1
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-15-1935
Reported in : AIR1935Mad483; 157Ind.Cas.181
Cornish, J.1. The appellant is defendant 4 in the mortgage suit brought by the appellant in O.S. Appeal No. 87 of 1933. The mortgage was executed by-one Appadurai Gramarti, the father of defendants 1-4, and by defendants 1-3, and Appadurai also executed it on be-behalf of defendant 4 who was then a minor. The mortgage comprised a plot of land which Appadurai's father, Tanikachala, had dedicated to a private temple built by Thanikachala on the land. The first three defendants were ex parte. But defendant 4 defended the suit. In his written statement he raised the plea (inter alia) that the particular plot having been dedicated to charity could not be bound by the mortgage. The learned Chief Justice who tried the case permitted the plaintiff-mortgagee to file an additional statement wherein the plaintiff pleaded that Appadurai and his sons had acquired title to the plot by adverse possession and that they were therefore competent to mortgage it. The learned trial Judge found that a title...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Mar-11-1935
Reported in : AIR1935Mad653; 158Ind.Cas.77; (1935)69MLJ81
Madhavan Nair, J.1. This Appeal arises out of an application under Section 372 of the Indian succession Act, XXXIX of 1925, made by the widow of one Venkappa for the grant of a succession certificate to enable her to collect the amount of two deposits as regards which her husband died intestate.2. The widow is the appellant. She and her husband are members of the Billava community in South Kanara which follows the Aliyasanthanalaw of inheritance according to which a widow has no right to the property of her deceased husband. They were originally married in 1890 according to the rules of their community and had children, respondents 1 to 7. Later on, Venkappa and his family became Brahmos. On 19th June, 1903, a marriage under the Special Marriage Act III of 1872 was solemnised between the appellant and her deceased husband in the presence of the Registrar. Act III of 1872 was amended by Act XXX of 1923 and Sections 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26 were newly added to the Act. Section 24 says that:...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Sep-18-1935
Reported in : AIR1936Mad171; (1936)70MLJ1
Cronish, J.1. The question raised in this Second Appeal is whether the appellant, who was defendant in the suit, was entitled to subrogation in respect of two mortgages discharged by him for the mortgagor.2. The appellant had been given a usufructuary mortgage of property, which was subject to three prior simple mortgages in consideration of an advance of Rs. 8000 made by him to the mortgagor, the appellant undertaking to pay off these prior mortgages. As a matter of fact he paid off the two first mortgages, but he did not pay off the third mortgage. The third mortgagee brought a suit for sale on the footing of his mortgage, and the appellant set up in this suit a claim to be substituted for the two prior mortgagees whose debt he had discharged. The lower appellate Court rejected this claim, holding that it was not sustainable in the face of Section 92 of the Transfer of Property Act. It should be mentioned that the mortgages in question were antecedent in date to the amendment introdu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Nov-14-1935
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
Decided on : Nov-14-1935
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 : Chennai
Decided on : Aug-06-1935
Reported in : 159Ind.Cas.853
ORDER1. This is an application to quash the commitment of accused Nos. 2 lo 4 in P.R.C. No. 13 of 1934 on the file of the Second Glass Magistrate's Court, Wandiwash, in the following circumstances.2. A suit on a promissory note alleged to have been executed by the complainant in the case was instituted against him before a Panchayat Court by the 1st accused. The writer of the promissory note is accused No. 2, and accused Nos. 3 and 4, are the attestors. For the purpose of this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition it must be taken that the suit was dismissed by the Panchayat Court on the ground that the promissory note was a forgery. Subsequent to its dismissal, a complaint with respect to an offence under Section 467, Indian Penal Code (forgery of a valuable security) was filed against the plaintiff in the case who is the first accused, and accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 who are, as already stated, the writer and attestors of the promissory note. On a preliminary objection on behalf of the first a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-24-1935
Reported in : AIR1935Mad936; 160Ind.Cas.430; (1935)69MLJ509
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of Stone, J. in C.S. No. 567 of 1929. That was a suit in which the Central Bank of India, Limited were the plaintiffs and the Mercantile Bank of India, Limited the defendants. The plaintiffs sued the defendants for damages for conversion of goods. The suit arose out of extensive frauds committed by C. iv Narayana Aiyar and Sons whom I shall call C.K.N. & Sons a well-known firm of ground-nut merchants and exporters who were carrying on a large business in Madras. This firm purchased ground-nuts from the up-country growers. The ground-nuts were then despatched by rail to Madras by one or other of two railways, the Madras and Southern Mahratta Railway or the South Indian Railway. There was a working arrangement between these railways and the Madras Port Trust which worked its own railway system within the port and took over the consignments of ground-nuts when they arrived at the port. The Port Trust had its tran...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Sep-20-1935
Reported in : AIR1936Mad449; (1937)2MLJ437
Varadachariar, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit under Section 92, Civil P.C. The subject-matter of the trust is a choultry of which defendant 1 became the trustee and manager (sometime between 1893 and 1897) under the provisions of (Ex. D-l), an agreement between himself and his adoptive mother plaintiff 1, dated 22nd June 1888. Since 1903 defendant 1 would appear to have been ignoring the trust and treating the property as his own. One of his sons purported to alienate his share in the property to one Narayanaswami Chettiar under whom defendant 2 claims. Defendant 3 has become the purchaser of the suit property in execution of a decree obtained against defendant 1 in Small Cause Suit No. 2496 of 1927 on the file of the Kumbakonam Small Cause Court. The result has been that for many years past the suit property is not being used for the purpose of the trust at all and defendant 1 has been clearly guilty of breach of trust. This suit was accordingly filed for the removal of defenda...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Oct-02-1935
Reported in : AIR1936Mad205; (1936)70MLJ162
Cornish, J.1. The facts out of which this Reference arises can be briefly stated. In execution of a decree against the sole defendant in a suit the decree-holder attached certain lands of the judgment-debtor and brought them to sale.2. The sale was fixed for 15th September, 1927 and took place on 16th September, 1927 and the property was knocked down to the bid of the present appellant. But in the meantime the judgment-debtor had died on 8th September, 1927. His sons, the Respondents to this appeal, put in a petition under Section 47 and Order 21, Rule 90 to have the sale set aside. In the affidavit supporting this petition it is alleged that the decree-holder, notwithstanding that he and his vakil were aware of the judgment-debtor's death before the date of the sale, took no steps to bring on record the legal representatives of the deceased judgment-debtor. It is true that no application was made under Section 50 Civil Procedure Code for leave to execute the decree against the legal r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Dec-17-1935
Reported in : AIR1936Mad605; (1937)1MLJ41
Varadachariar, J.1. This is an appeal by defendants 4 and. 7 and the principal contention urged before us on their behalf is that defendants 4 to 7 should not have been impleaded in this suit nor any declaration made to their prejudice. The question, arises under the following circumstances.2. One Bapu Reddi who admittedly owned most of the suit properties died on 28th July, 1922, leaving him surviving two widows Ammalu Ammal and Narasammal and a daughter by the former named Balambal. The two widows seem to have divided the property between themselves a few months after Bapu Reddi's death and Narasammal died in May, 1930. Ammalu Ammal and Balambal are defendants 2 and 3 in this suit.3. Defendants 4 to 7 are gnatis who would inherit the estate of Bapu Reddi after Balambal, should she happen to die sonless, but in September, 1926, Balambal adopted the plaintiff and this event practically defeated the chances of defendants 4 to 7 succeeding to the estate. The plaint suggests that defendan...
Tag this Judgment!