Chennai Court September 1921 Judgments
Marath Sivaraman Nair and anr. Vs. Seshu Pattar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Mad299; (1922)42MLJ356
1. We are already of opinion that the Lower Courts were right in disallowing appellants' claims for delivery of an additional extent of land and for recovery of full profits instead of michavaram.2. A more difficult question relates to their claim for damages on account of respondents' failure to deliver up documents relating to the mortgaged property as directed in the preliminary and final decrees. The documents are not named in the decrees.-The preliminary decree simply directs that 'Defendants 1 to 3 shall deliver up to the plaintiffs or such persons as they appoint all documents in their possession or power relating to the plaint property'. The final decree directs 'that the defendants do deliver up to the plaintiffs the documents which under the preliminary decree they are bound to deliver up.'3. In their execution petition appellants (plaintiffs) demanded the delivery of eight specified documents as relating to the plaint property, and asked for delivery or in default payment to...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: V. Subramania Chetty and M. Kanagaratna Reddy of V. Subramania ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Mad243; (1922)ILR65Mad156
Coutts Trotter, J.1. This is in substance an appeal against the refusal of the Official Assignee of Madras, to allow the preferential claim of Government for the sum of Rs. 4,418-1-0 in priority to the claims of all other creditors in the insolvency of a firm trading as M. Subramania Chetty & Co., as a Crown debt within the meaning of Section 49(1)(a) of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act. I have had the benefit of a learned and instructive argument as to the nature and history of debts to the Crown both in England and in this country, and it is not out of disrespect to that argument but rather because of the assistance I derived from it that I give my judgment in a comparatively small compass. I do not intend to inquire into the history of writs of extent whether in chief or in aid. The curious will find much learning on the subject in ex parte Postmaster-General. In re Bonham (1879) 10 Ch. D 595, and in the very erudite judgment of Palles, C.B., in In re Galvin [1897] 1 I.R. 520. Wh...
Tag this Judgment!Gontu Appireddi Vs. Gontu Chinna Appireddi and Ten ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1921
Reported in: (1922)ILR65Mad189
1. In this case two creditors of one Chandavaram Ramayya and his three undivided sons (respondents 1 to 4) petitioned (1) that they might be declared insolvents (2) that certain alienations made by respondents 1 to 4 in favour of the fifth respondent might be declared invalid and cancelled. The alienations took place about a month before the presentation of the petition which is dated 20th December 1918. The learned District Judge heard the petition on 13th March 1920 and in the same order not only adjudicated respondents 1 to 4 insolvents but declared the sale-deeds which witnessed the alienations cancelled. The act of insolvency alleged and proved against the respondents 1 to 4 was these alienations under Section 6(b) of the Provincial Insolvency Act (V of 1920), i.e., they were held to be transfers with intent to defraud or delay creditors. The petition was presented under Section 7 and the debtors were adjudicated under Section 27(i) which runs thus:If the Court does not dismiss th...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: V. Subramania Chetty and Company
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1921
Reported in: 70Ind.Cas.764
Coutts-Trotter, J.1. This is in substance an appeal against the refusal of the Official Assignee of Madras to allow the preferential claim of Government for the sum of Rs. 4,488-1-0 in priority to the claims of all other creditors in the insolvency of a firm trading as V. Subramania Chetty and Co. as a Crown debt within the meaning of Section 49(1)(a) of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act. I have had the benefit of a learned and instructive argument as to the nature and history of debts to the Crown both in England and in this country, and it is not out of disrespect to that argument but rather because of the assistance I derived from it that I give my judgment in a comparatively small compass. I do not intend to enquire into the history of writs of extent whether in chief or in aid. The curious will find much learning on the subject in Ex parts Postmaster-General, In re Boham (1879) 10 Ch. D. 595 and in the very erudite judgment of Palles, C.B., in In re Galvin (1897) 1 Ir. R. 520. W...
Tag this Judgment!Appanna Poricha Vs. Narasinga Poricha and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Mad17; (1921)41MLJ608
William Ayling, Officiating C.J.1. I have had the advantage of persuing the judgment which my learned brother Oldfield is about to pronounce. I agree with the views expressed therein and with the negative answer proposed by him to be given to the question referred to us, and I should not feel called upon to add anything, but for the judgment in Swaminatha Pillai v. Sundaresa Pillai 29 M.L.T. 267 to which I was a party, which has been relied on by the learned vakil for appellant as supporting his contention.2. The case is, of course, distinguishable from the one with which we are concerned. This is a case between co-trustees that was a case in which a subordinate trustee was sued by a general trustee, who, as representing the general trust, was really a beneficiary under the subordinate 'trust, and was seeking, as such, to enforce fulfilment of the latter.3. It was from this joint of view and in reference to a suit of that character that the last paragraph of the judgment in that case w...
Tag this Judgment!B. Raja Rajeswara Sethupathi Avergal Alias Muthuramalinga Sethupathi A ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Mad34; 60Ind.Cas.90; (1922)42MLJ78
ORDER1. These are petitions for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council from an order passed under Section 25 of Act IX of 1887 in the exercise of the High Court's powers of revision over the Judgment given by the District Munsif of Manamadura in certain Small Cause suits.2. Those suits were brought by the Rajah of Ramnad in a Small Cause Court to recover damages for the cutting of trees in the defendants holdings. The damages claimed amount to no more than a few rupees in each case. It is now alleged in an affidavit sworn to by a subordinate of the Rajah that the effect of our order will be to deprive the plaintiff of tirwa to the extent of Rs. 30,000 when the whole zamindari is considered. There is no counter affidavit and this statement therefore is not challenged. It is therefore urged that the order involves directly or indirectly, a claim or question of upwards of Rs. 10,000 in value.3. The reference in the Civil Procedure Code is evidently to questions arising between the part...
Tag this Judgment!Rajah of Ramnad Vs. Kamith Ravuthan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1921
Reported in: 66Ind.Cas.686
1. These are pensions for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council from an order passed under Section 25 of Act IX of 1887 in exercise of the High Court's powers of revision over the judgment given by the District Munsif of Manamadura in certain Small Cause suits.2. Those suits were brought by the Rajah of Ramnad in a Small Cause Court to recover damages for the Putting of trees in the defendants holdings. The damages claimed amounted to no more than a few rupees in each case. It is now alleged in an affidavit sworn to by a subordinate of the Rajah that the effect of our order will be to deprive the plaintiff of tirva to the extent of Rs. 30,000 when the whole Zamindari is considered. There is no counter affidavit and this statement, therefore, is cot challenged. It is, therefore, urged that the order involves, directly or indirectly, a claim or question of upwards of Rs, 10,000 in value.3. The reference in the Civil procedure Code is evidently to questions arising between the parties...
Tag this Judgment!P.S. Narayana Aiyar Vs. Biyari Bivi Alias Kathun Bivi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Mad221; (1921)41MLJ557
1. The decision appealed against gives plaintiff a charge for two lakhs of rupees on the properties purchased by 3rd defendant, appellant, at a sale held in execution of 1st defendant's money decree against 2nd defendant, after the dismissal of plaintiff's claim.2. The nature and extent of Plaintiff's right over the properties depends on the effect of a series of transactions originating in the liability of the 1st defendant, her husband, for mahar settled at 22,500 when their marriage took place in 1884. This liability is refered to in Exs. E and F and is not disputed before us, although those documents are not registered and may not effect the security for its satisfaction, to which they refer. This attempt to provide security Was due to 2nd defendant becoming indebted ; and in 1909 he further gave Ex. A, undertaking (I) to repay to Plaintiff a loan taken for the discharge of his debts, within five years from the income of the properties, which had fallen to him as his share under th...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Palanikumara Chinnayya Gounder
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Mad337; 66Ind.Cas.566; (1921)41MLJ577
William Ayling, Offg. C.J.1. Petitioner in this case is the Village Munsif of Sivagiri in Erode Taluk and moves us to interfere in revision and quash certain charges framed against him by the Revenue Divisional Officer of Erode and all proceedings before that Officer connected with the charges. The charges run as follows:(1) That you being a Government servant, actively associated yourself in the movement of non-co-operation against Government by going with Mr. E.V. Ramaswami Nayaker of Erode to the Sivagiri shandy on 26th November 1920 and telling people there hot to vote at the elections of the 30th idem.(2) That you dissuaded and prevented people from recording their votes by making false representations both in the shandy on 26th November ,190 and at the polling station on 30th November 1920 and that the result of voting would involve the increase of taxes and the relinquishment of the voters' properties to those in favour of whom the votes were recorded etc.2. Mr. Adam the Public ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Malaya Gounden and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-1921
Reported in: (1922)42MLJ278
1. The seven accused have been sentenced to death for the murder of Venkataswami Nayaken of Nagaraka-landai. The only evidence to connect them with the crime is the statement of prosecution witness No. 2 who says he accompanied the deceased to Malayandipaliem on the day of his death. The evidence of prosecution witness No. 3 who says he also went with the deceased is useless for the purpose of connecting these accused with the crime, since he stated at the trial that he ran away as soon as he saw five or six persons at the Madam without recognising any of them, The joint statement (Ex. E) that this witness and prosecution witness No. 2 signed before the Monegar cannot be used as substantive evidence of this witness against the accused as it was not a statement recorded on oath in the presence of the accused by a Magistrate empowered to take down evidence (See Emperor v. Cherathchoyi Kutti I.L.R(1902) . Mad. 191. The only use of such a statement would be to corroborate or contradict sta...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »