, awarded the eighth defendant a third share and the other members of the coparcenary the remaining two-thirds, and remitted the case to India for the passing of the final decree. There was a direction in the final decree that was ultimately passed in 1924, that the other members of the family were to pay the eighth defendant a considerable sum for mesne profits. The mortgages to which ...
Tag this Judgment!Pola Venkatarama Sastri Vs. Kakumani Venkatanarasimhan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad144; (1937)2MLJ881
1. We are unable to support the order of the learned Subordinate Judge in this case. The final decree in O.S. No. 15 of 1926 expressly provides for sale of item 6 to discharge the debt due to the second defendant (appellant) under his prior mortgage. This is in pursuance of the provision in the preliminary decree declaring that he should be at liberty to apply for.... the sale of the mortgaged property (item 6). Whether that direction is right or wrong is not a question which can be discussed by a Court executing the decree. It is quite impossible to hold that the decree is merely declaratory of the rights of the second defendant.2. As for the point of limitation it cannot be said that the appellant's application of 21st September, 1932, was not an application in accordance with law. There was no obligation on him, under Order 21, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to produce a copy of the decree with the application. Under Order 21, Rule 11(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure the C...
Tag this Judgment!Thimmanna Bhatta and ors. Vs. Rama Bhatta and
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad300
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The plaintiffs who are reversioners are the appellants and their suit was to set aside an alienation made by a widow (Ex. 3) in 1875. The facts are these: One Sham Bhatta died in or about the year 1870. He left behind him his minor son Narayana who died in 1874 when he was about eight years old, a widow Lakshmi, his mother Aithamma and his brother's widow Gangamma. Lakshmi died in or about the year 1913. In 1875, aha sold the suit property (Ex. 3) to the father of defendant 1 and another. The present suit is to set aside the alienation. To examine the nature of the consideration for the sale, we have to refer back to two previous alienations with respect to this property made by Lakshmi in 1872 and 1874 under Exs. 1 and 2. The property consisted of land yielding 42 Muras of rice a year and also eight kandies of areca-nuts and 1000 cocoanuts. It is in evidence that on the whole, the income from that property at that time may be about Rs. 280. Ex. 1 was a mortgage wit...
Tag this Judgment!Mohamed Hasan Khaleeli Vs. P. Varadarajulu Naidu, Liquidator of the Ta ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-24-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad96; (1937)2MLJ825
Alfred Henry Ltonel Leach, C.J.1. This appeal raises a question with regard to costs in a winding up petition. In November, 1936, a resolution was passed for the voluntary winding up of the 'Tamil Nadu Limited', a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1913. The company had been formed for the purpose of publishing a daily newspaper in Tamil in Madras. On the 11th December, 1936, the appellant filed a petition on the Original Side of this Court asking that an order might be passed for the winding up of the company under the supervision of the Court. This action was taken as the result of a resolution passed at a meeting of creditors held on the 2nd December, 1936. On the 15th December, a further application was filed for the appointment of an interim official liquidator. These petitions came before Gentle, J., on the 27th April of this year. The learned advocate appearing for the appellant then informed the Court that his client did not propose to pursue the winding up peti...
Tag this Judgment!Palani Gramani and anr. Vs. Manickammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad486
ORDERGentle, J.1. This is an application in which the applicants pray for an order: (1) that letters of administration ordered to be issued in this suit to them as plaintiffs may be granted to them in forma pauperis; and (2) that the court-fees payable in respect of the above grant of the letters of administration may be made a first charge upon the properties bequeathed to the plaintiffs under the will of the deceased dated 21st September 1920. It is conceded by the learned Counsel on behalf of the Government Solicitor that, so far as the applicants' pecuniary position is concerned, they are paupers. The objection to the application is based upon two grounds: (1) that Order 33, Civil P.C. and the rules thereof are not applicable to proceedings for grants of probate or letters of administration; and (2) that, even though the contrary may be the correct view, the applicants cannot now avail themselves of the provisions of the pauper rules. There is no difference in principle between pro...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »