Chennai Court October 1917 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.
Meda Chinnasubamma Vs. Papireddi Gari Chinnayya Minor by His Guardian ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-1917
Reported in: 47Ind.Cas.628
1. Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot in terms apply as no decree was varied or reversed, but only an order under Order XX.I, Rule 90, refusing to set aside a sale in execution, was reversed by the Appellate Court.2. Assuming that Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure allows an order for restitution in appropriate oases, even though it does not fall under Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure, such an order cannot be made on the analogy of Section 144, unless the auction-purchaser was a party before the Appellate Court which set aside the sale in the proceedings instituted for setting it aside.3. The mere fact that the decree-holder was a party to those proceedings will not suffice as the Court auction-purchaser is not the representative of the decree-holder. Manickka Odayan v. Rajagopala Pillai 2 M.L.T. 347 : 17 M.L.J. 291, which held otherwise, has been disapproved of in Nadamuni Narayana Iyengar v. Veerabhadra Pillai 34 M. 417 : (1910) M.W.N. 9: 21 M.L.J. 92...
A.M.V. Avanashi Chetti Vs. Muthukaruppan Chetti and ors. and Doraisami ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad186(1); 44Ind.Cas.885
1. The only power of the District Judge to interfere judicially with the contract of sale entered into by the Receiver is under Section 22 of the Provincial Insolvency Act. No application was made under that section to the District Court within 21 days of the contract of sale and hence the District Judge had no power to set aside the contract of sale in a judicial proceeding.2. The respondent, in filing a petition under Order XXI, Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure, wholly misconceived his remedy.3. The District Judge might have the powers of supervision over the Receiver and give directions to the Receiver not to complete a contract of sale in exercise of such powers of supervision, but that is not what he has done in this case. He has held that an application under Order XXI, Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure, could be entertained by him in respect of a contract of sale concluded by the Receiver and has passed an order purporting to be passed under that provision of the Civi...
M. AzimuddIn Sahib and ors. Vs. S.E.S. Kadirsa Rowther and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-09-1917
Reported in: 43Ind.Cas.995
1. Following Chelasami Ramiah v. chelasami Ramasami 18 Ind. Cas. 363 : (1913) M.W.N. 105, we hold that the plaintiff was entitled to value the injunction relief arbitrarily and such valuation is conclusive. The decision in Krishna Mallar v. Secretary of Slate 25 Ind. Cas. 375 : (1914) M.W.N. 767 is authority for the view that in cases where the plaintiff has wrongly valued the declaration and the consequential relief of injunction separately and given the sum of the two values as the value for purposes of jurisdiction and Court-fees, the proper course is to return the plaint to the plaintiff for amendment in order to give the value of the consequential relief of injunction alone under the last sentence of Section 7, Clause 4, of the Court Pees Act and to mention that value in that plaint as the value for purposes of jurisdiction and Court-fees. If along with the injunction realief, additional consequential relief or reliefs are prayed for, they should, of course, be also valued accordi...
Kasi Viswanathan Chetty Vs. Murugappa Chetty and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-1917
Reported in: 43Ind.Cas.79; (1917)33MLJ750
1. The order before us is one passed under Order XXI, Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure, refusing to set aside a sale in execution. As regards the objections to it argued on the evidence relating to inadequacy of price and substantial loss we accept the Lower Court's observations and concur in its conclusions. The remaining objection that the sale was held without jurisdiction calls for more lengthy discussion. It arises as between appellant, the Judgment debtor, and 1st respondent, the decree-holder, and is that the lower court, the Subordinate Court of Ramnad, had no jurisdiction, to sell property, which, it is admitted, is situated in the territorial jurisdiction of the Subordinate Court of Sivaganga. The decree under execution was passed by the Chief Court of Lower Burma and was transmitted by it for execution to the District Court of Ramnad, that court transferring it for execution to the lower court.2. The objection has been met first by the argument that the lower court is ...
Mallidi Dorayya Vs. Satti Veerayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-1917
Reported in: (1918)35MLJ312
1. We can dispose of this appeal on only one of the grounds in the appeal memo, the fifth and we therefore express no opinion on the others.2. The order under appeal is one refusing to raise the attachment of the property of the defendant, appellant, in execution of respondent's decree. The appeal has been resisted on the ground that the appellant hail notice to appear on 14-815 and show cause against the attachment and that he appeared accordingly, but that the court after considering his contention, that the decree was satisfied, made an order for attachment, which, it is contended, debarred him from subsequent objection on any ground. There is no doubt regarding the facts and following Mangal Pershad Dichit v. Girija Kant Lahiri I.L.R. (1882) C. 51, we must hold that the order was conclusive. Argument to the contrary has been based on the fact that the order was passed without reference to the plea of limitation now relied on and in fact without its being submitted to the court. We ...
The King-emperor Vs. Lal Bage
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-1917
Reported in: (1918)ILR41Mad465
Phillips, J.1. The prosecution case is that prosecution first witness paid three annas to accused as 'mamul.' The demand of the 'mamul' is spoken to not only by prosecution first witness but also by prosecution second witness, and the payment of the money was witnessed by prosecution fourth witness, the Circle Inspector. The Sub-Magistrate who tried the case believed these witnesses, and there is certainly no reason, in our opinion, for disbelieving prosecution first witness, who made his statement to the Inspector at the earliest opportunity. Accused's story is that he paid three annas to prosecution first witness as earnest money for purchase of a goat, and that prosecution first witness returned the money as he withdrew from the bargain. Defence witnesses Nos. 1 to 3 are examined in support of this story, but the prosecution witnesses were not cross-examined as to their presence at the scene of offence and the Sub-Magistrate has given good reasons for rejecting their evidence. On th...
Emperor Vs. Lal Bage
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-1917
Reported in: 47Ind.Cas.666
1. The prosecution case is that prosecution 1st witness paid three annas to accused as a mamul.' The demand of the 'mamul' is spoken to not only by prosecution 1st witness but also by prosecution 2nd witness, and the payment of the money was witnessed by prosecution 4th witness, the Circle Inspector. The Sub-Magistrate who tried the case believed these witnesses, and there is certainly no reason, in our opinion, for disbelieving prosecution 1st witness, who made his statement to the Inspector at the earliest opportunity. Accused's story is that he paid three annas to prosecution first witness as earnest money for purchase of a goat, and that prosecution 1st witness returned the money as he withdrew from the bargain. Defence witnesses Nos. 1 to 3 are examined in support of this story, but the prosecution witnesses were not cross-examined as to their presence at the scene of offence and the Sub-Magistrate has given good reasons for rejecting their evidence. On the facts we think the Depu...
T.P. Govindan Nair Vs. K. Cheruvamma Alias Kalliani Amma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-05-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad490; 43Ind.Cas.126; (1918)35MLJ313
1. The appellant had a melcharath executed to him in 1914 and on the basis of that melcharath he was entitled to redeem a mortgage in favour of the defendants. It appears that he paid the amount due, viz., Rs. 1,000 into court and notice was sent to respondents that the money was available to them in satisfaction of their mortgage. The defendants refused to accept the money and the money remained in deposit in court. Then the plaintiff had to institute a suit to recover possession of the property. The defendants defended the suit which was dismissed by the first court, but in appeal the decree of the District Munsif was set aside.2. The question we have got to decide in the appeal is whether interest on the amount in lieu of which the respondents were entitled to enjoy the usufruct of the property, ceased to run from the date the money was deposited and notice sent to the mortgagees. In a recent Full Bench decision of this Court in Thevaraya Reddi v. Venkatachala Pandithan 31 M.L.J. 54...
Mannath Veettil Itti Panku Menon Vs. Thazheth Meladem Dharman Achan Av ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-05-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad288; 43Ind.Cas.625; (1918)34MLJ193
John Wallis, C.J.1. This appeal raises a question of some difficulty. In 1904 the plaintiff, jenmi, who was entitled to redeem in 1905 a kanom granted by him to the 2nd defendant in 1893, executed a melcharth in favour of the 1st defendant by which the latter became entitled to redeem the 2nd defendant on the expiry of his kanom and to hold the lands himself on a fresh kanom. The kanom debt payable to the 2nd defendant on redemption was subject to reduction by the amount of the arrears of rent due from the 2nd defendant to the plaintiff under the kanom even though a suit for the arrears had become barred, and the 1st defendant was required on redemption to deduct this amount from the kanom debt and pay it over to the plaintiff, or in other words to collect the arrears due to the plaintiff. He did nothing till 1909 when he assigned his rights under the melcharth to the kanomdar, the 2nd defendant, stipulating at the same time that the 2nd defendant should pay the plaintiff the arrears o...
Rama Naik Vs. Nagamuthu Nachiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-05-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad360(2); 43Ind.Cas.515
1. The lower Appellate Court should not have gone into the question of the genuineness (that is, the execution by the ostensible excellent) of the sale-deed C, when the grounds of appeal to the lower Appellate Court did not raise any such contention and when the document was allowed without objection in the District Munsif's Court to be exhibited and argued upon as a genuine document.2. Some of the other questions, namely, whether the document was nominal or fictitious, whether its registration was legally effected (that is, whether a fictitious land was included in it for purposes of registering it in a particular Registration Office, and whether that fact legally invalidates the registration), and the contention as to title, etc., mentioned in the District Munsif's judgment have not been considered at all by the lower Appellate Court and the rest have not been decided by it.3. We request the lower Appellate Court to submit its findings on these questions.4. Further evidence will be a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »