Chennai Court December 1921 Judgments
Kandasami Reddi and ors. Vs. Suppammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-1921
Reported in: (1922)ILR65Mad443
Ayling, J.1. The sole question for our determination is one of limitation. Plaintiffs sue on a mortgage bond (Exhibit A), dated 11th November 1907; and it is admitted that the suit is time-barred unless a certain passage in a plaint, Exhibit B, filed by the defendants (appellants before us) against plaintiffs (Original Suit No. 1011 of 1912) can be relied on as an acknowledgment of liability under Section 19 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908. The passage runs thus:7. The first plaintiff and Iris brother the second plaintiff, namely, Suppa Reddy, jointly executed to him (first defendant) on the said date an hypothecation deed for Rs. 209 after deducting the sums paid towards the said othi amount of Rs. 275. Along with the said deed, the deed of othi executed in the year 1888 and the othi deed of 1907 were also given to the first defendant.2. First plaintiff and second plaintiff referred to were respectively defendants 1 and 2 in the suit before us and the first defendant was the presen...
Tag this Judgment!S.R.M.S.T.R.M. Ramaswami Chettiar Through His Authorizes Agent Kuppan ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Mad147; 65Ind.Cas.394
1. This appeal in effect raises the question whether a purchaser from the Official Receiver, of a property of the insolvent whom the Receiver represents, can obtain an order from the Insolvency. Court for delivery of possession of the property, where his application is resisted by a third party.2. This appeal has been argued before us on the footing that the rights of the parties are governed by the provisions of the Provincial Insolvency Act, Act V of 1920, It is necessary to examine equally the terms of Sections 4, 5 and 56 of this Act. By Section 56(3) it is provided that 'where the Court appoints a Receiver, it may remove the person, in whose possession or custody any such properly as aforesaid is, from the possession or custody thereof:Provided that nothing in this section shall be deemed to authorise the Court to remove from the possession or custody of property any person whom the insolvent has not a present right so to remove.3. This section clearly applies to the case of a Rec...
Tag this Judgment!Dakoju Subbarayadu Vs. Musti Ramadasu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-1921
Reported in: (1922)42MLJ301
1. In this suit one Venkamma sued on a mortgage and obtained a preliminary decree. Subsequent to this she died on 28th April 1916 leaving a will by which the present petitioner claims to be entitled to succeed to her interests in the mortgage. The preliminary decree was passed oh 30th March 1916 and the period for redemption expired on 30th July 1916. No action was taken by the petitioner till 26th March, 1919, when he filed the present petition asking to be brought on record as the legal representative of Venkamma and to be given a final decree. The question is whether the application should be dismissed as time-barred.2. The District Munsif held that it should on the ground that the suit has abated under Order XXII, Rule 3. The Subordinate Judge on appeal held that Rule 10 of the same order applied and that the application was not time-barred. In our opinion the District Munsif is right and the Subordinate Judge wrong. Rule 10 of Order XXII admittedly only applies to cases which do n...
Tag this Judgment!Nallaka Venkataswami and ors. Vs. Rugam Viranna and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Mad135; (1922)42MLJ333
Spencer, J.1. This suit was brought by the plaintiffs to set aside alienations made during their minority by their guardian and the appeal relates to item 10 of Schedule A. This property was mortgaged under Ex. IX (b) in 1901 by the plaintiffs' mother after the death of their father in 1899. In. 1.908 the plaintiffs' maternal uncle Panakalu, who had been appointed as guardian of the minors under the Guardian and Wards Act, applied to the District Court for permission to sell a portion of the property to discharge the mortgage and obtained sanction on the 24th February 1908. The mortgage, according to the recital in the mortgage document, was for the purpose of borrowing Rs. 600 for the marriage of the plaintiffs. These boys were then aged 3 and 6 years respectively. One of them was married 15 years later and the other is still unmarried As pointed out by the Subordinate Judge, the recital as to the purpose for which the money was borrowed was obviously false. The sale-deed Ex. IX in fa...
Tag this Judgment!Chanduru Punnayyah and ors. Vs. Ragam Viranna and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1921
Reported in: (1922)42MLJ429
1. In this case the plaintiffs sued to have a final decree in a mortgage suit set aside in spite of their having been represented in the suit. The mortgage deed (Ex. X was executed by their mother representing them as their guardian in 1900 a year after the death of their father and thereby a tiled house and site were mortgaged for a sum of Rs. 300/- to meet domestic expenses and to provide money for their uncle Gallib to carry on cloth trade on their behalf. In the suit that followed they were represented by the Head Clerk of the District Munsif's court, Guntur who suffered a mortgage decree to be passed against them exparte. It is argued that as they did not appeal or apply to have the exparte decree set aside or file a review petition, the decree has become final and they cannot avoid it without proof of fraud or collusion. Reliance has been placed on an observation of Richards C. J., in Bent Prasad v. Lalji Ram I.L.R.(1916) All. 452 , that in a case where a guardian has merely cond...
Tag this Judgment!Nallaka Venkataswami and ors. Vs. Rugumviranna and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1921
Reported in: 65Ind.Cas.964
Spencer, J.1. This suit was brought by the plaintiffs to set aside alienations made during their minority by their guardian and the appeal elates to Item No. 10 of Schedule A. This property was mortgaged under Exhibit IX B in 1 01 by the plaintiffs mother after the death of their father in 1899. In 1908 the plaintiffs' maternal uncle, Panaklu, who had been appointed as guardian of the minors under the Guardians and Wards Act, applied to the District Court for permission to sell a portion of the property to discharge the mortgage and obtained sanction on the 24th February 1(sic)08. The mortgage, according to the recital in the mortgage document, was for the purpose of borrowing Rs. 600 for the marriage of the plaintiffs These boys were then aged three and six years respectively. One of them was married 15 years later and the other is still unmarried. As pointed out by the Subordinate Judge, the recital as to the purpose for which the money was borrowed was obviously falsa. The sale deed...
Tag this Judgment!Chunduru Ponniyya and ors. Vs. Rajam Viranna and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Mad273; 70Ind.Cas.668
1. In this case the plaintiffs sued to have a final decree in a mortgage suit set aside in spite of their having been represented in the suit, the mortgage-deed (Exhibit X) was executed by their mother representing them as their guardian in 1900, a year after the death of their father, and thereby a tiled house and site were mortgaged for a sum of Rs. 300 to meet domestic expenses and to provide money for their uncle Galib to carry on cloth trade on their behalf. In the suit that followed, they were represented by the Head Clerk of the District Munsif's Court, Guntur, who suffered a mortgage decree to be passed against them ex parte. It is argued that as they did not appeal or apply to have the ex parte decree set aside or file a review petition, the decree had become final and they cannot avoid it without proof of fraud or collusion. Reliance has been placed on an observation of Richards, C.J. in Beni Prasad v. Lajja Ram 35 Ind. Cas. 63 that in a case where a guardian has merely condu...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Ponnuswami thevar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-1921
Reported in: (1922)42MLJ139
ORDER1. The complainant came before the Sub-Divisional 1st Class Magistrate, Usilambatti, with a complaint, alleging that the 2nd accused, one member of the Village Panchayat Court lately established in his village under Act II of 1920, approached the 1st accused to persuade him to give his vote for the presidentship of the court in his favour and that he eventually paid Rs. 250 to the 1st accused, which the latter accepted. On these allegations the complainant charged the 1st accused with committing an offence punishable under Section 161, I. P. C. and the 2nd accused with abetment thereof. The Magistrate returned this complaint not with reference to the Indian Penal Code, but to Act XXXIX of 1920, observing that the offence more properly fell under Section 171, E. I. P. C. as amended by that Act. than under the general section relating to bribery, 161, I. P, C and that, when the allegations in a complaint fall under a particular section of law, it is not proper to take them under a g...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Ponnusami thevan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-1921
Reported in: 65Ind.Cas.612
ORDER1. The complainant came before the Sub-Divisional First Class Magistrate, Usilampati with a complaint alleging that the second accused, one member of the Village Panchayat Court, lately established in his village under Madras Act 14 of 1920, approached the first accused to persuade him to give his vote for the Presidentship of the Court in his favour and that be eventually paid Rs. 250 to the first accused, which the latter accepted. On these allegations the complainant charged the first accused with committing an offence punishable under Section 161, Indian Penal Code, and the second accused with abetment thereof. The Magistrate returned this complaint, not with reference to the Indian Penal Code but to Act XXXIX of 1920, observing that the offence more properly fell under Section 171. E, Indian Penal Code, as amended by that Act, than under the general section relating to bribery, (section 161, Indian Penal Code) and that when the allegations in a complaint fall under a particul...
Tag this Judgment!Bezwada Sunderarama Reddi and ors. Vs. Enuga Raghava Reddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Mad96; (1922)42MLJ315
1. Appellants in this case represent the decree holders in O.S. No. 24 of 1911 on the file of the Nellore District Court. Respondents are the judgment debtors. The decree was for Rs. 5,663-6-8, with subsequent interest at 9 per cent per annum. It was confirmed on appeal to this Court with the single modification that the rate of subsequent interest was reduced from 9 to 6 per cent. While the appeal was still pending 19 items of property belonging to the Respondents were brought to sale in execution of the decree, the amount due being notified as Rs. 7,695. The correct amount calculated according to the decree of this Court was Rs. 7,495. The total sale proceeds aggregated to Rs. 10,367 and of the 19 items, 5 items were purchased by appellants for Rs. 2,719.2. Respondents applied under Section 144, Civil Procedure Code, for restitution by re-delivery of these five items, cancelling the sale and the District Judge passed an order in their favour, against which the present appeal is prefe...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »