Chennai Court May 1921 Judgments
Ramasami Aiyangar Vs. Narayana Aiyangar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-09-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Mad327; (1922)42MLJ94
1. This appeal relates to the execution of what purports to be a partition decree passed on 9-12-1901. It was passed under the former Code and it awarded to plaintiff and each of the five defendants, one share in the suit property, that share to be ascertained. The course taken by the subsequent, proceedings was that on plaintiff's application, the six shares, into which the property was to be divided, were ascertained: but no allotment or delivery was made, except of one share to plaintiff. Later 4th defendant applied for allotment and delivery to him of his share and obtained allotment, but not delivery, the latter being ordered only on his filing a second petition E. P. No. 439 of 9-4-1912. The 3rd defendant here appellant-sued on 9-12-13 to obtain his share. But the Appellate Court directed that his plaint should be treated as an application in execution; and it is with his application regarded as having been presented on 9-12-1913 that we have to deal. The main objection to it is ...
Tag this Judgment!Rajah V. Muthu Krishna Yachendra Bahadur Vs. W.H. Nurse
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-04-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Mad320; (1921)41MLJ213
John Wallis, C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order of Phillips, J. refusing leave to file a written statement which was out of time, and raises a question ot considerable importance. The cause of the delay was that the defendant's vakils refused either to file the written statement themselves or to consent to another vakil being brought on the record unless they were paid Rs. 1000 towards the costs of the suit which they, alleged the defendant had agreed to pay at this stage of the case. In these circumstances the defendant was precluded by the Original Side Rules from filing the. written statement himself or getting another' vakil to file it; I take the facts froni the vakil's own counter-affidavit in answer to the application for a change of vakil. The change was eventually ordered by consent upon the defendant's paying the vakils Rs; 500, but the written statement was then out of time, and, as I have already said, the learned Judge has refused to excuse the delay. Now I may say at ...
Tag this Judgment!Rajah Muthu Krishna Yachendra Bahadur Vs. W.H. Nurse
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-04-1921
Reported in: (1921)ILR44Mad978
John Wallis, C.J.1. This is an Appeal from an order of Phillips, Wallis, C.J.J., refusing leave to file a written statement which was out of time, and raises a question of considerable importance. The cause of the delay was that the defendant's vakils refused either to file the written statement themselves or to consent to another vakil being brought on the record unless they were paid Rs. 1,000 towards the costs of the suit which they alleged the defendant had agreed to pay at this stage of the case. In these circumstances, the defendant was precluded by the Original Side Rules from filing the written statement himself or getting another vakil to file it. I take the facts from the vakil's own counter-affidavit in answer to the application for a change of vakil. The change was eventually ordered by consent upon the defendant paying the vakils Rs. 500, but the written statement was then out of time, and, as I have already said, the learned Judge has refused to excuse the delay. Now I ma...
Tag this Judgment!Pingali Venkataramana Reddi by His Authorised Agent Brahmanda Narasimh ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-03-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Mad249; (1921)41MLJ399
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The facts are set out in the opinion of my learned brother and I shall not repeat them. I entirely agree with my learned brother on the question of Us pendens and that we should follow the decision of our own court in Veerankutty Koundan v. Ramasami Asari (1915) 32 I.C. 431 in preference to the decision in Tilakdhari Singh v. Gourtiarain (1920) 5 P.L.J. 715.2. The question which remains for consideration is whether the 25th defendant, the appellant, is entitled to stand in the shoes of the decree-holder in O.S. No. 6 of 1890 (whom I shall call the prior mortgagee) so that he (the appellant) can Set up those rights as a shield against the plaintiff's claim to proceed against the sum of Rs. 3,000 which now represents item 2 of the mortgaged properties, the said item 2 having been mortgaged both in that prior mortgage and in the plaintiff's subsequent mortgage sued on.3. So far as the ownership right in item 2 (the Karvetnagar forest) now represented by the Rs. 3000 i...
Tag this Judgment!Arunachalam Chetty and anr. Vs. Periasami Servai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-02-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Mad163; (1921)41MLJ252
John Wallis, C.J.1. The scope of the claim proceedings sections has recently been considered by Full Benches of this Court in Prasada Naidu v. Veerayya 35 M.L.J. 231 (F.B.) Venkata Ratnam v. Ranganayakamma 35 M.L.J. 335 , and Ramaswami Chettiar v. Mallappa Reddiar I.L.R.(1920) Mad. 760. In all these cases it has been pointed out that the object of these sections is to secure the speedy settlement of questions of title raised by attachments, as explained by the Judicial Committee in Sardhari Lal v. Ambika Pershad I.L.R. (1888) Cal. 521 (P.C.) , and in the last of these cases attention was drawn to the fact that in claim proceedings the release under R. 60, of the property attached or the disallowance under Rule 61 of the claim are made to depend not on title but on possession at the date of attachment, the question of title being left to be investigated in the suit which the unsuccessful party is bound to bring within the prescribed period on pain of losing all his rights. It is by this...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›