Chennai Court January 1938 Judgments
E.N.A.S. Narayana Aiyar Vs. Moorthi Kendan Alias Narayana Nambudripad ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad643; (1938)1MLJ467
Varadachariar, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of money due under a promissory note (Ex. A) dated 18th November, 1926, executed by the 1st and 2nd defendants. As the 2nd defendant had been adjudicated an insolvent, the Official Assignee in whom the estate of the 2nd defendant had vested was impleaded as the 3rd defendant. Defendants 4 and 5 are the grandsons of the 1st defendant by a predeceased son of his. The 2nd defendant is the younger son of the 1st defendant.2. The plaint prayed for a personal decree against defendants 1 and 2, for a decree directing recovery of the amount from the properties of the Mana to which the parties belong and also for recovery of the amount from the estate of the 2nd defendant in the hands of the 3rd defendant. As the 1st defendant died pending the suit, the lower Court gave a decree against the assets of the 1st defendant and against the assets of the 2nd defendant in the hands of the 3rd defendant, but it dismissed the suit so far a...
Tag this Judgment!M. Parthasarathi Aiyangar (Deceased), M. Veeraraghavan L.R. of the Dec ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad579; (1938)1MLJ624
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. This suit, brought upon a mortgage evidenced by two deeds of 1915 and 1916, was commenced on 30th July, 1932. The plaintiff, to save his claim from the bar of limitation, relies upon what he alleges amounted to a payment of interest on 30th July, 1920. The alleged payment was not made by the mortgagors but by a third party, and the two questions that have been raised are (i) whether the transaction relied upon amounts to a payment of interest and (ii) whether the person who made the payment was one 'liable to pay the debt' within the meaning of Section 20 of the Limitation Act.2. The facts may be shortly stated. One of the properties comprised in the mortgage was agreed to be sold by the mortgagors to one Paramasiva for Rs. 7,600, and it was stipulated that out of this sum he should pay Rs. 1,500 to the plaintiff (the mortgagee), who in his turn should release the item purchased, from his mortgage security. There is sufficient evidence to show that the plaintiff ...
Tag this Judgment!K. Kandaswami Mudaliar Vs. thevammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad601; (1938)1MLJ620
Pandrang Row, J.1. The only point that arises in this appeal is whether the payment alleged by the plaintiff of a certain amount as interest due on the suit promissory note can be proved to have been made towards interest as such by evidence other than the writing referred to in the proviso to Section 20 of the Limitation Act. The payment is acknowledged in writing by the debtor in the promissory note which was executed in respect of that amount. It is not disputed that payment may be made either in cash or by the execution of a promissory note. There can thus be no doubt in this case that the fact of payment is evidenced by writing signed by the debtor. The writing however does not itself say that the payment was made towards interest as such due on the suit promissory note. Now the question is whether this fact, namely, that the payment was made towards such interest can be proved by extrinsic evidence. We fail to see any reason why extrinsic evidence should be excluded. There is no ...
Tag this Judgment!C.A.V. Baluswami Naidu Vs. the Official Receiver Represented by T.M. M ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-1938
Reported in: (1938)1MLJ824
Pandrang Row, J.1. A review was granted in these appeals as my previous decision allowing these appeals was based on the sole ground that at the time the Official Receiver attempted to sell the properties, the adjudication of the insolvent had been annulled and there was no order vesting the property in the Official Receiver. It has now been discovered - and the fact is not denied - that there was such an order, namely, the order of the Subordinate Judge dated 8th December, 1927, to the effect that the right, title and interest of the insolvent in the properties shall revest in the Official Receiver and that he should sell the same and distribute the proceeds among the creditors. This order was passed within a month after the annulment, the annulment being made on the 11th November, 1927. It was not seriously contended before me though the point was not abandoned, that the order of the 8th December, 1927, was without jurisdiction, because it was passed, not simultaneously with the orde...
Tag this Judgment!Chockalingam Chettiar Vs. Meyappa Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Mad228; (1938)2MLJ287
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The 1st plaintiff is the appellant. This appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiff's to recover from the 3rd defendant personally and from defendants 1 and 2 out of the family properties Rs. 17,358 with subsequent interest at 12 per cent, per annum or in the alternative to recover from all the defendants 14/20th of the said amount with interest by way of contribution in respect of a decree debt discharged by the plaintiffs in execution of the decree in Appeal No. 296 of 1917 on the file of the High Court (see Ex. F). In the plaint the share of the debt claimed by way of contribution is 17/20, but in the argument the claim was altered to 14/20 accepting the contention of the defendants.2. S.A. Subrahmanya Chetty and S.N. Subrahmanya Chetty, the 3rd defendant in the suit, sons of two brothers, started a money-lending firm at Singapore under the name and style of S.N.A. with a capital of more than six lakhs of dollars. The agents of the firm from 1901 to ...
Tag this Judgment!Nagor Damodar Shanbhogue (Died) and ors. Vs. Gange and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad638; (1938)1MLJ417
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This is an appeal from the order of the learned Subordinate Judge of South Kanara ordering the arrest of the appellant in execution of the decree for costs in favour of the respondents in Appeal No. 223 of 1926 on the file of the High Court on appeal from the decree in O.S. No. 8 of 1924 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of South Kanara. The said suit O.S. No. 8 of 1924 was filed by the appellant to recover a sum of money due in respect of a usufructuary mortgage executed by the defendants and also for arrears of rent in respect of certain leases executed by some of the defendants relating to the mortgaged property. The Subordinate Judge dismissed the plaintiff's suit on the ground that the appellant was not entitled to bring the property to sale as there was no personal covenant to pay. On appeal the learned Judges held that so far as the mortgage is concerned, there was no personal covenant which would entitle the appellant to the relief of selling the mort...
Tag this Judgment!Pichai Pillai Udayan Vs. Subbaraya Pillai (Died) and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad531; (1938)1MLJ536
Abdur Rahman, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the plaintiff, who had instituted a suit for sale of certain properties on the allegation that a mortgage or charge was created in his favour, under either an oral award or in consequence of certain statement and proceedings in a Criminal Court, when defendant 1 had filed a complaint against him under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The suit was decreed by the District Munsiff of Ariyalur on the basis of the alleged oral award. The decision was affirmed on appeal by the Subordinate Judge of Trichinopoly, although not on the ground which had found favour with the District Munsiff, but on the basis of statements made by the plaintiff and defendant 1 before the Magistrate to whom the complaint under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, was sent for an inquiry. On an appeal to the High Court our learned brother King, J., took the view that the statements relied 2. Before we advert to that order in any detail, it might be stated tha...
Tag this Judgment!A. Lakshmana Reddiar Vs. the Ellinganaickenpatty Kumara Koil Sri Subra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad576; (1938)1MLJ634
ORDERVenkataramana Rao, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit in ejectment instituted by the trustee of Kumara Koil Sri Subramania Swami temple in Ellinganaickenpatty village, Sattur taluk. The case for the plaiatiff is that the suit land forms part of an inam wherein the temple owns both the warams, that the second defendant was in occupation thereof as a tenant at will, that in execution of a decree obtained by the first defendant against the second defendant the first defendant purchased the said property and was in possession of the same. During the pendency of the execution proceedings a claim was preferred on behalf of the temple alleging that the second defendant had no saleable interest therein and the property belonged to the temple but the claim was dismissed. Hence the present suit was filed for a declaration of the temple's right to the land and for delivery of possession thereof. The defence is that the temple owned only the melwaram right and the kudiwaram right ha...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Kumaraswamy Reddiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad530
Pandarang Row, J.1. This is an appeal from the order of the District Judge of Madura dated 4th December 1937, in A. Section No. 75. of 1937 dismissing the appeal from the order of the District Munsif of Madura dated 27th February 1937. The appellants were sureties who undertook to produce the judgment-debtor in O.S. No. 320 of 1934 in Court on 1st October 1936. There is no doubt that they failed to produce the judgment, debtor on that date. Thereupon the executing Court directed execution to issue against them for enforcing the bond. The excuse put forward by the sureties for the non-production of the judgment-debtor in question was that he was suffering from fever and therefore was unable to appear in Court on the date fixed by the Court. The first Court was of opinion that this did not absolve the sureties from their liability especially in view of the fact that they did not appear in Court on 1st October and ask for further time to produce the judgment-debtor on account of the illne...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Gorrepaty Ramasubbayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-26-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad529; (1938)1MLJ403
ORDERPandrang Row, J.1. These petitions seek to revise the orders of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Bandar dated 8th November, 1937, transferring P.R.C. No. 1 of 1937 from his file to the file of the Sub-Magistrate of Avanigadda for disposal and also transferring C.C. Nos. 63 and 65 of 1937 on his file to the Sub-Magistrate with directions to treat the latter cases as preliminary register cases, hold a preliminary enquiry and dispose of them according to law. So far as the transfer of P.R.C. No. 1 of 1937 is concerned, the petitioners do not take any objection but they take very serious objection to the transfer of the Calendar cases which are triable by a First Class Magistrate to a Second Class Magistrate with a direction to treat them as preliminary register cases, the intention of such transfer being that the cases should be committed to the Sessions Court for trial. The petitioners are the accused in these Calendar cases. It is not stated by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »