Chennai Court August 1921 Judgments
S.N. Ragunathaswamy Iyengar and ors. Vs. S. Gopau Rao and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1921
Reported in: (1921)41MLJ547
Oldfield, J.1. I agree with the judgment about to be delivered and have nothing to add, to it.Ramesam, J.2. The suit out of which this appeal arises was brought on foot of a mortgage-deed dated 3-11-1896 for the recovery of the mortgage amount, by an assignee, from the heir of the mortgagee, Ayyasami Pillai. The main defence is that the mortgage was extinguished by reason of the decree in O.S. No. 11 of 1898 and the proceedings in its execution. That suit was based on a prior mortgage dated 17-3-1896 'and Ayyasami was the 8th defendant therein. In his written statement (Ex. V c) he stated that he had no objection to the passing of a decree and prayed that the balance, after selling the property and paying off the amount due to the plaintiff might be paid towards his mortgage. The other defendants, in that case originally contested the suit but afterwards filed a. compromise petition (Ex. C) by which the amount to be decreed was determined and a compromise decree (Ex D) was passed. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Chinnappa Pillai and anr. Vs. Kailasam Pillai Late a Minor but Now Dec ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Mad532; (1921)41MLJ661
1. In this appeal two alleged testamentary papers of one Venkatachalam Pillai, deceased, who died on 26-8-14 are in question. They are dated respectively 24-1-13 and 2-1-14 and are' marked as Exs. Al and A. The latter is propounded by a minor Kailasam Pillai, son of Venkatachelam by a concubine of his, Velliammai, by name. This, Kailasam Pillai applied to the District Court of South Arcot for leave to prove A and for the issue to him ...
Tag this Judgment!Chinnappa Pillay and anr. Vs. Kailasam Pillay and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1921
Reported in: 68Ind.Cas.11
1. In this appeal two alleged testamentary papers of one Vankatachalam Pillai, deceased, who died on 26th August 1914 are in question. They are dated, respectively, 24th January 1913 and 2nd January 1914 and are marked Exhibits A-1 and A. The latter is propounded by a minor Kailasam Pillai, son of Venkatachalam, by a concubine of his, Velliammai by name. This Kaillasam Pillai applied to the District Court of South Arcot for leave to prove A and for the issue to him of Letters of Administration with this Will annexed A-1, the alleged earlier Will, is propounded by respondents Nos. 3 and 4, who are two of the three sons of Thillainayagam Pillai, brother of the testator, who was adopted into another family. The learned District Judge found for the genuineness of both these papers, A and A-3, and admitted them both to Probate. He also found that the earlier Will was not revoked by the later. Letters of Administration were granted jointly to the widow of deceased (respondent No. 2) and resp...
Tag this Judgment!Shanmuka Nadan and ors. 1 to 5 Minors by their Mother and Guardian 6th ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Mad332; (1922)42MLJ97
1. The decision under appeal was passed in a suit brought for partition by four minors against the 1st defendant, their father, certain females whose positions it is not necessary to specify, and the 7th to 18th defendants, persons who held money decrees, some of them against the 1st defendant alone, others against the 1st defendant and the plaintiffs, all obtained on debts incurred by the 1st defendant.2. The decision of the lower Court is in terms that the suit is bad for misjoinder of causes of action and that defendants 7 to 18 are not proper parties. There is nothing else. The lower Court does not say that it removes them from the record; it does not say that the suit is dismissed as against them. But it is agreed before us and from the tenor of the remainder of the order it is clear, that under Order I, Rule 10 the names of these defendants were struck out, as being improperly joined.3. It is objected that no appeal lies against such a decision and certainly none is provided dire...
Tag this Judgment!Shanmuka Nadan by Guardian Swarnammal and ors. Vs. Arunachelam Chetty ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-1921
Reported in: (1922)ILR65Mad194
1. The decision under appeal was passed in a suit brought for partition by four minors against the first defendant their father, certain females whose positions it is not necessary to specify, and the seventh to eighteenth defendants, persons who held money decrees, some of them against the first defendant alone, others against the first defendant and the plaintiff's, all obtained on debts incurred by the first defendant. The decision of the lower Court is in terms that the suit is bad for misjoinder of causes of action and that defendants Nos. 7 to 18 are not proper parties. There is nothing else. The lower Court does not say that it removes them from the record; it does not say that the suit is dismissed as against them. But it is agreed before us and from the tenor of the remainder of the order it is clear that under Order 1, Rule 10, the names of these defendants were struck out as being improperly joined. It is objected that no Appeal lies against such a decision and certainly non...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Manicka Padayachi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-24-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Mad490; 72Ind.Cas.497
1. In this case it has been found that first accused bought a tumblerful of arrack of second prosecution witness and after mixing Viram, or corrosive sublimate, with it gave it to deceased, who was taken ill immediately and eventually died. First accused was charged with and convicted of murder and has been found guilty in this Court of administering an unwholesome drug with intent to cause hurt to deceased, an offence punishable under Section 338 of the Indian Penal Code., The case comes before me in consequence of a difference of opinion as to second accused, who was charged with and convicted of abetting first accused.2. The main evidence against second accused is an alleged confession by first accused, Exhibit D, and the first question is whether, that confession is admissible at all. It is urged that it is not, because, in the words of one of the, learned Judges before whom the case originally came, it does not satisfy the requirements of Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act inas...
Tag this Judgment!Narayanaswamy Iyer Vs. Doraisawmy Pathar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Mad451; 65Ind.Cas.343
Krishnan, J.1. The point taken in this revision petition is that the ex parte decree should not have been set aside against those defendants who did not engage Mr. Sitarama Sastrigal as their Vakil, as the reason for setting aside the ex parte decree against his clients, vis, his illness, will not apply in their case. The point is obviously correct, but the lower Court has apparently acted under the proviso to Order IX, Rule 13, Civil Procedure Code, in setting aside the whole decree against all the defendants. It seems to me this is not a case that falls within the proviso. The suit was one to obtain possession of separate items of properties from separate sets of defendants and the ex parte decree was not a joint and indivisible decree. The fact that one or more common issues arose in the case in which all the defendants were interested is not the guiding factor for the applicability of the proviso, but the nature of the decree itself that is passed.2. The decree should not, therefor...
Tag this Judgment!Alagiriswami Mudali and ors. Vs. Akkulu Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Mad393; (1921)41MLJ462
Krishnan, J.1. I am unable to agree with the District Judge that when a mortgage is redeemed the lease created by the redeemed mortgagee is still subsisting and that by virtue of Section 74 of the Transfer of Property Act when it is a 2nd mortgagee that redeems the prior mortgage the redeeming mortgagee gets the landlord's rights as against the tenants of the latter.2. I consider when a mortgage is redeemed subsidiary rights created on the mortgaged property such as lease rights come to an end ipso facto and any former tenant continuing on the land must be treated as a trespasser thereafter unless of course from the conduct of parties or otherwise a fresh tenancy can be held to have been created or an implied tenancy arises 'See Govinda-swami Pillai v. Pethaperumal Chetty (1918) 44 I.C. 839 Adjoodhya Singh and others v. Girdharee 2 N.W.P.H.C.R. 199 and Ram Chand v. Rajbans (1906) 3 All L.J. 517 . Our attention was called to the ruling in Chinnappa Thevan v. Pazhaniappa Pillai (1915) 2 ...
Tag this Judgment!Peddapalayam Bodachari Alias Venkatraya Chari Vs. Peddappalayam Muniya ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Mad709; 65Ind.Cas.92
1. On the first point taken we agree with the lower Court that the Court's jurisdiction to refer to arbitration is confined to matters in difference in the suit itself and does' not extend to all matters in dispute between the parties. Though the wording of paragraph 1, Clause (1) of the Second Schedule, Civil Procedure Code, is not free from ambiguity when taken by itself, the matter is made clear by a reference to forms Nos. 1 and 2 of the Schedule, particularly the latter. Under the old Code the corresponding Section 506 clearly referred to matters in difference in the suit. We think no change in the law was intended by the change in the wording of the rule in the new Code; but it was only a verbal change. Furthermore, on principle, it is difficult to hold that the Legislature intended that a Court which has no jurisdiction over the subject matter in dispute should have power to refer it to arbitration. Such a result would follow if we give to the words 'any matter in difference bet...
Tag this Judgment!Palaniappa Chetty Vs. Subramania Chetty Through His Authorised Agent K ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-1921
Reported in: (1922)42MLJ12
Oldfield, J.1. I agree with the Judgment, which my learned brother is about to deliver and have nothing to add to it.Ramesam, J.2. The Original Suit (O.S. 95 of 1916) out of which the present petition arises was filed against three defendants. The 2nd and 3rd defendants not having appeared in the suit, the decree which was passed against all the defendants was an ex parte decree, so far as the 2nd and 3rd were concerned, The 1st defendant filed an appeal to this High Court in which he impleaded the 2nd and 3rd defendants as respondents. While the appeal was pending, the 2nd defendant applied in this Court (C.M.P. No. 1152 of 1920). Reported in 41 M.L.J. 90 to set aside the ex parte decree' The petition was considered along with the appeal and was dismissed by Wallis C. J. and my learned brother. Their Lordships were of opinion that, during the pendency of an appeal, an application to set aside the ex parte decree of the first court does not lie in the appellate court but ought to be fi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »