Chennai Court November 1919 Judgments
Bhavirisetti Gopalakrishnayya Vs. Pakanati Pedda Sanjeeva Reddi and an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-1919
Reported in: (1920)38MLJ228
1. The only question to be decided is whether an auction-purchaser is a person ''whose interests are affected by the sale' within the meaning of Order 21, Rule 90 of the present Code of Civil Procedure. These words did not occur in the Code of 1882 and the question is therefore one of first impression, so far as auction-purchasers are concerned. Under Order 21 Rule 91 an auction-purchaser may apply to the Court to set aside a sale on the ground that the judgment-debtor had no saleable interest, but these words do not go far enough to meet the case of auction-purchasers who have been misled by a statement inserted through error or fraud in the proclamation of sale to the effect that the property to be sold is unencumbered.2. There can be no doubt that, if an application is made under Order 21, Rule 92 to set aside a sale, an auction-purchaser is entitled to notice of the application as being a person 'affected' thereby. In this respect, the practice of giving notice to auction-purchaser...
Tag this Judgment!K. Raghavachari Vs. R. Paramaswami Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-1919
Reported in: 55Ind.Cas.812
1. We think the Subordinate Judge is wrong in holding that the petitioner, who wanted to be brought on record as the representative of the judgment-debtor in order that he might raise a question covered by Section 47, Civil Procedure Code, must apply to the Kumbakonam Subordinate Court which passed the decree. Apparently he has in mind the ruling of this Court in Swaminatha Ayyar v. Vaidyanatha Sastri 28 M.P 466 : 15 M.L.J. 116 but that related to an application under Section 234 of the Civil Procedure Code to bring in the legal representative of a deceased judgment-debtor on record, which is expressly provided for in the Code. This application is made so that the petitioner may raise a question to be decided by the executing Court under Section 47, Civil Procedure Code, and we think that the Court executing the decree is the proper Court to entertain this application.2. The appeal is, therefore, allowed. We set aside the order of the Subordinate Judge and remand the petition to him fo...
Tag this Judgment!Agnihotram Narasimhacharulu and ors. Vs. Soma Pitchayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-1919
Reported in: (1920)38MLJ226
1. The finding of the Subordinate Judge that the property belonged to the God installed in the temple is supported by strong evidence. Exhibit A itself says that the gift was to the God Gopalaswami. Similarly there is no reason to doubt the correctness of the finding that both the warams belonged to the temple.2. This appeal is dismissed with costs.3. Appeal Nos. 319 and 343 of 1918.4. The question is whether the worshippers of a temple can bring a suit for a declaration that a permanent lease granted to the defendants who are Archakas in possession of the property is invalid, under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure.5. The objection urged by the appellants is that a suit for a declaration must conform to the terms of Section 42 of the Specific Belief Act; and since the worshippers as a body or their representatives under Order 1 Rule 8 cannot be said to have any right as to property within the meaning of Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, the suit is not maintainable. N...
Tag this Judgment!Veeramachaneni Ramaswamy and Thirteen ors. Vs. Soma Pitchayya and Five ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-1919
Reported in: (1920)ILR43Mad410
Abdur Rahim, J.1. The question is whether the worshippers of a temple can bring a suit for the declaration that a permanent lease granted to the defendants, who are Archakas in possession of the property, is maintainable under Order I, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. The objection urged by the appellants is, that a suit for a declaration must conform to the terms of Section 42 of the Specific Belief Act; and since the worshippers as a body or their representatives under Order I, Rule 8, cannot be said to have any right as to property within the meaning of Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, the suit is not maintainable. No authority has been cited for the appellants in support of this proposition: on the other hand, the ruling of the Privy Council in Robert Fisher v. The Secretary of State for India in Council I.L.R. (1899) Mad. 270 suggests that Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act is not exhaustive of cases in which declaratory suits may be maintained, and it was held by...
Tag this Judgment!Veeramachaneni Ramaswamy and ors. Vs. Soma Pitohayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-1919
Reported in: 58Ind.Cas.585
1. The question is whether the worshippers of a temple can bring a suit for the declaration that a permanent lease granted to the defendants, who are Archakas in possession of the property, is invalid under Order I, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. The objection urged by the appellants is that a suit for a declaration must conform to the terms of Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, and since the worshippers as a body or their representatives under Order I, Rule 8, cannot be said to have any right as to property within the meaning of Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, the suit is not maintainable. No authority has been cited for the appellants in support of this proposition ; on the other hand the ruling of the Privy Counsel in Robert Fischer v. Secretary of State for India 3 C.W.N. 161 : 26 I.A. 16 : 7 Sar. P.C.J. 459 : 8 Ind. Dec (N.S.) 192 suggests that Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act is not exhaustive of cases in which declaratory suits may be maintained, and it...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Ippili Magatha and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1919
Reported in: (1920)38MLJ27
ORDER1. We are unable to agree with the learned Sessions Judge that the present case is covered by In the matter of Ramaya Naika I.L.R. (1903) M. 419. What was decided by the Full Bench in that case was that the word assistance in the first portion of the section must be read as being ejusdem generis with the same word occurring in the latter portion of the section. In the present case, the accused were called upon to assist the Salt Inspector in making a search. Under Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he is authorized to call upon the villagers to assist him in the execution of that duty. The last sentence of Clause (2) of Section 103 suggests that while the rendering of assistance in making the search is imperative on the persons called upon to assist, they are not compellable by the Inspector to attend the Court to give evidence without a summons in that behalf. Therefore the duty for discharging which these accused were requisitioned by the Inspector was ejusdem generi...
Tag this Judgment!Chekkur Puthalath Poothak Etathil Kunhi Sankaran Nambiar Vs. Ponniath ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-1919
Reported in: (1920)38MLJ251
1. This is a suit on a mortgage. The first defendant, the owner of the property executed Exhibit A to the third defendant in 1908. The third defendant assigned it to the plaintiff. The defence is that the mortgage is invalid for want of proper execution, proper attestation and proper registration.2. The first item of the plaint property was the only property originally intended to be mortgaged. The deed was engrossed and signed by the first defendant and attested by two witnesses with this intention. Subsequently the second item of property was included. The finding is that this was done with the consent and knowledge of the mortgagor and in the presence of the attesting witnesses.3. The lower Courts have expressed themselves somewhat loosely in giving findings upon this part of the case. Both the Courts are agreed that there was no fraud either against the registration laws or against any of the parties to the contract, in making this interpolation. It is also clear from what both the...
Tag this Judgment!Chekkur Puthaluth Poothati Edathil Kunhi Sankaran Nambiar Vs. Ponniath ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-1919
Reported in: (1920)ILR43Mad405
Seshagiri Ayyar, J.1. This is a suit on a mortgage. The first defendant, the owner of the property, executed Exhibit A to the third defendant in 1908. The third defendant assigned it to the plaintiff. The defence is that the mortgage is invalid for want of proper execution, proper attestation, and proper registration.2. The first item of the plaint property was the only property originally intended to be mortgaged. The deed was engrossed and signed by the first defendant and attested by two witnesses, with this intention. Subsequently, the second item of property was included, The finding is that this was done with the knowledge and consent of the mortgagor and in the presence of the attesting witnesses.3. The lower Courts have expressed themselves somewhat loosely in giving findings upon this part of the case. Both the Courts are agreed that there was no fraud either against the registration laws or against any of the parties to the contract, in making this interpolation. It is also c...
Tag this Judgment!Chekkur Puthalath Pothak Etathil Kunhi Sankaran Nambiar Vs. Ponniath A ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-1919
Reported in: 55Ind.Cas.86
1. This is a suit on a mortgage. The first defendant, the owner of the property, executed Exhibit A to the third defendant in 1908. The 3rd defendant assigned it to plaintiff. The defence is that the mortgage is invalid for want of proper execution, proper attestation and proper registration.2. The 1st item of the plaint property was the only property originally intended to be mortgaged. The deed was engrossed and signed by the 1st defendant and attested by two witnesses with this intention. Subsequently the 2nd item of the property was included. The finding is that this was done with the consent and knowledge of the mortgagor an 1 in the presence of the attesting witnesses.3. The lower Courts have expressed themselves somewhat loosely in giving findings upon this part of the case. Both the Courts are agreed that there was no fraud either against the registration laws or against any of the parties to the contract, in making this interpolation. It is also clear from what both the lower ...
Tag this Judgment!Ayya Nadan Vs. Thanammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-1919
Reported in: 55Ind.Cas.945
1. The suit from which these revision petitions arise was brought by the plaintiff as the heir to the estate of one Chinna Nadar, alleging inter alia that the defendant, his widow, was a lunatic at the time the succession opened on his death and she was, therefore, disqualified under the Hindu Law from getting a widow's estate and that she was still a lunatic at the date of the suit. He, therefore, proposed that a guardian ad litem should be appointed for her for the suit. She denied the allegation of unsoundness of mind made against her, but the Court, after holding a preliminary enquiry, came to the conclusion that she was of unsound mind and that a guardian was necessary to protect her interests in suit. The matter was brought up to this Court and a Bench of this Court confirmed the order and appointed her brother as her guardian ad litem and the correctness of that order is, therefore, no longer open to question in these proceedings. It is, however, rightly conceded by the learned ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »