Chennai Court January 1916 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.
Bayyana Ramayya Vs. Nidamarti Krishnamurti and Two ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1916
Reported in: (1917)ILR40Mad296
1. The appellant who had obtained transfer of a decree against the first respondent and others applied under Order XXI, Rule 16, Civil Procedure Code, for execution and to be recognized as transferee. The application was opposed by the third defendant (first respondent) on the ground that the transfer was benami and that the decree had been satisfied by the first defendant paying the decree amount to the original plaintiff.2. The finding of the lower Appellate Court was that the appellant did not pay any consideration for the transfer, and that, being only a benamidar for the first defendant, by whom the decree amount had been paid, the Court could not recognize the appellant as transferee-decree-holder.3. The only point argued in this appeal is that, as the payment was not certified to the Court, Order XXI, Rule 2(3), Civil Procedure Code, operates as a bar to the first respondent's plea of no title in the appellant, and that the first respondent was not entitled to prove the alleged ...
Tangatur Subbarayudu Vs. Yerram Setti Seshasani
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1916
Reported in: (1917)ILR40Mad299
1. The question for determination in this appeal is whether the Lower Courts were right in holding that the respondent was entitled to restitution under Section 144, Civil Procedure Code. One Kami Setti Ghatta as president of a certain fund obtained a money-decree against the respondent and two others in Original Suit No. 985 of 1897, in the District Munsifs Court, Gooty, on 12th February 1898. One Y. Narayana Rao styling himself president of the fund transferred the decree to the appellant. The objection raised by the judgment-debtor to the transferee's right to execute the decree was overruled and the transfer was recognized by the Court on 12th July 1904. The appellant received Rs. 315-14-4 from the respondent (first defendant in the suit) in execution on 12th August 1904.2. Prior to the payment of the decree-amount, the respondent and another had instituted a suit--Original Suit No. 479 of 1904--in the Gooty Munsif's Court against the appellant and his transferor for a declaration ...
A.K.T.K.M. Narayanan Nambudripad Vs. Tawker J. Megaji Seit and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1916
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.927
Srinivasa Aiyangar, J.1. This case raises a question of some difficulty on the construction of Section 63 of the Civil Procedure Code.2. There was a sale of certain immoveable properties under the orders of the Principal Munsif's Court of Calicut in execution of a decree of that Court, in which the properties were purchased by one V. Ahmad. The sale was in September 1912. When the order for sale was made and when the sale took place the properties were also under attachment in execution of a decree of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Calicut. It appears that attachments in execution of decrees in both the Courts were made in March 1912. Prior to the sale in a petition put in by the judgment-debtor opposing an application for permission to bid by the decree-holder, the fact of the attachment by the superior Court and an order by the superior Court directing the sale of the same properties were set out and were thus brought to the notice of the District Munsif's Court which directed the sa...
Bayyana Ramayya Vs. Nidamarthi Krishnamurthi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1916
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.952
1. The appellant, who had obtained transfer of a decree against the 1st respondent and others, applied under Order XXI, Rule 16, Civil Procedure Code, for execution and to be recognized as transferee. The application was opposed by the 3rd defendant (1st respondent) on the ground that the transfer was benami and that the decree had been satisfied by the 1st defendant paying the decree amount to the original plaintiff.2. The finding of the lower Appellate Court was that the appellant did not pay any consideration for the transfer, and that, being only a benamidar for, the 1st defendant by whom the decree amount had been paid, the Court could not recognise the appellant as transferee-decree-holder.3. The only point argued in this appeal is that, as the payment was not certified to the Court, Order XXI, Rule 3, Civil Procedure Code, operates as a bar to the 1st respondent's plea of no title in the appellant, and that the 1st respondent was not entitled to prove the alleged uncertified pay...
Tangutur Subrayudu Vs. Yerramsetti Seshasani
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1916
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.739
1. The question for determination in this appeal is whether the lower Courts were right in holding that the respondent was entitled to restitution under Section 144, Civil Procedure Code.2. One Kamisetti Ghatta as president of a certain fund obtained a money-decree against the respondent and two others in Original Suit No. 985 of 1897 in the District Munsif's Court, Gooty, on 12th February 1898. One Y. Narayana Row, styling himself president of the fund, transferred the decree to the appellant the objection raised by the judgment-debtors to the transferee's right to execute the decrees was overruled and the transfer was recognised by the Court on 12th July 1904. The appellant received Rs. 815-14-4 from the respondent (1st defendant in the suit) in execution on 12th August 1904.3. Prior to the payment of the decree amount the respondent and another had instituted a suit, Original Suit No. 479 of 1904, in the Gooty Munsif's Court against the appellant and his transferor for a declaration...
In Re: Kayambu Tevan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1916
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.670
1. It is not contested that accused caused the death of deceased Sankaranarayana Pillai by stabbing him under the shoulder blade, severing two ribs and penetrating the pleural cavity. The nature of the injury fully justifies the inference that accused intended to cause either death or such bodily injury as was likely to cause death, and we do not understand why the Sessions Judge convicted accused only under the second clause of Section 304, Indian Penal Code.2. The main contention of appellant's Counsel is that he is entitled to the benefit of Section 100, Indian Penal Code, but we can find no ground for holding that the appellant was under any apprehension of death or grievous hurt; and we have no hesitation in rejecting this plea.3. The Sessions Judge has applied exception 1 to Section 300 in accused's favour; but, in our opinion, the more appropriate clause is exception 2. If there were legal evidence (which there is not) that accused had been duly proclaimed under Section 87, Crim...
Popooru Venkata Narasimma Vs. Jayanti Lakshmi Narasiham and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-1916
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.783
1. A copy of the affidavit filed in support of the petition was not served on the other side.2. Further the case of Mathuji v. Kondaji 7 Bom. L.R. 263 has not been followed by this Court in Civil Revision Petition No. 415 of 1904 (Boddam and Sankaran Nair, JJ.), the decision in which case is subsequent to the decision in Civil Revision Petition No. 359 of 1902, where also it had been held that without an application (oral or written) within 30 days, a sale in execution could not be set aside under Section 310-A, Civil Procedure Code of 1882 (Order XXI, Rule 89).3. The District Judge could not be said to have acted without jurisdiction or acted illegally in the exercise of his jurisdiction in deciding the question of limitation as he did, even if the above two decisions of this Court are erroneous.4. No question under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code, therefore, arises and we must and do dismiss this civil revision petition.5. There will be no order as to costs....
Perumal Naicker and ors. Vs. Sheik Davood Rowther
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-1916
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.393
1. The decree in this case was passed on 1st August 1900. A petition signed by all the parties was filed on 1st December 1900 under Section 210 (old Civil Procedure Code) and another under Section 257A of that Code. As a petition under Section 210, it was within time, as Article 175 of the Limitation Act allows such a petition to be filed within six months of the decree.2. The Court endorsed on the petition 'Mr. T.R.' (Vakil) 'signs for defendants under special power. Recorded.' In Jhoti Sahu v. Bhubun Gir 11 C. 143 it was held that where the Court struck off an execution application on the 11th July 1881 on the judgment-debtor's putting in an application on that date, mentioning an agreement to pay the decree amount by instalments and such an agreement was also admitted by the decree-holder and the application mentioning such an agreement was registered' by the Court before the execution application was struck off, such registration amounted to a direction under Section 210 by the Cou...
J. Subba Row Vs. J. Rama Row
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-1916
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.899; (1916)30MLJ341
Abdur Rahim, J.1. Two points have been argued before us in this appeal. The first relates to the question of limitation, and the point for decision is whether to this suit Article 62 of the Limitation Act, applies. If it does not, admittedly we have got to refer to Article 120 of the Act. Article 62 lays down 3 years for recovery of money had and received for the plaintiff's use and the starting point of limitation is when the money is received. That is a well-known form of action, and it applies in cases where a definite sum of money has been received by the defendant and which, the law says, he must hold for the use of the plaintiff. The present case is a suit against the defendant who is the manager of a jagir appointed by the Government, and he is asked to account for money which he received as such manager to the plaintiff who is entitled to a particular share. It is undoubtedly a suit for an account. The defendant was entitled to receive the money and he was bound to pay over wha...
Venkataswami Naidu Vs. Shanmugam Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-1916
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.984
Seshagiri Aiyar, J.1. Mr. Raja Aiyar contends that no appeal lies against the order of the District Munsif directing the respondent to furnish security and impose a condition that otherwise the petition will stand dismissed. I was somewhat impressed by his argument. On further consideration I think the conclusion come to by the learned Judges who decided the case of Nand Lal v. Kishori 26 Ind. Cas. 895 is more in consonance with justice than than stricter interpretation which Mr. Raja Iyer wants me to adopt. The learned Judges of the Allahabad High Court have held that such an order must be taken to be a conditional dismissal, and as such covered by Order XLIII, Clause (d). It is true that, as contended by the learned Vakil for the petitioner, in case the condition is not complied with the original order decreeing the claim ex parte will stand good. But as the form of the order in the case is that the petition do stand dismissed it is covered by the language of Clause (d) of Order XLII...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »