Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1936)70MLJ700
K.S. Menon, J.1. This is an appeal from the order of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Trichinopoly, dismissing E.P. No. 205 of 1929 in O.S. No. 16 of 1914 on the ground that it is barred by limitation.2. The only question that arises for decision in this appeal is whether the Execution Petition is barred by limitation.3. This petition is filed by the Administrator-General of Madras representing the estate of Eapoor C. Ramalingam Chettiar, who it is alleged, had become entitled to the rights of the late Thotta Rajagopala Chettiar, who was the fourth plaintiff in the suit. The final decree in the suit, which was one for sale of the mortgaged properties, was passed on 2nd November, 1920; and this petition was filed on 24th June, 1929. The first contention of the appellant is that as the decree was subsequently amended by an order made on 13th July, 1929, (Ex. G) on an application made by one of the defendants in the suit and one of the items of the decree was deleted, he is entitled to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1922)43MLJ271
Odgers, J.1. I have had the advantage of reading the Judgment about to be delivered by my learned brother which sets out the facts, The matter arises under Section 70 of the Indian Contract Act. The respondent in this case does not dispute that he has had the benefit of the 1st plaintiff's action but he says all the expenses would have been incurred even if 1st defendant had not joined as plaintiff. It is true that the District Munsif found generally that some of the items incurred would have had to be paid whether or not 1st defendant was a plaintiff in the suit but the appeal to the lower appellate Court was dismissed on two points of law (1) that the party sought to be made liable must not only have benefited but must have had the opportunity of accepting or rejecting the benefit; and that in this case there is no proof of such option. This is laid down in Raja of Pittapuram v. Secretary of State (1914) 16 M.L.T. 375. The second point of law is that when a person paying is himself i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1940Mad127; (1940)1MLJ235
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This appeal raises a question of limitation. On the 9th March, 1922, the first respondent obtained in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Bezwada a money decree against the appellant, the appellant's uncle and a cousin, who were the members of an undivided family. The amount for which judgment was obtained was Rs. 3,735, but a mistake was made in drawing up the decree and the figure inserted was Rs.200. It was not until the 16th July, 1928, that the mistake was corrected under the provisions of Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure. On the 6th December, 1933, the respondent caused the decree to be transferred to the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Guntur for execution and on the 5th March, 1934, he applied for attachment of certain immovable property. The appellant objected to the attachment on the ground that the property was his personal property and the decree had only made him liable to the extent of his interest in the family property. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1925)48MLJ563
Odgers, J.1. This is an appeal giving rise to a somewhat important point of limitation, and the dates are important. The appellant is the judgment-debtor, the wife of a certain Zamindar, against whom a suit was filed which resulted in a decree on the 10th April, 1911, subsequently confirmed on appeal to Lower Appellate Court on 28th March, 1912. The decree-holder applied on 15th August, 1912, for execution and attempted to attach the Zamindari properties. Thereupon the defendant raised funds and satisfied the decree on 14th July, 1913, and the execution petition was dismissed. An appeal from the decree of the Lower Appellate Court, dated 28th March, 1912, was preferred to the High Court which, by its decree, dated 23rd April, 1914, introduced a modification which has given rise to the question at issue as in the second appeal the High Court modified the decree by adding the words 'excluding the Zamindari.' After the High Court decree the 1st defendant filed I. A. No. 19 of 1916 for ref...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1913)ILR36Mad533
Charles Arnold White, Kt., C.J.1. This is a suit brought by the endorsee of a promissory-note of Rs. 1,500 which provided for the payment of interest at the rate of 60 per cent per annum. The makers of the none were five ladies. Two issues were raised: is the note genuine? is the rate of interest provided in the note enforceable? The judge found that the note was genuine but that the rate of interest was not enforceable and in lieu of the interest provided for in the note he gave the plaintiff interest at the rate of 24 par cent, per annum. The plaintiff appeals against this. There is no cross-appeal as regards the genuineness of the note. The contesting defendants are defendants Nos. 1, 6, 7 and 8. They plead that the note was fraudulent and that the rate of interest was high and unconscionable There is no plea that the note was procured by the exercise of undue influence on the part of anybody. There is no issue as to this and there is no finding of the District Judge as to this. Con...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1940Mad641
Somayya, J.1. Defendants 1 to 4 are the appellants in this appeal which is directed against the decree of the City Civil Judge in O.S. No. 728 of 1935. The suit was filed by the plaintiff to eject the defendants from the land and superstructure bearing Door No. 46, Fakir Sahib Second Lane, Triplicane. The suit was originally filed against defendant 1 only on the footing that she alone was the tenant of the suit property on a monthly rent of Rs. 2. The plaint averred that the tenancy was terminated by a notice dated 9th March 1935 in which the plaintiff offered compensation for the value of the superstructure under the provisions of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act. Defendant 1 filed a written statement pleading that she was not interested in the property in suit and that three other persons, who were later on added as defendants 2, 3 and 4, were the persons entitled to the suit property as tenants. She stated that under a sale deed dated 10th June 1912, she, her husband, the late...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1915Mad812; 25Ind.Cas.630
Ayling, J.1. Appellant has been convicted of an offence under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code in respect of a statement, Exhibit B, given by him to the Head Constable in charge of Grudivada Police Station (Prosecution Witness No. 2) on 5th May 1912. In this statement he charges five persons (Prosecution Witnesses Nos. 5 to 9) with having robbed him of jewels and committed dacoity,2. We see no reason to distrust the evidence of Prosecution Witness No. 2; and we are satisfied that the statement, Exhibit B was given by appellant, and given with a fall knowledge of its purport and probable consequences. It is not suggested that the statements it contains as to the alleged dacoity are true and we have no doubt they are false.3. It has been argued, however, on various grounds that the conviction is bad in law and with these arguments we proceed to deal.4. The first contention is that the statements in Exhibit B cannot constitute an offence under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code, bec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 118Ind.Cas.499
1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment of Mr. Justice Odgers dismissing with costs Second Appeal 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, 1928, (Ex. A in the case) dedicated absolutely for the performance of a charity styled by him as Dwadeshi Dharmam and the persons expressly nominated by him in the Will for the conduct of the said charity, viz., his nephews Venkataramaiyer 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 Iyer and after the latter's death by their heirs in perpetuity.2. The plaintiff's case is that the properti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 161Ind.Cas.969
K.S. Menon, J.1. This is an appeal from the order of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Trichinopoly, dismissing E.P. No. 205 of 1929 in O.S. No. 16 of 1914 on the ground that it is barred by limitation.2. The only question that arises for decision in this appeal is whether the Execution Petition is barred by limitation.3. This petition is riled by the Administrator-General of Madras representing the estate of Eapoor C. Ramalingam Chettiar, who it is alleged, had become entitled to the rights of the late Thotta Rajagopala Chettiar, who was the 4th plaintiff in the suit. The final deeree in the suit, which was one for sale of the mortgaged properties, was passed on November 2, 1920; and this petition was filed on June 24, 1929. The first contention of the appellant is that as the decree was subsequently amended by an order made on July 13, 1929, (Ex. G) on an application made by one of the defendants in the suit and one of the items of the decree was deleted, he is entitled to have the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1898)ILR25Cal371
Jenkins, J.1. On the 14th November 1893 the defendant executed, in favour of Luckhinarain Singh, the original plaintiff in the suit, a mortgage of certain immoveable properties, which had devolved on the defendant under the will of his grandfather, and on the 20th February 1895 this suit was instituted, whereby it is prayed:(a) That the defendant may be decreed by this Honourable Court to pay to the plaintiff the sum of Rs. 5,000, together with the interest due thereon, and the costs of this suit on some day to be fixed by this Honourable Court, and that in default thereof the right to redeem the said mortgaged premises may be foreclosed.(b) That the said premises may be sold, and the sale proceeds applied in and towards the repayment of the said sum of Rs. 5,000, and the interest thereon, and the costs of this suit.(c) That if the sale proceeds be not sufficient for the payment in full of the said amounts, the said defendant be decreed and ordered to pay to the plaintiff the amount of...
Tag this Judgment!