Chennai Court August 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.
Guntapalli Narasimhaya and Three ors. Vs. Marlapati Veeraraghavulu and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad702; (1918)ILR41Mad440
Abdur Rahim, J.1. This appeal arises in certain insolvency proceedings in the mufassal Court to which the Provincial Insolvency Act III of 1907 applies. A man called Venkatakrishnayya was declared insolvent and the receiver who was appointed in insolvency sold some property which was alleged to belong to the insolvent and to have been mortgaged by him to the first respondent and in that sale, the first respondent bought the property. When, the purchaser the first respondent, wanted to take possession, he was obstructed by the appellants before us who claimed title to the property in their own right and also alleged that they had been for a long time in possession of the land. The District Judge purporting to act under Section 47 of the Provincial Insolvency Act has held a summary enquiry and directed that the purchaser, the first respondent, be put in possession of the land. We do not think that Section 47 of the Insolvency Act authorized the District Judge to act in this manner and by...
The Official Assignee of Madras and anr. Vs. Mangayar Karasu Ammal, Mi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-1917
Reported in: 47Ind.Cas.298
1. The point raised in this appeal was decided by one of us (the Chief Justice) in Original Suit No. 206 of 1911 on the file of the High Court on the Original Side and the decree was affirmed in appeal in Hajee Abdul Lateef Sahib v. Official Assignee of Madras 44 Ind. Cas. 847 : 40 M. 1173, Following that decision, we allow the appeal and reverse the order and restore the decree of the Munsif with costs throughout....
Guntapalli Narasimhayya and ors. Vs. Malapati Vefraraghavulu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-1917
Reported in: 42Ind.Cas.525
1. This appeal arises in certain insolvency proceedings in the Mofussil Court to which the Provincial Insolvency Act III of 1907 applies. A man called Venkatakrishnayya was declared insolvent and the Receiver who was appointed in Insolvency, sold some property which was alleged to belong to the insolvent and to have been mortgaged by him to the 1st respondent, and in that sale the 1st respondent bought the property. When the purchaser, the 1st respondent, wanted to take possession, he was obstructed by the appellants before us who claimed title to the property in their own right and also alleged that they had been for a long time in possession of the land. The District Judge, purporting to act under Section 47 of the Provincial Insolvency, Act, has held a summary enquiry and directed that the purchaser, the 1st respondent, be put in possession of the land. We do not think that Section 47 of the Insolvency Act authorizes the District Judge to act in this manner and by a summary proceedi...
Ramakrishna Kukkilaya Vs. Nekker Kuppanna Alias Raghavendra Rao and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-1917
Reported in: 43Ind.Cas.286; (1917)33MLJ581
Spencer, J.1. This suit was brought for the purpose of redeeming a usufructuary mortgage of the year 1867. The mortgagor remained in possession under a lease until 1882 when the mortgagee got into possession. The mortgagee's representatives pleaded in defence of this suit that the plaintiffs were bound to pay off two simple motgages of the years 1873 and 1877 and a decree of 1882 before they could be allowed to redeem the prior usufructuary mortgage. On the points of law arising out of this contention the District Judge, disagreeing with the opinion of the District Munsif, has decided in the defendants' favour.2. Now it is clear that by the Limitation Act in force at the institution of this suit if the mortgagees had sued at that time to recover what was due to them on the footing of those simple mortgages their suit would have been time-barred, whereas if the mortgagors sued to redeem them, their suit would not be out of time.3. The question then is whether the defendants can set them...
Medisetti Venkatasami Vs. Kunchalla Chidambaram and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-1917
Reported in: 45Ind.Cas.671
1. An important question of law as to interpretation of Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure (with the new explanation added by the Code of 1908) is involved in this appeal. The contention of Mr. Venkataramana Rao for the respondents is that the case, Krishanappa Mudaly v. Periaswamy Mudali 38 Ind. Cas. 297 : 21 M.L.T. 121 : 40 M. 964, relied on by the appellant is opposed to the Full Bench decision in Ramaswami Sastrulu v. Kameswaramma 10 M.L.J. 126. and to the plain language of the explanation to Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure and ought not to be followed. We agree with Mr. Venkataramana Rao's contention, and we do not think that the anomaly pointed out at page 123 (1st column) of the 21 Madras Law Times Report is sufficient reason for overriding the plain legislative provision, which was apparently introduced in the new Code for the express purpose of enacting as law the views expressed in the decisions of the Bombay and Madras High Courts on the old Section 244 (cor...
Ariyaputhra Goundan Vs. Ettiya Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad1331; 42Ind.Cas.223; (1917)33MLJ615
Phillips, J.1. The question for determination is whether a razinama filed in O.S. No. 8 of 1912 in the District Munsif's court, Tindivanam required registration in respect of the portions in the razinama which were not given effect to in the decree in that suit. It must be noted here that one of the parties to O.S. No. 8 of 1912 was a minor and consequently the court had to consider the whole razinama and come to a decision as to whether it was beneficial to the minor, and it did so consider it as is recited in the decree. In this view the case appears to be governed by the principles enunciated by the Privy Council in Pranal Anni v. Lakshmi Anni I.L.R. (1809) M. 608 where their Lordships say: 'The razinama in so far as it was submitted to and was acted upon judicially by the learned Judge was in itself a step of judicial procedure not requiring registration.' The razinama before us was submitted to and acted judicially upon by the District Munsif, and these remarks would appear to app...
Karuppa Goundan and ors. Vs. Narayana Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad312; 45Ind.Cas.406
Phillips, J.1. This is a rent suit and the point for determination is the amount of rent payable by plaintiff: to defendant. Prior to 1859 a faisal rate was fixed on the land by Government, but admittedly plaintiff has for many years, certainly for more than 35 and possibly for 40 years, been paying a lower rate called in the muchilika the jamabandi rate. In the ntuchilika the faisal rate is also mentioned and the road cess payable is calculated on it. It has not been proved that the jamabandi rate was in force prior to 1859 and consequently under Section 11 of Act VIII of 1865 the proper rate payable on the land would be the faisal rate. This provision of the Rent Recovery Act (1865) is not reproduced in the Estate's Land Act. 1908, and it is contended for the appellant-plaintiff that there is now no presumption that the faisal rate is the proper rate. Although there is no such presumption raised by the Statute, yet I think that the existence of a faisal rate is a very strong piece of...
Rajagopala Aiyar Vs. Sheik Davood Rowther
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad364; 45Ind.Cas.161; (1918)34MLJ342
1. The plaintiff in the suit executed a usufructuary mortgage in favour of the defendant for Rs. 300 of which he received only Us. 50 and he has instituted this suit to recover the balance of Es. 250 on the basis of the mortgage. The question is whether this is a suit for specific performance. The rulings of this Court in Anantharam Kasmi v. Saidamadathulla I.L.R. 48 C. 59 and of the Calcutta High Court in Sheik Galim v. Sadarjan Bibi I.L.R. 2 M. 79 make it clear that this is a suit for specific performance, that is to say, a suit to enforce an agreement to lend money on a mortgage : and such a suit has been held not to lie. This is the law in England and has been followed in this country. The suit will not lie at all and no question of jurisdiction then arises. It is clear, however, that a suit for specific performance can only be instituted on the original side and not on the Small Cause side. The reference will be answered accordingly....
Muthukumara Chettiar Vs. Alagappa Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad537; 42Ind.Cas.554
1. In this case the appellant attached property before judgment and the respondents, who hold the property of the judgment-debtors under deeds of trust for distribution to their creditors, brought this suit to establish their right to the property.2. It is first argued that the suit is not maintainable, as Order XXXVIII of the Code of Civil Procedure does not expressly provide a right of suit in the case of claims preferred to property attached before judgment.3. We think that the wording of Order XXI, Rule 63, is sufficiently wide to include claims to property attached before judgment as well as claims to property attached in execution of decrees. Moreover, Order XXXVIII, Rule 8, provides that claims to property attached shall be investigated in the manner provided for the investigation of claims to property attached in execution of decrees for the payment of money.4. The next argument is that the transfer by debtors of the whole of their property for distribution among their creditor...
Narayana Aiyar Vs. Singaravelu Vannian and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-1917
Reported in: (1917)33MLJ543
1. The decree sought to be executed is a mortgage decree passed before the present Code of Civil Procedure came into force. It is in the form (then usual) of a combined decree directing the defendants to pay a certain sum on or before a certain date, directing a sale of the mortgaged properties in default of payment, and also decreeing that the defendant do pay any deficiency that might arise if the sale proceeds proved insufficient to satisfy the amount decreed with interest and costs.2. The decree was passed on the 8th October 1898. The mortgaged properties were sold on the 12th January 1903 and the sale was confirmed on the 17th February 1903. As the sale proceeds were insufficient the decree-holder filed several applications in execution between 1903 and 1912. He filed an execution application in 1906 and execution was ordered after notice to the judgment-debtors. This order is final and it cannot be contended in subsequent execution proceedings that the decree was not executable o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »