Chennai Court October 1920 Judgments
M.R.P.R.S. Muthia Chettiar Vs. Lakshminarasa Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Mad62; 61Ind.Cas.756
1. The question in this appeal is whether the respondent, a young man about 20 years, committed an act of insolvency, so as to entitle the petitioner to have him adjudicated insolvent, under the Provincial Insolvency Act. The respondent executed a deed of release in favour of his father, by which he released his rights in the family property for a consideration of Rs. 3,000. The main bedy of the deed was written on the 13th March. Afterwards, on the 6th April, schedule of the family properly was attached. That also was executed by the respondent and attested by witnesses. The date put down to the schedule is 13th March. The document was registered on the 8th April. The promissory-note in favour of the petitions' creditor was executed on the 23rd March. The question, therefore, is whether, on the dace of the release, the petitioner was a creditor, so as to entitle him to present an application for adjudication of the respondent. The act of insolvency was the transfer of the respondent's...
Tag this Judgment!Saminatha Pillay Vs. Rajagopal Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Mad124; (1921)40MLJ208
1. This suit was brought by the plaintiff who alleged that he and Rajagopal Mudali were trustees of the property in dispute. The plaintiff died, and the question before us is whether Rajagopal Mudali was rightly allowed by the District Munsiff to conduct the suit as plaintiff, by transferring him from the list of defendants to the position of a plaintiff. Order 22, Rule 3 does not in terms apply, but there can be no question here that the right to sue was jointly in the plaintiff and the petitioner in the lower Court. On the death of the plaintiff that right vested in the petitioner in the lower Court, and he is entitled to conduct the suit.2. As Rule 3 of Order 22 does not apply, it cannot be said to have abated within the meaning of that rule. Article 176 of the Limitation Act would not apply but the article that would be applicable is Article 181. The contigency such as happened in this suit is not expressly and specifically dealt with by the Code of Civil Procedure. There can be no...
Tag this Judgment!M.A.R.A.R. Arunachala Chettiar Trustee of Sree Kalahasti Swaraswami Te ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-1920
Reported in: 62Ind.Cas.505
John Wallis, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of the District Judge of North Arcot dismissing as premature a suit brought by the present trustee of the suit temple against the late Rajah of Kalahasti, the previous trustee of the temple, who during the period of his trusteeship executed the suit mortgage in favour of the temple for Rs. 45,000, then due by him to the temple for past and present advances to his predecessors and himself, and against the 2nd and 3rd defendants who were impleded as alienees of the suit villages. The District Judge has dismissed the suit as permature in consequence of a stipulation in the mortgage-deed that the debt was not to be re-payable for 20 years. In England such stipulations appear to be a bar to foreclosure before the due dates in the absence of fraud; Fisher on Mortgager, paragraphs 712 and 713. In this case, however, in a suit instituted on behalf of the charity under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code the whole transaction has been hel...
Tag this Judgment!The Midnapore Zamindary Co. Ltd., Through Its Authorised Manager P.V. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Mad195; (1921)40MLJ213
Sadasiva Aiyar, J. 1. One question is common to all these cases, namely, whether the defendant company the proprietor of the Kannivadi Zamindari is entitled in the pattahs issued to its tenants to insert a term which makes the tenants liable to pay what is called in the pattahs ' penal assessment ' for a second crop raised on wet lands with the help of waters from an irrigation. source belonging to the Zamindari. I may at once state that such a vaguely worded obligation to charge what is called ' penal assessment ' with-out mentioning the rate of assessment charged ought not to be allowed to be inserted in the pattah. But I take it that the landlord charged one half of the usual wet rate of assess-ment for water taken for second crop and attached the crops for the recovery of that amount along with the usual amount charged as wet rate for a single crop.2. The question is whether the company is entitled to so charge for the second crop. Having regard to the decisions in Vythinatha Sastr...
Tag this Judgment!The Midnapore Zemindary Company Ltd. Through Its Authorized Mansager P ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-1920
Reported in: (1921)ILR44Mad534
Sadasiva Ayyar, J.1. One question is common to all these cases, namely, whether the defendant company, the proprietor of the Kannivadi Zamindari, is entitled in the pattas issued to its tenants to insert a term which makes the tenants liable to pay what is called in the pattas 'penal assessment' for a second crop raised on wet lands with the help of water from an irrigation source belonging to the Zamindari. I may at once state that such a vaguely worded obligation to charge what is called 'penal assessment' without mentioning the rate of assessment charged ought not to be allowed to be inserted in the patta. But I take it that the landlord charged one half of the usual wet rate of assessment for water taken for second crop, and attached the crops for the recovery of that amount along with the usual amount charged as wet rate for a single crop.2. The question is whether the company is entitled to. so charge for the second crop. Having regard to Vaythenatha, Sastrial v. Sami Pandither I...
Tag this Judgment!Ponnusawmi Chettyar Vs. Pichu Sastrigal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Mad597; 62Ind.Cas.423
Odgers, J.1. This is a petition to revise the judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Tanjore in a suit brought on an account by the plaintiff for the recovery of a certain sum of money, being the value of articles alleged to be necessary for the maintenance of an idol and the daily worship of the plaint temple supplied to a deceased trustee, the father of the defendants Nos. 1 to 4. Mr. Somayya appears for the 17th defendant, who is the Receiver appointed by the Subordinate Judge's Court to take charge of the temple properties pending the decision, as I understand, of a scheme suit. The learned Subordinate Judge gave a decree against defendants Nos. 1 to 4 out of their family property and the plaintiff has raised, as a point of law, the contention that the learned Subordinate Judge ought to have given him a decree against the temple properties direct, The plaint is not printed, but from the judgment of the learned Judge it appears that the plaintiff contended that as the dealings ware fo...
Tag this Judgment!Kochu Mahomed Asan Tharagan and anr. Vs. Sankaralinga Mudaliar and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Mad204; (1921)40MLJ219
Oldfield, J.1. These are appeals by certain creditors and. by the Official Receiver of Tinnevelly District against orders passed by the lower court in insolvency. It is conceded that the insolvents' estate has throughout the proceedings been fully represented by the Official Receiver. Appeal against Order No. 127 of 1919 by the creditors must therefore be dismissed at once, but in view of our conclusion on the merits of the dispute without an order as to costs.2. The lower court's order against the Official Receiver in Appeal Against Order No. 128 of 1919 was passed firstly on the short ground that Sections 16, 34 and 35 of the Provincial Insolvency Act (III of 1907) specified in the heading of the petition are not 'petitioning sections' the meaning being apparently that the proper remedy was not by petition under that Act, but by suit or otherwise under the direct provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure; and the appeal is resisted here firstly on that account.3. The facts are that o...
Tag this Judgment!The Official Receiver Vs. Sankaralinga Mudaliar and Three ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-1920
Reported in: (1921)ILR44Mad524
Oldfield, J.1. The lower Court's order against the Official Receiver, in Appeal against order No. 128 of 1919, was passed firstly on the short ground that Sections 16, 34, 35 of the Provincial Insolvency Act (III of 1907) specified in the heading of the petition are not 'petitioning sections', the meaning being apparently that the proper remedy was not by petition under that Act, but by suit or otherwise under the direct provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and the appeal is resisted here firstly on that account.2. The facts are that, on 23rd September 1914, first to third respondents obtained a compromise decree, Exhibit 1, in the Court of the District Munsif of Ambasamudram against four persons, who were adjudicated insolvents in the lower Court on 23rd March 1917. On 28th June 1918 certain properties of the insolvents were sold in execution of this decree by the District Munsif and purchased by the fourth respondent, after one of the insolvents and the Official Receiver had in ...
Tag this Judgment!The Secretary of State for India in Council Represented by the Collect ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-1920
Reported in: (1921)41MLJ223
John Wallis, C.J.1. The question is whether the plaintiff is estopped from bringing this suit against Government to recover the emoluments attached to the office of Mut-tawalli of the suit wakf, an office which he now alleges to be descendible by usage to the nearest qualified male heir of the last holder of the office, by reason of the dismissal of the previous suit instituted by him against his elder brother, the then 1st defendant, and that brother's son, the then 2nd defendant, for a declaration that their father's will nominating such 2nd defendant and the plaintiffs own son to succeed him in the office was invalid, and that the plaintiff by reason of his elder brother's insanity was entitled to succeed to the office and its emoluments and for an injunction restraining them from interfering with him. The suit was dismissed in Second Appeal by the High Court which held that the plaintiff had clearly no title to the office and that the appeal had been rightly dismissed by the Lower ...
Tag this Judgment!Karuppaliyal P.K. Raman and ors. Vs. Ramulathaparukkal V. Muthu and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Mad661; (1921)40MLJ301
Oldfield, J.1. The appellants 1st, 2nd, 4th to 6th plaintiffs, claimed the suit property as heirs, defendants as transferees from 1st defence witness, alleged by them to be entitled to the succession. Defendants had also other defences connected with a will, a surrender and an adoption, but they have relied here only on their denial of plaintiff's right to inherit; and therefore it alone need be considered.2. The property belonged originally to one Karuppan, who died leaving his widow Kalu and mother Neela. 1st, 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs are grandsons of Vella, a sister of Neela's husband; and 4th plaintiff is the grandson and 5th and 6th plaintiffs the great grandsons of another sister Kuppachi. 1st defence witness, under whom defendants claim, is an agnate of Karuppan, connected with him through his great grandfather Koratpura Konni. It is clear and it is conceded that plaintiffs, tracing through women, Vella and Kuppachi, are not heirs under the Mitakshara Law. The question is whether ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »