Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.55 seconds)
Documents citing Arunachellam Chetty vs Sabapathy Chetty on 28 March, 1917

Mahaboob Sir Prajuvanthu Sree Rajah ... vs Turlapati Subba Rao And Ors. on 24 September, 1926

a and there is direct authority in Arunachalam Chetty v. Raman Chetty (1914) 16 M.L.T. 614. Mr. Chenchiah tried to distinguish this case on the ground that there the suit was barred when instituted, feeing more than three years after the death of the agent and therefore could not apply to the principle for which he was contending. But the judgments clearly show that the agent-died in April, 1919, and the suit was brought in December of the same year. The learned Judge held that there was no separate cause of action as against the sons, that is to say, the action against the sons is not different from that against the father and as it was barred against the father, after his life it was also barred against the sons.
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Mahaboob Sir Frajvantu Sree Rajah ... vs Turlapati Subba Row And Ors. on 2 April, 1924

It is rather difficult to understand how the cause of action against the legal representatives is a different one to that against the agent and it appears to me that at any rate in cases where the cause of action had accrued before the agent's death the mere fact of his death would not give a fresh starting point of limitation against the sons and in this view I am supported by the decision of this Court in Arunachalam Chetty v. Raman Chetty (1914) 16 MLT 614. There Sankaran Nair, J., remarked as follows :--" It is then argued that though the claim against the father may he barred, it is not barred against the sons. This argument proceeds on the. basis that the cause of action against the sons is different. The decisions are against the appellant. The defendants are sued as the representatives of their deceased father and as the suit would be barred against him if he had lived, it is also barred against the defendants. " Spencer, J. also remarked, " There is no reason why Article 120 of the Limitation Act should be applied to a suit brought against the representatives of a deceased agent when the Article applicable to a suit against the agent for acts committed during the continuance of his agency would be Article 89 and limitation would run from the termination of his agency; and. the Article applicable in respect of money payable by him after the termination of his agency would be Article 62."
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mahaboob Sir Frajvanu Sree Rajah ... vs Turlapati Subba Row And Ors. on 2 April, 1924

It is rather difficult to understand how the cause of action against the legal representatives is a different one to that against the agent and it appears to me that at any rate in cases where the cause of action had accrued before the agent's death the mere fact of his death would not give a fresh starting point of limitation against the sons and in this view I am supported by the decision of this Court in Arunachellam Chetty v. Raman Chetty 27 Ind. Cas. 807 : 16 M.L.T. 614 : (1915). There Sankaran Nair, J., remarked as follows: "It. is then argued that though the claim against the father may be barred, it is not barred against the sons. This argument proceeds on the basis that the cause of action against the sons is different. The decisions are against the appellant. The defendants are sued as the representatives of their deceased father and as the suit would be barred against him if he had lived, it is also barred against the defendants." Spencer, J., also remarked: "There is no reason why Art. 120 of the Limitation Act should be applied to a suit brought against the representatives of a deceased agent when the Article applicable to a suit against the agent for acts committed during the continuance of his agency would be Article 89 and limitation would run from the termination of his agency; and the Article applicable in respect of money payable by him after the termination of his agency would be Article 62.
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Alamelu Ammal vs Rama Iyer And Anr. on 22 February, 1922

4. Civil Revision Petition is against an order of the lower Court refusing on the application of the plaintiff, here petitioner, to set aside the decree already referred to passed in pursuance of the compromise. Unfortunately, that application was headed as made under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the exercise of the. inherent powers of the Court. The lower Court quite rightly refused to use its inherent powers in this case with reference to authority, including the dictum hi Srinivasa, Aiyengar, J., in Arunachellam Chetty v. Sabapathy Chetty 41 Ind. Cas. 937 : 41 M. 213 : 6 L.W. 368 : M.L.J. 499 to the effect that the proper way to displace a decree in the circumstances alleged is by a review petition or a separate suit.
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Pilla Kakkadu Alias Balaji And Pilla ... vs Vedula Chendrayya Chandari And Ors. on 18 April, 1918

2. It has been decided by a Bench of this Court, after a very elaborate discussion of the law, in Arunachellam Chetty v. Sabapathy Chetty 41 Ind. Cas. 937 ; 41 M. 213 ; 6 L.W. 368 ; 33 M.L.J. 499 that a suit to obtain a declaration that a decree passed by a Court was obtained by fraud and was not binding on the plaintiff can be laid in a Court of inferior jurisdiction to the Court which passed the decree, provided the subject-matter is otherwise within the jurisdiction of the Court where the suit is instituted. The decision seems to be supported by authorities and nothing has been urged against the soundness of that view.
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1