Chennai Court March 1913 Judgments
P. Abdul Khadir Vs. A. Ahammad Shaiwa Ravuthar and Four ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1913
Reported in: (1915)ILR38Mad419
Charles Arnold White, C.J.1. The only statement of fact which is necessary for the purpose of dealing with the question of law as to the construction of Section 48 of the Civil Procedure Code which has been raised in this appeal is, I think, this. A creditor has obtained a joint and several decree against two judgment-debtors, defendants Nos. 1 and 2. The first defendant has by force or fraud prevented the execution of the decree at some time within twelve years immediately before the date of the application to execute the decree. The second defendant has not. I think it is reasonably clear that, if we give to the words of Sub-Section 2 (at) in Section 48 their natural meaning and construe the paragraph as meaning what it says, the construction adopted by Sundara Ayyar, J., is the right construction. The sub-section is as follows: -' Nothing in this section shall be deemed to preclude the Court from ordering the execution of a decree upon an application presented after the expiration o...
Tag this Judgment!P. Abdul Khadir Vs. A. Ahammad Shaiwa Ravuthar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1913
Reported in: 30Ind.Cas.423
Charles Arnold White, C.J.1. The only statement of fact which is necessary for the purpose of dealing with the question of law as to the construction of Section 48 of the Civil Procedure Code which has been raised in this appeal is, I think, this. A creditor has obtained a joint and several decree against two judgment-debtors, defendants Nos. 1 and 2. The first defendant has, by force or fraud, prevented the execution of the decree at some time within twelve years immediately before the date of the application to execute the decree. The second defendant has not I think it is reasonably clear that, if we give to the words of Sub-Section 2(a) in Section 48 their natural meaning and construe the paragraph as meaning what it says, the construction adopted by Sundara Aiyar, J., is the right construction. The sub-section is as follows: 'Nothing in this section shall be deemed to preclude the Court from ordering the execution of a decree upon an application presented after the expiration of t...
Tag this Judgment!Logadapathi Chinnayya Vs. Kotla Ramanna
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1913
Reported in: 19Ind.Cas.579; (1913)25MLJ228
ORDER1. This is an application made under Rule 8 of the rules applicable to the Godaveri Agency asking us to direct the agent to review his judgment in an appeal by which he confirmed the decree of the Assistant Agent of Bhadrachalam. The facts which led up to the case may be very briefly stated. The appellant who was the defendant in the first Court, instituted O.S. No. 16 of 1906 in that Court for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 643-9-0 from the present plaintiff alleged to be due on dealings between the parties. The present plaintiff filed a written statement alleging that some items in the account sued on had been wrongly debited against him and denying the accuracy and reliability of the accounts put in by the present defendant. The Commissioner was appointed to scrutinise the accounts and to report on the result. The present plaintiff did not put in an appearance on the day fixed for the hearing of the suit. The present defendant was examined as a witness and a decree was passed in ...
Tag this Judgment!L. Chinnayya Vs. K. Ramanna
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1913
Reported in: (1915)ILR38Mad203
ORDER1. This is an application made under Rule 8 of the rules applicable to the Godavari Agency asking us to direct the Agent to review his judgment in an appeal by which he confirmed the decree of the Assistant Agent of Bhadrachalam. The facts which led up to the case may be very briefly stated. The appellant, who was the defendant in the first Court, instituted Original Suit. No. 16 of 1906 in that Court for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 643-9-0 from the present plaintiff alleged to be due on dealings between the parties. The present plaintiff filed a written statement alleging that some items in the account sued on had been wrongly debited against him and denying the accuracy and reliability of the accounts put in by the present defendant. A Commissioner was appointed to scrutinise the accounts and to report on the result. The present plaintiff did not put in an appearance on the day fixed for the hearing of the suit. The present defendant was examined as a witness and a decree was p...
Tag this Judgment!K. Hyder Sahib and ors. Vs. N. Giria Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1913
Reported in: (1913)24MLJ483
Bakewell, J.1. It is alleged that the arbitrators through a slip made a miscalculation of the amount due from the defendant since they took a railway maund to be 80 lbs. instead of 82 2/7 The defendant brought the matter before the Court in a lengthy petition, which sets out several objections to the award and prays that it may be corrected or remitted to the arbitrators. The learned District judge held that the application was in effect to set aside the award and that it was barred under article 158 of the Limitation Act. I think that an application to set aside an award is one falling within rule 15 of the 2nd schedule of the Code of Civil Procedure, and does not include proceedings under rules Nos. 12 and 14. I think the Court is bound to correct any obvious mistakes or slips in an award which are brought to its notice in the same manner in which it will correct mistakes in its decrees and that it is not necessary that any formal application should be made by a party for this purpos...
Tag this Judgment!Tummalapalli Mangayya Vs. Tummalapalli Sriramulu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1913
Reported in: (1913)24MLJ477
1. The question in this case relates to the construction of Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code. The decree under execution is one for sale of four items of property mortgaged to the decree-holder. The 5th defendant in the suit had a subsequent charge on items 1, 2 and 4 while the 10th defendant had purchased item 3 after the decree-holder's mortgage. The 5th defendant obtained an order from the executing Court that the 3rd item should be sold first and that items 1, 2 and 4 should be brought to sale only if the proceeds of the sale of item $ proved to be insufficient to discharge the decree. The order purported to be passed under Order 21 Rule 66 C.P.C. relating to the settlement of the proclamation of sale. Against that order the 10th defendant preferred an appeal contending that the first Court's order fell really within the provision of Section 47 C.P.C. The Subordinate Judge dismissed the appeal on the ground that the order was passed under Order 21 Rule 66. We are of opinion t...
Tag this Judgment!S. Eranhi Pakkran Vs. M.K. Pathumma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1913
Reported in: (1913)25MLJ279
1. The suit in this case was instituted by the plaintiffs as the heirs of one Kunhamed, a Mahomedan for the ejectment of certain tenants from some land leased to them by Kunhamed. The second defendant denied plaintiff's rights to succeed to Kunhamed's property as his heir and contended that the succession to his properties was governed by the Marumakkatayam law, and that he himself was entitled to the property in question as the next Karnavan of the tarward of the deceased Kunhamed. The plaintiffs contended that the question of the rule of succession to the property was res judicata in consequence of an order passed in a prior suit relating to a different matter instituted by Kunhamed, when a question arose on Kunhamed's death whether the present plaintiffs were entitled to continue the suit as his legal representatives. The 2nd defendant, who was a party defendant in that suit, contested the plaintiff's heirship and right to come in as Kunhamed's representative but the Court upheld th...
Tag this Judgment!The Secretary to the Commissioner of Salt, Abkari and Separate Revenue ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1913
Reported in: (1915)ILR38Mad349
Charles Arnold White, Kt., C.J.1. The only evidence to which our attention has been invited as to the course of business of the Bank is the statement contained in the letter of the Secretary to the Board of Revenue. In that letter, the course of business is thus described: The bank grants loans on promissory notes payable on demand or otherwise. Before advancing money, it requires the borrower to make a declaration in the confidential register in the form thereto annexed and to sign it.' A translation of the form to which the Secretary refers is annexed to the letter. Beading the entries in the register by the light of the statement by the Secretary as to the course of business, I am unable to say that the entries in the register show that the signing of the declaration, the execution of the note, and the advance of money by the bank were one and the same transaction. I express no opinion as to whether, if it appeared on the face of the entries that the signing of the declaration, the ...
Tag this Judgment!Mottayappan Alias Selambia Goundan Vs. Palani Goundan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-1913
Reported in: 20Ind.Cas.924; (1913)25MLJ290
1. The suit out of which this second appeal arose was instituted by the plaintiff for a declaration that a sale deed (Exhibit 1) executed by him in favour of his deceased daughter, the wife of the 1st defendant was a nominal transaction and inoperative against him and to recover possession of the properties from the two defendants in the suit, the 2nd defendant being the 1st defendant's father. The sale deed was executed on the 21st September 1906. The vendee, the 1st defendant's wife, died on the 6th April 1909. The plaintiff alleged that the 1st defendant obtained possession of the land in question after the death of his wife. The defendant's answer was that the real vendee was the 1st defendant himself, his wife being a benamidar for him, and that the deed evidenced a genuine sale. The District Munsif found that the 1st defendant's deceased wife was not a benamidar, that no consideration passed for the sale, that the consideration recited, viz., Rs. 1,000, was much less than the rea...
Tag this Judgment!Bodi Alias Lakshmappa and ors. Vs. Venkatasami Naidu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-1913
Reported in: (1913)25MLJ363
1. The suit in this case was instituted by a legatee under a will executed by a Hindu, for recovering the properties devised to him. The first defendant is the widow of the testator, various pleas were raised in answer to the plaintiff's claim, but it is unnecessary to refer to them all, as the contentions in this second appeal have been confined to the points of law raised. The first of them is that the will ceased to be legally operative, as it related to the ancestral property of the testator and as a son was subsequently born to him, by which he ceased to have any power of his testamentary disposition over the property. It is admitted that the testator was quite competent to dispose of the property by will at the time when he executed it. Mr. Seshagiri Aiyar, the learned Vakil for the appellant argues that the cessation of the testator's absolute estate in the property in consequence of the subsequent birth of a son had the effect of revoking the will in law. He relies on the state...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »