Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1937Mad922; (1937)2MLJ666
ORDERVaradachariar, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for the sale on foot of a mortgage deed, Ex. A, executed in 1911 by one Peer Muhammad in favour of Alia Pichai Rowther who was the mortgagor's brother-in-law as well as his son-in-law. The mortgagee died in 1913 leaving a number of heirs some of whom are also interested in the equity of redemption by reason of their relationship to Peer Muhammad. It is clear from the plaint itself that no payment either towards any portion of the principal or towards interest was made in respect of this mortgage between 1911 and the date of the suit. In August, 1926, Allapichai Rowther's widow, that is, the seventh defendant and two of her daughters assigned their interest in the mortgage bond to the plaintiff under Ex. B, and this suit was filed in September, 1926. Besides the persons who are also the heirs of the mortgagor the only other co-heir to the mortgagee's estate, so far as we have been able together, is one Nagur Kanni Rowther who was...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1937)39BOMLR979
Shadi Lal, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, dated January 23, 1933, which reversed a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Banda, dated January 17, 1929, and allowed the plaintiff's claim for possession of a village called Kalinjar Tirhati with mesme profits thereof. One Ganesh Prasad, a resident of Banda in the Province of Agra, was the proprietor of a large and valuable estate, including the village in dispute died on May 10, 1914, leaving him surviving a son, Bindeshri Prasad, who was thereupon recorded in the Revenue Records as the proprietor of the estate left by his father.2. In execution of a decree for money obtained by a creditor against Bindeshri Prasad, the village of Kalinjar Tirhati was sold by auction on November 20, Sir 1924; and the sale was confirmed on January 25, 1925. Bindeshri Prasad then brought the suit, which has led to the present appeal, claiming. possession of the property on the ground that the sale was vitiated...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1937All610
Sulaiman, C.J.1. This is a second appeal arising out of a suit for sale on the basis of a mortgage deed dated 15th October 1925 executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiffs. The defendants pleaded that they were minors at the time of the mortgage deed, a certificated guardian having been appointed for them, and also pleaded that there was no necessity for contracting the debt. In the rejoinder the plaintiffs denied that the defendants were minors and also asserted that the defendants were liable to pay the amount under Section 68, Contract Act. The issues framed by the trial Court related to the minority of the defendants, the object of the debt and its proper attestation and consideration. The trial Court found that the defendants were more than 18 years of age but under 21 years, and that there was no evidence of representation either by the defendants or their father Sital Prasad. The Court held that the plaintiffs could not recover the amount under Section 68, Contract Ac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1938Cal129
Nasim Ali, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit to recover money due on a mortgage bond. The facts which are not in dispute are these: Defendant 1 and his wife Khatemunnissa Bibi borrowed from the plaintiffs Rs. 400 agreeing to pay interest at the rate of two per cent. and executed the bond in suit in favour of the plaintiffs on 14th Chaitra 1327 B.S. corresponding to 27th March 1921. They agreed to repay the principal with interest within the month of Falgun 1328 B. S., that is, on or before 14th March 1922. On 16th June 1928 Khatemunnissa died leaving defendant 1 and defendants 2 and 3 as her heirs. Defendant 1 made two payments towards interest due on the bond on 12th March 1933 and 10th October 1933 on his own behalf only and not on behalf of defendants 2 and 3 and endorsed those payments on the back of the bond, On 14th April 1934 the plaintiffs instituted the present suit in the Court of the Munsiff at Danton against defendant 1 and Khatemunnissa Bibi although she died long ago....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1938Cal97
