Chennai Court September 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.
Kasaribada Venkatachalapati Rao Vs. Maddipatla Kameswaramma Alias Kama ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1917
Reported in: (1918)ILR41Mad151
Ayling, J.1. With all respect to the views of the learned Judges in Hukum Chand Boid v. Kamalanand Singh I.L.R. (1906) Calc. 927 I prefer to follow the reasoning of an earlier Bench of the same Court, Bessesswari Chowdhurany v. Hurro Sundar Mozumdar 1 C.W.N. 226 which has been adopted by this Court in Muthukumarasami Rowther Minda Nayinar. Kuppusami Aiyangar I.L.R.(1910) Mad. 74. I regard an order of an Appellate Court staying execution as in the nature of a prohibitory order to the Lower Court which becomes effective only on communication. Till it is communicated steps in execution taken by the Lower Court must be treated as legally valid.2. I would answer the reference in the negative.Seshagiri Ayyar, J.3. Notwithstanding the high regard I entertain for the opinions of the two learned Judges who decided Hukum Chand Boid v. Kamalanand Singh I.L.R. (1906) Calc. 927 and to the opinion of Sadasiva Ayyar, J., I am unable to agree with their conclusions. In my opinion, sufficient attention...
Srinivasa Runga Row Pantulu (Dead) (Represented by the Official Assign ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1917
Reported in: (1918)ILR41Mad503
John Wallis, Kt., C.J.1. In construing the provisions of Section 41 of the Madras Court of Wards Act I of 1902, regard must be had to the scope and object of the amendments introduced into the Madras Court of Wards Regulation V of 1804 by Madras Act IV of 1899 and reproduced without substantial alteration in the Act of 1902. The object was to save the estates of embarrassed proprietors or at least a portion of them for their owners and it was hoped that with the aid of the additional powers conferred on it the Court of Wards would be able to provide for the full discharge of the proprietors' debts and liabilities. If not, the creditors were left to their ordinary remedies which were only interfered with as expressly provided. Among the powers conferred on the Court of Wards and its agent the Collector specified in the order under Section 19 of the Act, was that of requiring all persons having pecuniary claims on the ward, whether decrees or not, to notify those claims within a specifie...
Sri Vidhya theertha Swamigal Vs. Venkatarama Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad23; 45Ind.Cas.460
Abdur Rahim, J.1. The question for decision in this appeal is one of limitation in connection with a petition for execution. The decree-holder made an application for execution, No. 1571 of 1909, on the 13th September 1909, the object of the application being to get a transfer of the decree from the Tinnevelly Court to the Ambasamudram Munsif's Court. The application was dismissed on two grounds by the District Munsif, firstly, that it was not shown that there was no property of the judgment-debtor within the local limits of the Tinnevelly Court and secondly, that the application was barred by limitation. Then on appeal the Subordinate Judge reversed that order. But the High Court in second appeal restored the order of the District Munsif. This was on the 13th February 1913. The present application was put in on the 14th October 1913 and limitation is said to be saved by deducting the time between the filing of the application on the 13th September 1909 and the date of the High Court's...
Vanjapuri Goundan and anr. Vs. Pachamuthu Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1917
Reported in: 45Ind.Cas.62; (1918)35MLJ609
Krishnan, J.1. The Lower Appellate Court has given the plaintiff a decree for the division of Survey No. 44/1 into 3 equal shares with reference to good and bad soil and for delivery to him of one of those shares and has directed defendants 1 and 5 to pay him past profits till the date of suit from the date of demand for partition and also from the date of suit to the date of decree and future mesne profits till the date of delivery of possession or for three years whichever be the shorter period. Defendants land 5 are the appellants before us. The only point argued for them is that the award of profits before the date of decree is wrong in law; no objection has been raised to the rest of the decree.2. The facts necessary for the disposal of the question raised are these. Plaintiff purchased in 1910 an undivided 1/3rd share in Survey No. 44/1 from one Sengoda Goundan, the 4th defendant in this case. He and the other defendants were originally members of a joint Hindu family and me land...
Subramania Ayyar and anr. Vs. A.L.V.R.R.M. Muthia Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1917
Reported in: (1918)ILR41Mad612
Ayling J.1. In this case the appellants (plaintiffs) are purchasers of the suit property from second defendant by a sale-deed, Exhibit A, dated 20th June 1904. The first defendant, subsequent to this sale, obtained a decree against second defendant in Small Cause Suit No. 1960 of 1905, and in 1913 attached the suit properties in execution. Plaintiffs preferred a claim; on the dismissal of which they filed the present suit for declaration of their title, and for cancellation of the summary order on their claim.2. The suit failed in both the lower Courts, the Subordinate Judge holding in first appeal that the sale was a fraudulent transaction intended to defeat or delay second defendant's creditors, though not a mere sham transaction.3. It is now argued in second appeal that it is not open, to the first defendant to set up such a defence in the present suit; and that the sale must be held good against him unless and until he obtained a decree setting it aside in proceedings suitably inst...
Subramania Ayyar and anr. Vs. A.L.V.R.R.M. Muthia Chettiar (Dead) and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1917
Reported in: 43Ind.Cas.651
William Ayling, J.1. In this case the appellants (plaintiffs) are purchasers of the suit property from 2nd defendant by a sale-deed, Exhibit A, dated 20th June 1904. First defendant subsequent to this sale obtained a decree against 2nd defendant in Small Cause No. 1950 of 1905, and in 1913 attached the suit properties in execution. Plaintiffs preferred a claim, on the dismissal of which they filed the present suit for declaration of their title, and for cancellation of the summary order on their claim.2. The suit failed in both the lower Courts, the Subordinate Judge holding in first appeal that the sale was a fraudulent transaction intended to defeat or delay 2nd defendant's creditors, though not a mere sham transaction.3. It is now argued in second appeal that it is not open to 1st defendant to set up such a defence in the present suit; and that the sale must be held good against him unless and until he obtains a decree setting it aside in proceedings suitably instituted for that pur...
Ramadh Bibi Ammal Vs. Kandasami Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1917
Reported in: 51Ind.Cas.724
Spencer, J.1. Suit upon a hypothecation deed. In second appeal three arguments were advanced, which are 7 M.L.J. 222 ; 7 Ind. Dec. 174 that the suit is barred by limitation, 1 C.W.N. 229 that defendant was not liable as the hypothecation bond was executed to discharge certain decree debts for which she was not legally liable, and 1 Ind. Cas. 49 ; 13 C W.N. 1004 that the clause providing for compound interest was penal and should be relieved against.2. The suit hypothecation bond provides for payment of the principal on 12th May 1900, and it is conceded that, if the Court vacation be excluded, the plaint was presented within 12 years of that date. But it is argued that, as the bond contains a clause that in default of payment of interest every 6 months the principal and interest will become immediately recoverable, the cause of action accrued upon the first default for all that then remained owing of the whole debt. The authorities relied on in support of this proposition are Perumal Ay...
Govindasami Pillai Vs. Pethapkrumal Chettt, Dead, and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad207; 44Ind.Cas.839
1. The facts are somewhat complicated, but when once they are apprehended it appears to be clear that there is no finding on the point now in dispute. The suit was for rent of certain lands for the years 1910 1911,1911-1912, and 1912-1913. The defendant's plea was that he was dispossessed of the land by one Ramasami Mooppan who was the real owner and was not, therefore, hound to pay rent after the date of his dispossession to the plaintiff, who is the assignee of his landlord Subramania Josier. As regards the first two years there is a concurrent finding of fact by both the lower Courts that the defendant was not evicted by any body and we accept that finding. As regards the third year which began in March 1912, and ended with March 1913, it is said that evidence clearly proved eviction at least in May 1912 by Ramasami Mooppan. The first Court found it was not proved by the defendant that there was any eviction. In appeal the lower Appellate Court does not find definitely one way or th...
Korada Bottamma and anr. Vs. Korada Audinarayana and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad56(1); 43Ind.Cas.1008
1. The 1st plaintiff is the widow of one Suryanarayana and the 2nd plaintiff who is now dead was his daughter by a predeceased wife and the 3rd plaintiff is his daughter by the 1st plaintiff. The suit was for partition and the rights of the plaintiff were based on a Will left by Snryanarayana. There was a joint decree for one fourth share of the family property in favour of the plaintiffs and the petition is put in by plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 3 for execution of the decree. That petition has been dismissed by the District Judge, who seems to have allowed his mind to be diverted by a question as to who were the heirs of the 2nd plaintiff and other similar questions, though they do not seem to have been distinctly raised before him. Under Rule 15, Order XXL, the surviving decree holders are entitled to execute the decree for their own benefit and for the benefit of the legal representatives of the deceased joint decree holder, that is, the 2nd plaintiff in this case. The proper course would ...
Subba Rao and ors. Vs. P. Swamia Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1917
Reported in: 47Ind.Cas.834
Spencer, J.1. I am unable to follow the District Judge when he proceeds upon the assumption that the 1st defendant, in executing his small cause decree, attached only the father's interest in the property. If this were so, the plaintiffs had ho cause of action to put in a claim petition for the release of their three-fourths share, and when that failed, to institute the present suit to establish their title against the execution creditor. The District Judge failed to see that his assumption destroyed the very foundation of the plaintiffs' claim and that their suit must consequently fail. There is no doubt, however, that both parties considered that the entire estate had been attached. In his written statement the 1st defendant asserted the liability of the sons to pay the debts of their father, if not tainted with illegality and immorality. No doubt he at first maintained that the property was the father's self-acquisition, but the fact that he also pleaded the sons' liability to pay t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »