Court : Chennai
Decided on : Sep-04-1930
Reported in : AIR1931Mad152; (1931)60MLJ551
Reilly, J.1. These two appeals relate to suits in which the Corporation of Madras claimed declarations that the Madras Electric Tramways Company and the Madras Electric Supply Corporation respectively were subject to the. control of the Commissioner of the Corporation under Sections 287 and 288 respectively of the Madras City Municipal Act. The suits were tried by the Judge of the City Civil Court, who dismissed both of them. They came on appeal before Waller, J., whose opinion was that both the Companies carried on their operations under special Acts, or what were equivalent to special Acts, inconsistent with the general Act, the City Municipal Act, and that the Corporation of Madras were not entitled to the declarations for which they sought. He upheld the decision of the City Civil Court; and it is against that decision that these two appeals have been preferred.2. I think it will be convenient to deal with the two cases separately, and, if I may say so with great respect, I doubt w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Feb-11-1930
Reported in : (1931)60MLJ302
1. The suit is to recover from defendants 1 to 3 the sum of Rs. 49,982-3-2 due on a mortgage executed by the 1st defendant for himself and as guardian of his son since deceased, the 2nd defendant and Vengu Nachiar, who is also dead. The other respondents are subsequent mortgagees. The mortgage is dated the 20th January, 1902, and was for a consideration of Rs. 7,500 payable within six years with compound interest at 1 per cent, per mensem with ten months' rests and in default on demand with compound interest at the same rate with ten months' rests. It is alleged that the debt was contracted for the expenses of a suit, O.S. No. 18 of 1901, on the file of the Sub-Court, East Madura, for household expenses and for discharging prior sundry debts. There are two items of property recited in the mortgage deed and the first item is alleged to belong to the 2nd defendant but under the decree in the before-mentioned suit the 2nd defendant and the late Vengu Nachiar are each entitled to a quarter...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Feb-28-1930
Reported in : AIR1930Mad956; (1930)59MLJ596
Ramesam, J.1. These appeals arise out of a suit, C.S. No. 300 of 1927, filed by one Namberumal Chettiar against four defendants. The 1st defendant is Veeraperumal Pillai, nephew and executor of the estate of P. Appasami Pillai, who died on the 4th of October, 1921. The 2nd defendant is Kanthammal, the illegitimate daughter of Appasami Pillai. The 3rd defendant is the Official Assignee in whom the property of the 1st defendant is now vested on account of insolvency. The 4th defendant is Mr. S. G. Satagopa Mudaliar, an Advocate of this Court, who was in 1923 the Receiver of another estate which was the subject of a litigation and who in the capacity of such Receiver advanced a loan of 2 1/2 lakhs to the 1st defendant-executor on a deed of mortgage, dated the 10th of April, 1923; and he is impleaded in this suit as such mortgagee.2. The suit was for the administration of the estate of the deceased Appasami Pillai and for the recovery of the balance of legacy of Rs. 15,000 with further int...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : May-01-1930
Reported in : AIR1931Mad140; (1931)60MLJ56
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. Appeal No. 409 of 1925.--The plaintiff's suit was for a mortgage decree for Rs. 1,88,487-15-6 representing principal and interest alleged to be due under a mortgage deed, Ex. A. This deed arose out of the compromise already dealt with in Appeal No. 446 of 1925. It will be remembered that under that compromise, dated the 29th of November, 1920, one of the properties purchased in the ' Court sale, viz., Polavaram village with its hamlets was agreed to be retained by the Rajah of Polavaram in consideration of the payment of the sum of Rs. 1,39,986-1-0 to the plaintiff. The compromise was entered into by the Rajah's adoptive mother. This amount had been deposited in Court by the plaintiff being the balance remaining after the Court sale of the defendant's properties by the plaintiff. Being unable to pay this sum in cash the 1st defendant's adoptive mother as his guardian executed in favour of the plaintiff on the 14th of December, 1920, a bond for t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Nov-25-1930
Reported in : AIR1931Mad303; (1931)60MLJ628
Reilly, J.1. In this case a decree was obtained by the plaintiff for money against one Ramachandrayya on the 29th February, 1912. After a number of other execution petitions eventually a petition, E.P. No. 125 of 1924, was put in for execution of the decree against Ramachandrayya on the 18th February, 1924. In the course of those proceedings it came to light that Ramachandrayya had disappeared seven or eight years earlier, and therefore it was presumed that he was dead. The decree-holder in those circumstances wished to prosecute the same execution petition against Ramachandrayya's widow as his legal representative and put in an application E.A. No. 543 of 1924 for that purpose on the 5th July, 1924. It-will be seen that' that application to treat the widow as Ramachandrayya's legal representative was put in more than 12 years after the date of the decree. It was contended that on account of that lapse of time, Section 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure prevented the execution, against ...
Tag this Judgment!