Nasim Ali, J.1. The facts which are not in dispute in this appeal are these : One Jagabandhu Chakravarti was the owner of the lands which are the subject matter of the present appeal. He borrowed Rs 250 from the defendants and executed a bond hypothecating these lands in favour of the defendants on 10th December 1928 as a security for repayment of the said loan. He then put the defendant in possession of the mortgaged lands in lieu of interest. The mortgage bond, however, was not registered. Thereafter Jagabandhu died. In the year 1912 the plaintiff brought a suit against the heirs of Jagabandhu for recovery of some money and obtained a money decree on 22nd May 1933. This decree was put to execution and the plaintiff purchased the mortgaged lands on 16th February 1934 in execution of the said decree. He then obtained symbolical possession through Court. He could not however get actual possession as the defendant did not allow him to do so. The plaintiff thereafter instituted a suit in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1938Bom257; (1938)40BOMLR202
Wassoodew, J.1. This is an appeal from the decree of the First Class Subordinate Judge of Belgaum dismissing the suit for possession of certain entire parcels of property and for a share in others after partition. The plaintiff and the defendant are members of a watandar family of patels of Neginhal, a town in the Belgaum District. The plaintiff's branch was separated several years ago. There is conflict as to the year of separation. The plaintiff alleged that the separation took place in 1881, and not in 1883 as the defendant maintained. At the time of separation there were three branches of the patel family entitled to division of the family property which consisted of watan lands and houses in four Government villages, namely, Keserkop, Neginhal, Singarkop and Ramapur, and the entire alienated or inam village of Dori. The three branches were represented at the time of the division by Venkangouda, Basangouda, the father of the defendant, and Rudragowda, the grandfather of the minor p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1938Cal490
Khundkar, J.1. The three preliminary-issues disposed of by my judgment dated 2nd August 1937 embraced only some of the questions covered by the issues originally raised. The original issues may now be set out: 1. Was any valid dedication in favour of Thakur Sri Sri Iswar Sitaram Jew effected by the deed of 31st March 1922? 2. Was the said deed given effect to? 3. If so, was the same validly put an end to by the deed of 13th February 1929 by the consensus of the settlor Sital Chandra Banerjee, his son and son's wife and the other parties who signed the said deed? (4) If not, on a true construction of the said deed of 31st March 1922 in the circumstances that have happened, is the plaintiff Bhabatarini entitled to the sole shebaiti? (5) Is the plaintiff estopped from bringing this suit by reason of the arrangement and settlement made on 30th August 1929 and the benefits received thereunder and also by virtue of the deed to which she was a party dated 13th February 1929? (6) If the plaint...
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 : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1938Bom33; (1937)39BOMLR1187
Broomfield, J.1. This is an application for revision of an order of the Presidency Magistrate, Sixth Court, rejecting an application made by the petitioner on October 2, 1936, for permission to inspect certain documents which have been produced in Court. The petitioner is prosecuting the auditors of the Central Bank of India for offences under Sections 191, 193, 197 and 199 of the Indian Penal Code in respect of alleged false statements contained in the balance-sheet of the Bank for the year 1925 certified by them as being correct.2. By an application of December 5, 1935, the complainant asked for a witness summons to be issued against the Managing Director of the Bank for the production of various documents and books specified in a list attached to the application. The application purported to be made under Section 94 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Magistrate made an ex parte order for compliance, and he explains in the order under revision that he did this because he thought it ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1940)42BOMLR1123
Rangnekar, J.1. These appeals, which have been fully argued for more than a day on both sides, raise some questions of law, some of which at least are not covered by direct authority. It appears from the facts that in the year 1929-30 defendant No. 1 had taken a toll contract appertaining to Sindgi Toll Naka from the District Local Board of Belgaum. He made default in the payment of the whole amount which became due under the contract to the Board, whereupon the latter served him with two notices of demand, one in March, 1930, and the other in May, 1930. He had also taken a similar contract from Government in respect of Chik Bagewadi and Hire Ulligere Naka for the year 1930-31, and in this contract two persons, who are described as defendants Nos. 3 and 4 in these proceedings, were sureties. He made default in payment of the dues under this contract also. According to the evidence, the payment in respect of the first contract became due in March, 1930, and that in respect of the second...
Tag this Judgment!