Chennai Court February 1921 Judgments
Rentala Veerrazu Vs. Kuruvella Subharayudu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-1921
Reported in: (1921)41MLJ378
Odgers, J.1. In this petition I am asked 'to revise the order of the District Judge of Godavari directing a rateable distribution of the proceeds of a sale of property held on the 21st March 1919 by the District Court. The petitioner obtained a decree in O.S. No. 31 of 1903 on the file of the District Court of Godavari. The counter petitioners obtained a debree in O.S. No. 200 of 1904 on the file of the Principal District Munsif's Court, Rajamundry, against the same judgment-debtor. Under the provisions of Section 63(1) of th'e Code of Civil Procedure, the attached properties were brought to sale in the District Judge's Court, the District Munsif, in the meantime, stopping the sale in his Court and adjourning the execution petition put in before him pending the disposal of the matter by the higher court.2. I am asked to revise the order of the DistrictJudge on two grounds: - First, that the District judge erred in entertaining an application, dated the 31st January 1919, put in by the ...
Tag this Judgment!Balapattabi Chetty and ors. Vs. Subbaraya Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Mad508; (1921)41MLJ433
Oldfield, J.1. It seems to me that this case can be shortly dealt with. The real question is simply this: whether the plaintiffs suing for partition; part of'the property to be divided being composed of Mandi trade, were bound to value that item of property in accordance with its value as afterwards ascertained in the course of the trial by the Commissioner appointed by the District Munsif, of whether they were at liberty to put on it an approximate valuation in accordance with Section 7 Clause 4(f) of the Court Fees Act. It is argued that they were not at liberty to take the latter course because the account which has to be taken in a family partition differs from that to be taken in a suit ordinarily described as one 'for accounts', inasmnch as in the former there is no question of sur charging the accounting party or accounting for past dealings with the property or of recovering from him on account of negligence, fraud or other grounds as in the latter but the account is to be simp...
Tag this Judgment!Sankaran Nambudripad Vs. Sankaran Nair and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-1921
Reported in: (1921)ILR44Mad960
Spancer, J.1. In this case the appellant obtained a decree for ejectment of a tenant in South Malabar and, after depositing the amount ascertained as due to the tenant for improvements under the Malabar Improvements Compensation Act, applied before the District Munsif for execution of his decree by ejectment of the tenant from all the lands mentioned in the decree, or in the alternative he added that if the tenants claimed that any improvements had been effected subsequent to the decree in kudiyiruppus, parambas and hills, execution might be granted of the other properties, that is, nilams (double crop lands), palliyals (single crop lands) and nattupoyils (seed-beds).2. As observed by the District Munsif, this application for partial delivery was intended to be for the benefit of the tenants and to avoid further demands for compensation owing to delay in execution. The District Munsif granted the appellant's prayer and ordered delivery of the nilams, palliyals and seed-beds, and direct...
Tag this Judgment!Balapattabhi Chetti and ors. Vs. Subbaraya Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-1921
Reported in: 70Ind.Cas.17
Oldfield, J.1. It seems to me that this case can be shortly dealt with. The real question is simply this whether the plaintiffs suing for partition, part of the property to be divided being of mundi trade, were bound to value that item of property in accordance with its value as afterwards ascertained in the course of the trial by the Commissioner appointed by the District Munsif: or, whether they were at liberty to put on it an approximate valuation in accordance with Section 7, Clause 4(f), of the Court-Fees Act. It is argued that they were not at liberty to take the latter course, because the account which has to be taken in a family partition differs from that to be taken in a suit ordinarily described is one 'for accounts,' inasmuch as in the former there is no question of surcharging he accounting party or accounting for past dealing with the property or of recovering from him on account of negligence, fraud or other grounds as in the latter, but the account s to be simply of the...
Tag this Judgment!Manakal Murthi Sankaran Alias Neelakdhan Nambudripad Vs. Areekara Azha ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Mad347; 66Ind.Cas.129
Spencer, J.1. In this case the appellant obtained a decree for enjoinment of a tenant in South Malabar and, after depositing the amount ascertained as due to the tenant for improvements under the Malabar Improvements Compensation Act, applied before the District Massif for execution of Lis degree by ejectment of the tenant from all the lauds mentioned in the dearee or, in the alterative, he added that, it the tenants claimed that any improvements had been effected subsequent to the decree in Kudiyiruppus, Parambas and hills, execution might be granted of the other properties, that is, Nilams (doable crop lands), Palliyals (single crop lands) and Nattupoyils (seed-beds).2. As observed by the District Munsif, this application for partial delivery was intended to be for the benefit of the tenants and to avoid farther demands for compensation owing to delay in execution. The District Munsif granted the appellant's prayer and ordered delivery of the Nilams, Palliyals and seed-beds and direc...
Tag this Judgment!Ventala Verrarazu Vs. Kuruvella Subbarayudu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Mad3; 64Ind.Cas.493
Odgers, J.1. In this petition I am asked to revise the order of the District Judge of Godaveri directing a rateable distribution of the proceeds of a sale of property held on the 21st March 1919 by the District Court. The petitioner obtained a decree in Original Suit No. 31 of 1903 on the file of the District Court of Godaveri. The counter-petitioners obtained a decree in Original Suit No. 200 of 1904 on the file of the Principal District Munsif's Court, Rajahmundry, against the same judgment debtor. Under the provisions of Section 63 (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure the attached properties were brought to sale in the District Judge's. Court, the District Munsif in the meantime stopping the sale in his Court and adjourning the execution petition put in before him pending the disposal of the matter by the higher Court.2. I am asked to revise the order of the District Judge on two grounds: first, that the District Judge erred in entertaining the application, dated the 31st January 1919...
Tag this Judgment!T.K. Sreenivasa Aiyangar Vs. Kuppuswami Aiyangar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Mad447; 64Ind.Cas.698
John Wallis, C.J.1. We have been asked in this case to depart from the usual form of decree in suits for partition between sons and their father, in which alienees are joined for the purpose of petting aside the father's alienations of the joint family property, one of the commonest classes of suits in this Presidency, by making the setting aside of the alienations conditional on the refund by the sons of the moneys paid to the father in consideration of the alienations, on the ground that the father becomes liable to make such a refund on the setting aside of the alienations and that his sons at the same time incur a pious obligation to discharge the liability. The setting aside of such alienations has often been made conditional on the refund to the alienees of such part of the consideration as was shown to have been advanced by them for necessary purposes, including in that term the discharge of the father's debts antecedent to the alienations in discharge of which the sons shares c...
Tag this Judgment!Koonamneni Mallaya and anr. Vs. Kanneganti China Kotaya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1921
Reported in: 64Ind.Cas.148
Spencer, J.1. In this case there was a suit brought on a mortgage which ended in a decree. When the decree- holder came to execute his decree, defendants Nos. 3 and 4 pleaded that there was an agreement before suit between them and the mortgagee by which the mortgagee agreed to receive Rs. 1,500 from them and to free two of the mortgage items from liability. Both the Courts below have held that this agreement should have been pleaded in the suit and could not be raised as a defence to the execution. An agreement made before the passing of a decree which, if raised in the suit, would negative wholly or partially a defendant's liability to meet the plaintiff's claim, is one which would constitute a valid defence to the suit. Such an agreement cannot be pleaded as a defence to an execution application. This seems to be the general effect of the decisions both of this Court and other High Courts. But as the authorities both for and against this proposition have been fairly and clearly plac...
Tag this Judgment!Ummathu Vs. Pathumma and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Mad654; (1921)41MLJ84
Spencer, J.1. The plaintiff had 3 years from the death of her husband to institute this suit for dower. As lie died on 30th December 191.4, the last day for presenting the plaint was 30th December 1917.2. She actually presented it on January 3rd 1918 in the Small Causes Court of Cochin, that being the clay when that Court reopened after the Christmas holidays. The plaint was returned for want of jurisdiction on February 6th, as suits by a Mahom-medan for dower are excepted from the cognizance of a Court of small causes by Section 15(1) and Article 36 of the second schedule of the Provincial Small Causes Court's Act. The Plaintiff represented the plaint on the following day in the court of the Subordinate Judge of Cochin.3. The question is whether the suit was in time. It would have been in time if it had been instituted on January 3rd as the Sub Court of Cochin was closed on December 30th when the period of limitation prescribed by the first schedule of the Limitation Act for such suit...
Tag this Judgment!Sankaranarayana Pillai and ors. Vs. Puthiya Vettil Thangamma and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1921
Reported in: (1921)41MLJ374
Spencer, J.1. The decree that was passed by the District Munsif upon this suit for redemption, though styled a preliminary decree and passed under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, provided for sale of the mortgaged properties if the money required for redemption was not paid by a certain date. There was thus no need for any one to apply for an order for sale. But in a redemption suit, the decree-holder being the mortgagor, it has been held in Govinda Taragan v. Veeran 21 M.L.J. 941 . No. 99 of 1915 and Abdul Kadir v. Samipandiya Tevar 39 M.L.J. 941 that he as well as the mortgagee has a right to execute the decree by applying for sale and I think we should follow those decisions.2. As regards the applications of 4-4-1916 and 23-6-1916 for an extension of time for depositing the redemption money in Court, it may be conceded that they did not aid the particular form of execution which has ultimately been reached, but if they were bona fide they may well be said to have been in aid of t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »