Chennai Court November 1911 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.
The Assistant Sessions Judge Vs. Ramammal and Four ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-1911
Reported in: (1913)ILR36Mad387
ORDER1. This is a reference made by the Assistant Sessions Judge of North Arcot asking this Court to quash the commitment of the accused in Sessions Case No. 55 of 1911 to the Sessions Court of North Arcot. The order of commitment was made by the Second-class Magistrate of Tiruppattur. There are five accused in the case. The first accused Ramammal is the widow of one Ramakrishna Aiyar whose mother is the complainant. The second and third accused are respectively the father and brother of the first accused. The fourth accused is also a relation of accused Nos. 1 to 3. The first accused executed on the 20th July 1905 a mortgage-deed for Rs. 3,000 in favour of the third and fourth accused and the consideration for this deed is stated in it to be the amount due for principal and interest on a promissory-note, dated the 10th August 1902, alleged to have been executed by the first accused's deceased husband in favour of the fourth accused for Rs. 2,400. The deed further recites that the exec...
Parry and Co. by their Agent C.H. Cardozo Vs. Vadivelu Pillay
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.160
1. We think the view of the lower Courts is right on the question of limitation. In 1900, the decree-holder made an application in which he asked for attachment and sale of the judgment-debtor's property. The order passed on the application was 'immoveables attached. Strike off petition, but the attachment will continue.' Then, on a subsequent application made for sale of the property attached notice was issued, but the batta not being paid, the second application was struck off in 1901. The present application is made in 1909. The argument on behalf of the appellant is that the application of 1900 is still pending. But we cannot accept that contention. What was apparently intended was that the prayer for attachment should be granted and, in other respects, the application should be refused. If that be the correct meaning of the order in question, as we think it is, there is no force in the contention that the present application is in continuance of the proceedings of 1900, because, i...
The Assistant Sessions Judge of North Arcot Vs. Ramammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.275
ORDER1. This is a reference made by the Assistant Sessions Judge of North Arcot asking this Court to quash the commitment of the accused in Sessions Case No. 55 of 1911 to the Court of North Arcot. The order of commitment was made by the Second Class Magistrate of Tirupattur. There are five accused in the case. The first accused Ramammal is the widow of one Ramakrishnier whose mother is the complainant. The second and third accused are respectively the father and brother of the first accused. The fourth accused is also a relation of accused Nos. 1 to 3. The first accused executed on the 20th July 1905, a mortgage-deed for Rs. 3,000 in favour of the third and fourth accused and the consideration for this deed is stated in it to be the amount due for principal and interest on a promissory-note dated the 10th August 1902 alleged to have been executed by the first accused's deceased husband in favour of the 4th accused for Rs. 2,400. The deed further recites that the executant, the first a...
Mutyala Papayya Vs. Kosuri Muramallu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.322
1. The question argued in this second appeal is whether Revenue Courts have jurisdiction to try a claim to the office and emoluments of a village carpenter in a proprietary estate. Both the lower Courts hold that they have and we are of opinion that they are right.2. Mr. Ramadoss for the appellant contends that Section 3 of the Madras Hereditary Village Offices Act, III of 1895, excludes from the operation of the Act the offices of a village carpenter and the other offices mentioned in Sub-clauses (4). The Section divides into four classes the village offices to which the Act is applicable. The third class is mentioned in Sub-clause (8) in these terms 'Other hereditary village offices in proprietary estates except (1) the offices forming class (4) below.' Then the fourth class runs thus--'The hereditary offices of village artizans and village servants such as the following.' The first office enumerated is the village carpenter. The argument for the appellant is that inasmuch as Clause ...
Adisupalli Venkata Row, Executor to the Estate of the Deceased Ramanuj ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-1911
Reported in: (1912)22MLJ169
1. The judgment-creditor had applied in time for bringing one of the representatives of David Pillai, namely the 2nd respondent Sawmi Pillai, on record and that application was granted. That being so the cases of Ramanuj Seivak Singh v. Hurgu Lal I.L.R. (1881) A. 517 and Krishnajee Janardhan v. Murar Row Narasinga Row I.L.R. (1887) B. 48 with which we agree, show that there is no bar to the other representatives of David Pillai, viz., respondents 3 and 4, being also brought on the record, on the present application. We may say that we do not understand the ground on which the learned District Judge distinguishes these cases. We order that Marikuruthu Ammal and Kalaniathi Ammal be brought on the record as legal representatives of David Pillai, and set aside the order of the District Judge with costs to be paid by the respondents....
Adusupatti Venkata Rao, Executor to the Estate of the Deceased Ramanuj ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-1911
Reported in: (1912)22MLJ228
1. The District Judge is wrong in holding that because the Administrator General who had obtained probate of the will of the deceased father of David Pillai, the judgment debtor, was not a party to the Execution Petition under which attachment was ordered in September 1900 the attachment must be treated as illegal and cannot form the basis of a sale. The attachment, as we understand, was of the interest of David Pillai in the lands of the testator situated in a particular locality on the supposition that David Pillai was solely entitled to those lands including the property in dispute. Subsequent thereto the estate has been divided among the different devisees and legatees, the property now sought to be sold falling to the share of David Pillai. That being so, it is difficult to see why the attachment, which still subsists, should be regarded as of no avail with respect to property that fell to the share of David Pillai. It does not seem to us to be reasonable to hold the attachment of...
Tej Mai Sowcar Vs. Jagapilla Papayamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.788; (1912)22MLJ225
1. In this case the 1st and 2nd defendant each obtained a decree for money against the third defendant, and certain property was attached as belonging to the judgment-debtor in execution of each of the decrees. When the attachment was made at the instance of the 1st defendant, plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 3 and the 4th defendant, who are sisters, put in a claim petition urging that the property attached belonged originally to their mother, the 3rd defendant's wife; that they had succeeded as heirs, and that, therefore, 1st defendant had no right to attach it as belonging to the 3rd defendant. No claim petition was put in when the second defendant made the attachment. This suit is instituted by the plaintiffs, three out of four sisters, for a declaration ' that the attachments made by 1st and 2nd defendants are not valid' on the ground that the property does not belong to the 3rd defendant;2. An issue was raised as to whether the suit was not bad for misjoinder of causes of action on the ground...
Variangattil Paksseri Raman Menon, Karnavan of the Tarwad Vs. Sankara ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.203
1. The position in this case is somewhat curious. The plaintiff in the suit mortgaged certain properties to the father of the 1st defendant for about Rs. 1,000, and the mortgagee, for about Rs. 700, executed at sub-mortgage.2. The plaintiff, after the execution of the sub-mortgage, paid off the mortgage, and then the sub-mortgagee, in a suit to enfore his sub-mortgage, recovered a judgment against the present plaintiff for the amount of the sub-mortgage. The present plaintiff in this suit, who was a defendant in the suit of the sub-mortgage, appealed against the decree, but, pending the appeal, instituted the present action against the first defendant and his son, the second defendant, for a decree for payment to him of the amount decreed in the sub-mortgagee's suit or for an order directing the defendants to deposit the amount in Court for payment to the plaintiff. Now, the decisions of this Court lay down that a person cannot maintain a suit for indemnity unless he has actually incur...
Chidrie Kristappa Vs. Siddamsetti Yamanappa
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.159
1. A preliminary objection is taken that no second appeal lies in this case, as the suit is of a small cause nature and the amount sought to be recovered in the Court of first instance was less than Rs. 500. This objection must be upheld. The appellant contends that the suit might be treated as one for an account. But we find that it cannot be on a reference to the plaint. The plaint states that Mukamma had money dealings with the plaintiff for the benefit, expenses and trade of the family. These are to be found in the account-books properly maintained by the plaintiff and the prayer is that a decree be passed for the amount due. The plaintiff does not ask that any of the defendants should be made to account to the plaintiff. The suit is not, therefore, one for an account. Article 31 of the second Schedule of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act applies to cases where the relationship of the parties is such that one of them is bound to render accounts to the other. This is substantial...
Subbaraya Iyer and ors. Vs. Ramsawmi Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.204
1. In the course of executing the decree in Original Suit No. 28 of 1903 on the file of the District Court of Trichinopoly, obtained upon a deed of hypothecation, the parties entered into an agreement whereby the second defendant was given time to satisfy the decree on condition of his paying interest at 12 per cent, per annum instead of 9 per cent, per annum and the decree was made executable against the person of the second defendant as well as by sale of the hypotheca. The Court sanctioned the arrangement under Section 257A of the Code of Civil Procedure on July 26th, 1905. On August 2nd, 1909, the plaintiff's legal representatives sought to execute the decree for the unpaid balance by arresting the second defendant. The District Judge dismissed the application, relying on the ruling in Venkatagiri Iyer v. Sodagopa Chariar 14 M.L.J. 359. It was held in that decision that the Court's sanction of an agreement between the decree-holder and the judgment-debtor by which the former is ben...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »