Chennai Court April 1910 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Nilayathakshi Ammal Vs. the Taluq Board, Through Its President
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-1910
Reported in: (1910)20MLJ885
1. The plaintiff claims to inspect the account of a charity and has made the Taluk Board of Mayavaram defendants. By the will of the plaintiff's deceased husband, certain charities were created and trustees appointed. The plaintiff was one of them. In consequence of the alleged mismanagement the Board of Revenue intervened. It must be assumed for the purposes of this case that the management and superintendence of the endowment were made over to the Taluk Board under Section 51 of Madras Act V of 1884. The possession of the endowment property passed to the Taluk Board in due course. The plaintiff has ceased to be a trustee of the endowment and claims the right to inspect under a special clause in the will which runs as follows :-' I have appointed certain persons (named) as trustees. The said persons shall properly conduct the said charities according to their present scale and maintain correct accounts therefor in bound books accessible to all the persons.' The power is given by the i...
Chinnathayammal Vs. Chikkanna Chetti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-1910
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ479
1. The only ground of appeal with which we need deal is the ground of jurisdiction, viz., that the District Judge having heard the appeal in part and remanded issues for trial, he could not transfer the appeal to the Subordinate Judge.2. The Advocate-General suggested that in this case the order of transfer was made by the High Court and not by the District Judge. Apparently, however, no order of transfer was made by the High Court. We must take it then the order was made by the District Court. That being so, the case is governed by the decision in Kumarasami Reddiar v. Subbaraya Reddiar I. L. R. (1900) M. 324 We agree with this decision. We think it is more convenient to deal with the present case on the general principles on which Kumarasami Reddiar v. Subbaraya Reddiar I. L. R. (1900) M. 324 was decided than - as the Advocate-General has invited us to do - to take into consideration the fact that in this particular case the individual District Judge, who heard the appeal in part and...
Sree Raja Datla Venkata Suryanarayana Jagapathiraju Bahadur Garu and a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-1910
Reported in: (1911)ILR34Mad143
1. The respondent in this appeal, who was the plaintiff in the Court of First Instance, bought two villages for Rs. 19,100 at a Court sale held on the 27th April 1901 in the execution of a decree obtained by defendants Nos. 1 and 2 in Original Suit No. 29 of 1900 against defendants Nos. 5 to 8. Defendants Nos. 3 and 4 who also had a judgment against defendants Nos. 5 to 8, received a portion of the purchase money paid by the plaintiff in rateable distribution. The plaintiff sued, on the 29th January 1901, to have the sale cancelled and for a decree for Rs. 25,100, Rs. 19,100 there of being the amount paid by him and the balance Rs. 5,900 interest on that sum. The grounds on which the plaintiff bases his case for relief are that he was induced to bid at the sale by the false and fraudulent misrepresentations of defendants Nos. 1 and 2, inasmuch as they stated in the proclamation of sale that the defendants Nos. 5 to 8 possessed full interest in the villages which were liable to the paym...
Nelayathakshi Ammal Vs. the Taluk Board, Through Its President
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-1910
Reported in: (1911)ILR34Mad333
1. The plaintiff claims to inspect the accounts of a charity and has made the Taluk Board of Mayavaram defendants. By the will of the plaintiff's deceased husband, certain charities were created and trustees appointed. The plaintiff was,one of them. In consequence of alleged mismanagement the Board of Revenue intervened. It must be assumed for the purposes of this case that the management and superintendence of the endowment were made over to the Taluk Board under Section 51 of Madras Act V of 1881. The possession of the endowment property passed to the Taluk Board in due course. The plaintiff has ceased to be a trustee of the endowment and claims the right to inspect under a special clause in the will which runs as follows: 'I have appointed certain persons (named) as trustees. The said persons shall properly conduct the said charities according to their present scale and maintain correct accounts therefor in bound books accessible to all the persons.' The power is given by the instru...
Sree Raja Datla Venkata Suryanaraina Jagapatiraju Bahadur Garu and anr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.60
1. The respondent in this appeal, who was the plaintiff in the Court of first instance, bought two villages for Rs. 19,100 at a Court sale held on 27th April 1907 in the execution of a decree obtained by defendants Nos. 1 and 2 in Original Suit No, 29 of 1900 against defendants Nos. 5 to 8. Defendants Nos. 3 and 4, who also had a judgment against defendants Nos. 5 to 8, received a portion of the purchase-money paid by the plaintiff in ratable distribution. The plaintiff sued on the 29th January 1904 to have the sale cancelled and for a decree for Rs. 25,000, Rs. 19,100 thereof being the amount paid by him and the balance Rs. 5,900 interest on that sum. The grounds, on which the plaintiff bases his case for relief, are that he was induced to bid at the sale by the false and fraudulent misrepresentations of defendants Nos. 1 and 2 inasmuch as they stated in the proclamation of sale that the defendants Nos. 5 to 8 possessed full interest in the villages which were liable to the payment of...
In Re: Second Grade Pleaders
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1910
Reported in: (1910)20MLJ500
ORDERArnold White, C.J.1. In these proceedings two Second Grade Pleaders have been called upon to show cause why they should not be suspended or dismissed by reason of their conduct in having joined the Board of Directors of the '' Circars Provident Fund Ld., of Bapatla ' and in connection with the affairs of that Company. The Company is now in liquidation. One of the pleaders was the President of the company. I will refer to him as ' the President'. The other was a Director, I will refer to him as 'the Director,' Criminal proceedings were taken against the two pleaders in connection with the affairs of the company and they were convicted of criminal breach of trust by the Sessions Judge of Guntur. On appeal these convictions were set aside. There can, I think, be no question that the convictions could not be upheld. In appropriating to their own use the sums of money which formed the subject-matter of the charge of criminal breach of trust, the President and the Director did not excee...
Sevugan Chetty Vs. Obla Munisami Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1910
Reported in: (1910)20MLJ524
1. We are not prepared to accept the view taken by the District Judge that the opposite party' in Section 109 of the Civil Procedure Code of 1882 includes a person who has attached the ex-parte decree in question. The plain meaning of the section seems to be that only the party on record is entitled to the notice mentioned in that section. It is well established that an attaching creditor, even of a money decree, is not an assignee of the decree nor has he a charge upon it. He is entitled, no doubt, to apply for execution of the decree so attached for the satisfaction of his own decree, and for that purpose he may well be deemed to be representative of the decree-holder within the meaning of Section 244 of the Civil Procedure Code of 1882 as held in Krishnan v. Venkatapathi Chetti I.L.R. (1905) M. 311. But that does not show that he has an interest in the decree within the meaning of Section 372 of the Civil Procedure Code of 1882. In Chail Behari Lal v. Rahmal Das I.L.R. (1890) A 38 i...
In Re: Two Second Grade Pleaders
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.313
Arnold White, C.J.1. In these proceedings two Second Grade Pleaders have been called upon to show cause why they should not be suspended or dismissed by reason of their conduct in having joined the Board of Directors of the 'Circars Provident Fund Limited of Bapatla' and in connection with the affairs of that company. The company is now in liquidation. One of the pleaders was the President of the company. I will refer to him as 'the President.' The other was as director. I will refer to him as 'the Director.' Criminal proceedings were taken against the two pleaders in connection with the affairs of the company and they were convicted of criminal breach of trust by the Sessions Judge of Guntur. On appeal these convictions were set aside See 5 Ind. Cas. 847 : 7 M. L. T. 299 : 20 M.L.J. 220 : (1910) M.W.N. 65 Ed. There can, I think, be no. question that the convictions could not be upheld. In appropriating to their own use the sums of money which formed the subject-matter of the charge of...
In Re: the Second-grade Pleaders
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1910
Reported in: (1911)ILR34Mad29
ORDERArnold White, C.J.1. In these proceedings two second-grade pleaders have been called upon to show cause why they should not be suspended or dismissed by reason of their conduct in having joined the Board of Directors of the ' Cirears Provident Fund Limited of Bapatla' and in connection with the affairs of that company.2. The company is now in liquidation. One of the pleaders was the President of the company (I will refer to him as ' the President'). The other was a Director (I will refer to him as 'the Director')- Criminal proceedings were taken against the two pleaders in connection with the affairs of the company and they were convicted of criminal breach of trust by the Sessions Judge of Guntur. On appeal, these convictions were set aside. There can. I think, be no question that the convictions could not be upheld. In appropriating to their own use the sums of money which formed the subject-matter of the charge of criminal breach of trust, the President and the Director did not...
Sevugan Chetty Vs. Obla Munusawmy Iyer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.66
1. We are not prepared to accept the view taken by the District Judge that the 'opposite party' in 109 of the Civil Procedure Code of 1882 includes a person who has attached the ex parte decree in question. The plain meaning of the section seems to be that only the party on record is entitled to the notice mentioned in that section. It is well established that an attaching creditor even of a money-decree is not an assignee of the decree nor has he a charge upon it. Ho is entitled, no doubt, to apply for execution of the decree so attached for the satisfaction of his own decree and for that purpose he may well be deemed to be representative of the decree-holder within the meaning of 244 of the Civil Procedure Code of 1882 as held in Krishnan v. Venkatapaihi Chetty 29 M. 318. But that does not show that he has an interest in the decree within the meaning of 372 of the Civil Procedure Code of 1882. In Chail Behari Lal v. Rahmal Das 20 A. 38, it was decided that an attaching creditor of a ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »