Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1936All239
Bajpai, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants. The plaintiff Seth Kashi Nath who was said to be of weak intellect brought a. suit with his mother Mb. Asharfi Kunwar as next friend for a declaration that the property mentioned at the foot of the plaint was owned by the defendants second party and was liable to be attached and sold in satisfaction of the plaintiffs' decree passed in Suit No. 42 of 1930 of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Aligarh (Seth Kashi Nath v. Roshan Lal and others).2. He impleaded as defendants to the suit Govind Ram and six others who were described as defendants first party and the firm of Phool Chand Roshan Lal situate at Hathras with its various partners who were described as defendants second party. The allegations contained in the plaint were that the firm of Phool Chand roshan Lal was about to become bankrupt in the month of April 1929 and that the partners thereof, with a dishonest intention approached the plaintiff's guardian who was a purdanashin ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1918All309; 45Ind.Cas.451
Piggott, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal and the connected Appeal No. 317 of 1915 arise, was brought to enforce a mortgage-deed of the 10th of January 1881. The property hypothecated was the equity of redemption in a revenue-free grant in village Gadaya Latifpur and 500 bighas of revenue-free land in another village called Khankara. It is recited in the deed itself that the latter of these two properties was already mortgaged with possession to the same mortgagees under a deed of the 15th of June 1866. Part of the consideration of the simple mortgage now in suit was the redemption of this older usufructuary mortgage on the land in village Khankara. Out of the total consideration of Rs. 10,80 for the deed in suit a sum of Rs. 7,184 was calculated as due on the usufructuary mortgage of the 15th of June 1866, and was set apart for the redemption of the said mortgage. One effect, therefore, of the deed in suit was that the mortgagors became entitled to re-enter into possession of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1926All229; 92Ind.Cas.454
Sulaiman, J.1. This is an application in revision from an order passed on appeal directing the prosecution of the applicant under Sections 193 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant filed a suit on the basis of a promissory note alleged to have been executed by the defendant and also produced a receipt purporting to be of the same date. The defendant denied the genuineness of these documents and denied that he had ever borrowed any money from the plaintiff. The promissory note and receipt were sent to the thumb-impression expert at the instance of the plaintiff, but the report received from the expert was that the impressions were too blurred to be decipherable. The plaintiff then stated before the Court that if the defendant took an oath on the Ganges water that he had not borrowed the money from the plaintiff he would agree to the suit being dismissed. The defendant agreed to take the oath. On the oath being taken by the defendant the Court without going into any further evi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1913)24MLJ488
Charles Arnold White, C.J.1. The contract we have to consider no doubt differs in some respects from the ordinary vendor and purchaser contract which was before the Courts in most of the cases which were discussed in the course of the argument in this appeal. The consideration for the contract in question was a sum of Rs. 41,000, of which Rs. 4,000 is stated to have been received by the vendor on the date of the agreement, Rs. 20,000 was to remain on mortgage, and the balance was to be paid on a specified date. If the purchaser failed to carry out the contract, he was to forfeit the Rs. 4,000 advance. If the vendor failed to carry out the contract he was to refund the advance and pay Rs. 4,000. There was a further provision that the vendor should execute the sale-deed before the agreed date either in favour of the purchaser or in favour of the purchaser's nominees. In pursuance of this the vendor, before the agreed date, sold some of the lands to a nominee of the purchaser.2. I do not ...
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!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1903)13MLJ83
ORDERBhashyam Aiyangar, J.1. The Permanently Settled estate of Merangi in the district of Vizagapatam was registered in the Collector's office in the name of one Jagannatha Raz as its sole proprietor. A suit was brought for its partition by three of his co-parceners, including the present defendant, which was unsuccessfully resisted by Jagannatha Raz on the ground that it was an impartible estate. Both the Indian Courts and finally the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council by its decree in 1891, Sri Raja Satmcharla Jagannadha Razu v. Sri Raja Satrucharla Ramabhadra Razu I.L.R.R. 14 M. 237 held that the estate was partible and directed its partition into four equal shares.2. On the 23rd October 1893, the late Maharajah of Viziana-garam, the testator under whom the plaintiff claims, purchased from Jagannatha Raz his undivided one-fourth share in the estate which purchase became absolute in the events that followed. There was no delivery of possession to the purchaser and on the 5th May...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1929)57MLJ219
Tiruvenkatachariar, J.1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment of Mr. Justice Odgers dismissing with costs S.A. No. 401 of 1922. The plaintiff is the appellant before us and the main question involved in this appeal is whether the suit properties which originally belonged to one Panchanathier were by his will, dated 8th January, 1898 (Ex. A in the case) dedicated absolutely for the performance of a charity styled by him as Dwadasi Dharmam and the persons expressly nominated by him in the will for the conduct of the said charity, viz., his nephews Venkataramier and Sivaswami were constituted as mere trustees for the performance of the said charity or whether under the said will Panchanathier bequeathed the suit properties to Venkataramier personally subject to a trust in favour of the said charity which was to be conducted by him and after his death by his younger brother Sivaswami and after the latter's death by their heirs in perpetuity.2. The plaintiff's case is that the prop...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1898)ILR21Mad326
Arthur J.H. Collins, C.J.1. The question referred to the Full Bench is whether Article 132 or Article 147 of the second schedule to the Limitation Act applies to a suit for sale by a mortgagee holding such a mortgage as that in the present case.2. The Allahabad High Court has held in Shib Lal v. Ganga Prasad I.L.R. 6 All. 551 that Article 147 is applicable to all mortgage instruments.3. The Calcutta High Court has held in Girivar Singh v. Thakur Narain Singh I.L.R., 14 Cal., 730 that Article 147 applies only to a special kind of mortgage known as ' English mortgage, ' and in other cases Article 132 applies.4. The Bombay High Court, in Motiram v. Vitai I.L.R., 13 Bom., 90 differs from Girwar Singh v. Thakur Narain Singh I.L.R., 14 Cal., 730 and holds that Section 147 applies.5. The Madras High Court in Davani v. Ratna I.L.R., 6 Mad., 417 and Aliba v. Nanu I.L.R., 9 Mad., 218 has held that Article 132 governed a suit upon a mortgage bond to recover the mortgage money by sale of the mortg...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1938Mad164; (1938)2MLJ340
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This is an appeal from the decree of the learned District Judge of Chingleput dismissing an action for damages for defamation instituted by the first and second plaintiffs. The defamatory matter complained of was a communication made by the first and second defendants to one Mr. G. Krishnamachari, a Vakil at Chingleput and repeated by the said Vakil in a letter dated 9th May, 1927, addressed to the first plaintiff. The second plaintiff is the daughter of the first plaintiff and the wife of the second defendant. The first defendant is the father of the second defendant. The matter, complained of was concerning the second plaintiff in the letter addressed as aforesaid to the first plaintiff by the said Krithnamachari to the following effect:On or about 7th January, 1927, jour daughter Balammal ran away with one Manicka Asari from her husband clandestinely and was staying with him at Kadambathur for two days.2. The second plaintiff was married to the second defenda...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1915)ILR38Mad178
Charles Arnold White, C.J.1. The contract; we have to consider no doubt differs in some respects from the ordinary vendor and purchaser contract which was before the Courts in most of the cases which were discussed in the course of the argument in this appeal. The consideration for the contract in question was a sum of Rs. 41,000, of which Rs. 4,000 is stated to have been received by the vendor on the date of the agreement, Rs. 20,000 was to remain on mortgage, and the balance was to be paid on a specified date. If the purchaser failed to carry out the contract, he was to forfeit the Rs. 4,000 advance. If the vendor failed to carry out the contract he was to refund the advance and pay Rs. 4,000. There was a further provision that the vendor should execute the sale-deed before the agreed date either in favour of the purchaser or in favour of the purchaser's nominees. In pursuance of this, the vendor, before the agreed date, sold some of the lands to a nominee of the purchaser.2. I do no...
Tag this Judgment!